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

Exactly, he'd recovered at that point the left hook landed. The right hand is a sneaky hard shot. Tyson could take a great shot I'll give him that

 

So you define freezing as ducking a following up punch and moving. That kind of contradicts the definition of freezing.

In truth, Tyson does a great recovery here after losing Evander. How many times have we seen fighters actually recover without getting hit when their opponent manages to completely shuffle behind them? Not many, it usually results in the guy getting blasted.

 

well it didn't freeze him as in out on his feet for a significant time enough to be unloaded on but it did have an effect. Like you said with the Ruddock fight, Tyson used his instinct to avoid punches even when hurt. I kind of feel that happened here, he was stunned and his natural reaction was to duck down to avoid a follow up attack.

this is the only area where I don't feel you have a leg to stand on, your other points have been tough to counter

 

So he wasn't frozen, he avoided a follow up attack, got out of Evander's punching range, and was able to square up in his guard, and launch a jab. Even if he was hurt, like the Ruddock fight he used his instinct to avoid further punishment. That is what you are now saying?

 

you would make a good lawyer. maybe frozen was the wrong term if you are taking it literally, he didn't cease to function but i'd argue that his reaction showed he was effected, it buzzed him but he was able to duck and move back to the ropes.

 

Because good lawyers stick to the facts.

So if Tyson did not cease to function as a result of the punch, rather your read "a perception of being hurt or stunned" is irrelevant.

Your argument was that Tyson's inability to react to being hurt was the difference between this and Ruddock. Case closed.

 

Great read !

 

The facts are Tyson could take a great shot throughout his career, hell even Lennox Lewis struggled to put him away. Holyfield is massively underrated as a puncher at HW IMO.

 

tell that to Nicole Simpson's family

I said Tyson reacted differently to being hurt, I didn't say he couldn't react at all, he clearly could as he survived the offence from Evander ultimately. My point is his response was different when he got whacked by Ruddock with arguably harder punches. Whether you think Tyson was hurt by that sneaky right hand or not, he didn't react effectively after that exchange and was taken to the ropes. Partly down to Holyfield and partly down to not being prepared for a war like this. I dont believe that would have happened in 91

He looked shell shocked to me and was on the back foot the rest of the fight, again, partly because of Holyfield, and partly because of his inactivity and decline as a fighter. My general point is he was a lot tougher and robust in 91, when he was 5 years younger and active, I don't see why that is so difficult to accept. He might still lose, but Tyson would put up a much better effort, I also doubt he gets knocked out. It could go either way for me as I have said, these guys were more evenly matched in 91 than people think. If you liked the 96 fight, 91 would have been an all timer.

 

The fact that Ruddock is a bigger puncher than Holyfield doesn't mean he hit Tyson with the harder, more damaging shots than Evander. Holyfield's punches were obviously more effective hence the stoppage.

 

My original point was that the punishment he took from Ruddock in 91 was comparable to some exchanges he had with Holyfield in 96, his reaction was different. Tyson fought back against Ruddock throughout the 12 rounds, yet as early as round two he was stunned by Holyfield and backed up. my view is he simply wasn't used to taking this kind of punishment after his stint in prison, the punches surprised him and had him stunned early.

I know you guys will just say Holyfield is a different fighter and I can respect that. Its just my view that he was a lesser fighter in 96, and he would have had much more success against Holy in 91.

 

Your point was that he didn't fight back when Evander hit him or hurt him like he did against Ruddock. This has shown to be not true. Tyson fought back against both men when hurt, and there were other moments he clinched.

You even just stated this: "Like you said with the Ruddock fight, Tyson used his instinct to avoid punches even when hurt."

Given the situation he was very effective for reasons I've explained.

That's not even remotely accurate.

 

yes Tyson avoided punches on instinct against Holyfield but he didn't fire back in the same way he did against Ruddock. He did rally back when Evander had him on the ropes but he still looked a bit shell shocked to me, like he didn't expect this. Its his own fault as he believed the clippings about Holyfield being shot.

I do not believe as you do, that Tyson was primed for a fight like he would have been in 91. He was out for four years, fought a few soft touches then gets in with a very live Holyfield, who proved he was on a career resurgence. he was out of his depth but his chin and what natural talent he had kept him in there until the 11th.

you could see it that way but he didn't look very effective to me, getting back to the ropes then taking another attack.

I think that saying its not remotely accurate is a bit extreme in terms of him being shell shocked. At times Tyson looked out of ideas and was just plodding, after round six he was out of steam. He was more dynamic than that in 91, and had more energy.

 

The million dollar question is did the inactivity of Tyson have a bigger detrimental effect on him than the wars and health problems Holyfield had whilst Tyson was in prison?

Can't we just all agree that we didn't see the best of either fighter on the nights they met

 

that has always been my way of thinking with these two. that's why I think their fight in 91 would have been a lot better whoever won.