review of Tyson holyfield 1 and why tyson would have won in 1991(imo)

Great post full of supporting evidence for the opinions and a perfect way to end it. I enjoyed this as much as Contro's equally well thought out analysis. You're a class act, St Pat. This isn't the first time I have been really impressed with a post of yours.

 

Thank you, Edward. That's very kind.

 

It is amazing how many arm chair pistoleros come out of the woods and claim to be some shrink authority on Tyson......

The Tyson after prison was a manufactured fighter who had no heart or desire in it, trained for looks and was never ever conditioned for a hard 12. Fact.

ANY and I repeat ANY fighter no matter how talented or determent will suck balls after a three and half year prison stint....another fact, they will never ever be the same, we are talking prison not retirement or taking time off.

Holyfied is very beatable.......he is 1-4 in his other signature fights, the draw against Lemmie is BS, is 1-1 against glass chin Moorer and had his hands full with old timers Holmes and Foreman.

The opinion that he has Tyson's number is pure fantasy.

The Tyson who fought Holyfield was a shell of what he was capable almost a decade earlier, poor conditioning, no head movement single bombs, no combos, wayyyyyy off balance, predicable foot work and the list goes on. He did not "work" for the shots, he just walked in trying to over power.

Until the Buster defeat you could count the number of times he was hit on one hand......once against Bonehugger, Tucker and Bruno............he became a stand up fighter not a fine tuned bob and weave boxer and it was clearly evident in the Douglas loss and he got hit way to much, most of the time without reason against Ruddock, even the drunk Larry M was befuddled how often all over sudden he ate leather.

In short, Tyson from the Holmes/Spinks time frame takes Holyfield out, similar to Bowe 1, nobody goes to toe to toe with that Tyson and wins, the body work alone will take the juice out of Holy.............remember Holyfield clinched and clinched and clinched until he got brave when Tyson was out on his feet from pure exhaustion, 80's Tyson does not run out of gas...

The pure irony is that Tyson is supposedly just a front runner not worth a lick but the same idiots claim he is the greatest fighter on Lemmie's or Holyfield resume......so he is shid for their bias but gold for their agenda.

 

You're most welcome, Patrick.

 

Both Holyfield fights were winnable for Tyson. Entering the 10th round both guys were spent with Holyfield needing extra encouragement from Tommy Brooks to go for it in the championship rounds. Tyson threw the predictable 1-2 and Holyfield timed it and landed some 19 unanswered shots.

1991 is a totally different fight where I lean towards Tyson 55-45. Prime for prime Tyson takes out a tough as heck Holyfield within 8 rounds.

 

Exactly. Holyfield never outgunned Tyson, he outmaneuvered and outworked him in the trenches. Tyson would attack by throwing single shots with Holyfield using both arms to cover up, counter and tie Tyson up. Rinse and repeat.

It was almost mechanical. Tyson showed some bits and pieces of his prime form in the 5th when he mixed in an uppercut and some body work, and a body attack would've worked wonders. But he reverted back to overhand rights and predictable 1-2's that Holyfield saw coming.

Holyfield never outslugged Tyson. He outboxed him. Even that version of Tyson couldn't be outslugged.

 

Mental confidence means quite a bit, and can make the difference between winning or losing. Holyfield said, and the sparring showed (Holy was still lighter than Tyson and in a whole other weight class), if you stand up to Tyson and give it to him back as hard or harder, Tyson losses confidence. He said, if you make Tyson go backwards he's not as effective... and he's not. Better fight, closer fight, but Holy finds a way imo. He'll box him and punish him enough for Tyson to let doubt creep in and it's over.

 

I disagree. If it was that easy why didn't it happen more often?

Would you say Bowe lacked mental toughness?

Everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face.

 

holyfield most definitely outslugged tyson

This content is protected

 

Come on dude! At the end, after Tyson was spent and done. Put a video up showing the entire fight.

 

Tyson was in decline as early as the Bruno fight.

I think Holyfield would have won late. He had Mike's number, as he easily countered punched, and out jaded the shorter Tyson mixing in body shots along the way.

Holy, wasn't afraid of him for a second, possibly the reverse was true. And if needed he could be just as dirty. Those who took away Tyson's intimidation took away his best weapon.

 

I remember the story after their sparring at the pool table. Mike lost and had to give up the stick but didn't want to and tried the bully routine with others who were waiting, Holy came up and wasn't going for it and said he needed to give up the cue. Mike then did so. Holy had a mental edge on Tyson from their sparring. Even Rooney commented that during their actual fight, he knew from round one Tyson would lose, he said his body language and expression

 

A fighter intrinsically never changes... guts, heart etc. Tysons main issue as an amateur were in his head...self doubt, lack of mental strength. Rolling over one opponent after another rarely losing a round his lack of guts never came to the surface at least readily. Holyfield would not back down.... he pushed all Tysons inner fears. Tyson had no plan B, he became much more tentative and in the end was koed.

Talk to Tysons former trainers and they will tell you of Tysons mental weakness.

 

You guys are all exaggerating Tyson's mental weaknesses. Fighters change. People change. You can't tell me that a person's heart or mindset is set in stone. That's an incredibly false statement to make. I'm sure even Tim Tebow has some doubts during his lifetime.

 

Ok, and sometimes people continually have the same issues and demons, and never overcome them. Not sure what you're trying to say or the argument you're trying to put forth, but it seems clear Tyson never overcame some of his. You disagree?