Prime for Prime-Evander Holyfield vs Mike Tyson

the difference between the tyson of 88 and the one on of 96 is obvious no head movement no jab no lateral movement hardly any combinations the only time he threw a combination was in the 5th round of the ist fight and holyfield was badly hurt but tyson never had the conditioning or stamina to take him out the tyson of 88 would have ended it there and then holyfield may have been 34 and tyson 30 but it has been proven beyond doubt since then that evander had more in the tank in 96 than tyson holyfield can still go 12 rounds even now tyson after prison was nothing more than a 6 round fighter

 

Most people who actually saw Tyson from 85 on, can recognize there was a clear change in his fighting style and overall mindset towards boxing as his career progressed and things changed in his life, but it seems to hold no merit with a lot of people on here. It's funny how some posters can acknowledge Bowes shortcomings due to his lack of discipline and focus, or Lennox Lewis or Wlad Klitschko's vast improvements under Emanuel Steward, but refuse to acknowledge the same about Tyson.
I put a lot of stock into the fighters trainer and preparation for a fight so I believe thats a huge factor in boxing.
Im not trying to be biased or make excuses for Tyson, but just as I saw a massive improvement in Lewis and Wlad under Emanuel Steward (and Holy from Brooks for this fight), I saw a fighter who really didnt do much right, in Tyson, under Jay Bright, regardless of who he was knocking out.
Holyfield was more the big underdog because of how he looked in previous fights, moreso than how great Tyson looked. It was just thought that Holyfield was completely shot, and it was only going to take Tyson to land one big shot to take him out.
Tommy Brooks was a massive factor in the Tyson fights, and kudos to him for getting the right sparring partners, setting the gameplan, and preparing Holyfield for exactly what he was going to see in the Tyson fight. He knew Holyfield had to pick his spots, push Tyson back and take rest on the inside to preserve himself.
Holyfield was the better fighter that night, but that doesnt change my mind that Tyson could have offered a far better fight in 88 or 91, because he was a different fighter and I always felt that it was enough to beat what I saw from Evander Holyfield at those times, albeit in a far more grueling competitive fight than Tyson had ever been in, because Evander was always a helluva fighter.

 

I'd say that Tyson was as past his prime in the mid 90's as Ali was in the early 70's. By a bit, but not that very much really. His rematch with Bruno was actually one of his best perfomances.

Holyfield was clearly not the same fighter anymore in '96, but he was bigger and stronger and therefore perhaps stylistically more difficult for Tyson. This is the only reason to give Tyson a good chance peak for peak.

 

Great posts here by ironchamp and lefthook31, especially the one regarding the significance of trainers and preparation.

Personally I think this would be a brutal war, with Tyson winning by TKO in about round 7. I find it very difficult to imagine this fight going the distance or Holyfield stopping pre-prison Tyson. Tyson's defense and combination punching was severely deteriorated when they met whether people want to live in La La Land pretend it "barely changed" or not. Another vital factor is stamina, just look at Holyfield-Tyson I and notice Tyson start to become gassed in round 6, then watch his solid stamina against Tillis, Green and Ribalta for 10 rounds, and superb stamina across 12 rounds against Smith, Tucker and Ruddock.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M2vJY-pkjw[/ame]
Didn't fade very much? :rofl

 

Tyson was definitely undertrained for the first Holyfield fight - you can see it in his physique even - but I think people who claim to have studied him in his prime greatly exaggerate the difference between him in his prime and post-prison '95 - '97.

In those prime fights where Tyson was actually extended rounds he showed the same flaws and weaknesses as he did later on. Even Rooney acknowldeged he had those flaws at the time, and Tyson was still a "work in progress".

Look at the Ribalta, Smith, Tucker fights. Look at rounds 2-5 in the Thomas fight. He showed the same tendencies - the lapses in concentration, resorting to wading in looking for the one big punch, exhibiting frustration, coming in without much head movement, and becoming predictable after the first 4 or 5 rounds. Yes, those traits became more prounounced in later years, but the idea that "he never did that in his prime" is absolutely nonsense.
Of course, they were NOT serious flaws because there was no one who could do much damage to exploit them AND it was assumed that Tyson was still 4 or 5 years away from his prime !

But because he peaked in '88 and stop progressing right then, the revisionists need to gloss over the holes in his armour and blankly say "he never did that in his prime", while at the same time exaggerate how much he'd lost by '96 (ie. "NO head movement, NO lateral movement, NO combinations !").

Another thing, Tyson was in tip-top shape and throwing sharp combinations in his '97 rematch with Holyfield, and the way the styles mesh was plainly obvious there. The fiercer Tyson fights, the more Holyfield has to work off and counter, and he had no trouble containing Tyson's onslaught and popping him back with hard shots, to the point that Tyson quit before 3 rounds were over.

Tyson just didn't have the dimensions to his game that are needed to beat Holyfield.

 

solid post

 

Yeah well you also dont think Emanuel Steward did much for Lennox Lewis or Wlad Klitschko, so its hard to convince you of anything.
When discussing a fighter with Tysons style, the fine tuned points that made it work so effectively were the most important, thats why fighters on the level of Frank Bruno, James Douglas, and Razor Ruddock, had more success solidly connecting on Tyson than any other fighter after Rooney was gone. How do you explain that? Were those fighters far superior to what Tyson was blazing through? Nah..

 

Unforgiven, this is the video Ive been looking for to post so you could see just how fine tuned the Cus D Amato style was for Tyson. It was a post fight special on HBO after the Spinks fight. Unfortunately someone uploaded it to youtube without Rooneys analysis of the fight the part I wanted you to see. He breaks down the fight in slow motion and points out certain moves that Tyson made during the fight. Its actually very interesting stuff, even though Rooney talks like a dodo.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzI7mOlIloE&feature=related[/ame]

 

No, I do believe Steward changed Lewis quite a lot, and that counted as a distinct improvement in some of his fights, but I also think the Lewis who beat Ruddock was arguably as good as he'd ever be. Even the Lewis who fought Gary Mason in his 15th pro fight was one of smartest versions you'll fight. If I've changed my tune on this, then take that as proof that I can be convinced by good arguments.

What is it you're a trying to convince me of ?
That Tyson was invincible or flawless up to '88 ?
That Holyfield's not as great as I know he was ?

:huh
I've already acknowledged that Tyson' flaws became more pronounced.
He was sloppy against Bruno and Ruddock.
I think Douglas's style and cleverness and the way Douglas fought in Tokyo need to be acknowledged though. I think that version of Douglas would have given any version of Tyson really problems, and possibly beat him.
If you watch Tyson-Thomas, Tyson-Tucker you'll see a Tyson who got hit a bit less, but he still got hit when those guys opened up with one-twos and well-timed rights. (... and both those men were carrying injured rights).

And, whatever, the important and central point I'm making is that Evander Holyfield would have definitely poured it on, he would have hit Tyson a lot, and Holyfield was simply superior as a fighter (which is largely about mentality, ability to adapt, ability to come back in a fight).

I know how good Tyson was, and I think Holyfield was better. And his superiority is magnified by the way the styles mesh.
And none of this should be particularly controversial.

 

No Im not trying to convince you of anything, just the emphasis on defense which is what made his style so effective.
I dont think Tyson was invincible in 88, but he was a lot less beatable and more dominant over comparable competition than Evander Holyfield.
Evander was going to war with everyone getting knocked on his ass but he would have always fought Tyson a different way?

 

I've always said Holyfield prime-for-prime. He is the perfect guy to frustrate Tyson and take him out of his rhythm be it via holding, leaning on him, leading with the head, trying to throw him around etc. I think he'd frustrate Mike into abandoning his technical skills and his heart/iron chin would help him through any blows and he'll rough Tyson up and win on the inside.

 

Tyson was undoubtly more dominant against the average contender in his prime than Holyfield was in his, but Holyfield always raised his level to the competition which Tyson didn't to the same extent. I think this would make the difference here.

 

Possibly or possibly not... but Holyfield had plenty of stinker performances himself. I dont know how someone could come to that conclusion based off of one loss over 40 fights?

 

Both Holy 92' and 96' beats every version of Mike

 

I think Tyson wasn't as hard to hit as is now made out. Pinklon Thomas hit him quite a lot, but Thomas was already past his best and just threw weak arm punches. The Tyson I see in rounds 2 -5 of the Thomas fight would have been in trouble against a Holyfield (or Douglas for that matter). The Tyson who fought Tucker and Biggs was probably the best example of Tyson in a longer fight, and against Tucker he didn't perform well enough to think he'd do anything easily against Holyfield. Tucker hit him plenty of pot-shots, and was fighting with a bad hand. Tyson imposed his will on Biggs, but who didn't.

But nobody beat Holyfield until Bowe in '92, and it wasn't easy for Bowe. Holyfield was NOT more beatable. He just wasn't a quick KO artist like Tyson.

Well, actually, who was knocking him on his ass ?
The Bert Cooper fight Holyfield was clearly fighting in a different style by standing so flat-footed and toe-to-toe !
The commentator (I think it's Clancy) mentions it too, before the first round is even over (4:35) :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts0tLTTrRqg&feature=related[/ame]

Compare the first round of his fight with Foreman :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=567uyGfaIiE&feature=related[/ame]

Holyfield was a smart, adaptable fighter all along.

I cant find the Tyson-Holyfield fight but Holyfield actually out-fought Tyson for the most part in that one, and Tyson was doing most of the holding in the early rounds.
The fight was so one-sided it's not really fair to bring it up though, I guess.