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

It's an interesting debate, and one that I can't really call.

Holyfield was viewed as washed up when they fought in 1996 and had a lot of mileage on him. He was smart though, and said he learned from the Bowe fights, especially the 3rd, to be more controlled in his aggression. He fought an smart fight against Tyson, holding a lot and doing so well in the clinches, pushing Tyson around. He was definitely bigger and stronger in 1996.

1991 Holyfield wasn't as big and strong, and was more brawl-happy. He was obviously quicker of hand and foot in 1991 though, better overall, although perhaps not better specifically for Tyson. Tyson was pretty sloppy defensively against Ruddock in the rematch, and looking so much for bombs. However, he showed a vicious body attack in both Ruddock fights, and I always thought Holyfield was rather vulnerable to body shots. Numerous guys doubled him over momentarily, or straight up weakened up (Bowe), to the body.

Then part of me thinks Holyfield always would have raised his game for Tyson, and had his number. So that one is 50/50.

 

Personally think tyson beats him in 91. But thats a close fight. One thing i do know is tyson at his best would have beaten holyfield. People werent wrong with the hype surrounding tyson coming through....he just blew it by making pretty much every bad decision he could have. Plus consequences outside his control didnt exactly help either. I always count Tyson as having two careers. One under the guidance of cus and rooney etc. The second one started after he left rooney. He still got by but he slipped...a lot. And it was downhill from there. But its stupid to compare the version after rooney with the one that trained under him and cus imo. Their two totally different fighters. Tyson who was dedicated completely to the one who was basically a drug addict and drunk who didnt live the life.

The dedicated one would have beat holyfield. The undedicated one wouldnt have. Its pretty much as clear as that.

 

The key to the debate is weighing up what Tyson and Holyfield lost by their fight in 96 and if the playing field was even by the time you analyse it. Tyson lost a lot but Holyfield wasn't at his best either, its a fair argument that although Mike was four years out of the ring, Holyfield was looking terrible and near carried out on a stretcher with heart issues in previous fights. For Holyfield to comeback after that and look sensational in that 96 fight cant be discounted, despite Tyson's own decline. You have to see both sides I think otherwise you just look like a Tyson fan boy using the post prison decline argument.

This is one reason I wont say Tyson always wins against Holy in 91 100% although I am a massive Tyson fan, but I will also never agree with the reasoning Holyfield beats Tyson 100 out of 100 times, this theory Evander always has his number, anytime, anywhere. The truth is I think these great fighters were fairly evenly matched around 91. Tyson's speed and power allied to his extra stamina and confidence in those days would have been a nightmare, Holy's great will to win, technical ability and own aggression would have countered this nicely. Incredible fight.

I tend to argue with those that think if Holyfield was paralyzed from the neck down he would still win against Tyson.

 

Holyfield for me here. A better fight, but same results

 

Think Holyfield can win against any version of Tyson. However there is no way Lewis can deal with the prime version of Tyson. Even in 1996 if they had actually fought, it would be a 50-50 fight if Mike was able to get those Bruno style combinations off

 

I am pretty sure his reckless indisciplined lifestyle and poor work ethic accelerated his decline and these things are not a good combination when you have a young man's fighting style. The only reason why Pacquiao has been able to stretch out his career in his late 30's is because of his work ethic and discipline.

 

Love this thread. I would request the OP if possible to do a detailed review of a Prime Tyson vs Prime Lewis based on the 2002 showdown

 

Was watching the staredowns of both fights. Holyfield matched the staredown in the first fight in Style and in the second fight he won the staredown comfortably as Tyson looked away. It was clear that the former was in the later's head big time.

 

Holy for me. He had the ability and desire with ATG will to win. He beats back an early rush by Tyson and knocks him out in its later stages. Holy always had the mental game of a great athlete. Tyson fell short in the regard.

 

I think the first fight Tyson had an overconfident look, he wasn't bothered at all. The second fight and during the buildup I had a feeling Tyson knew he couldn't win the fight, he lost so badly and at that stage in his career he knew he couldn't reel it back to the 80s. He looked troubled entering the ring for the rematch and had a look on his face I hadn't seen before. He actually looked concerned, his confidence was seriously dented. I think Mike knew Holyfield could beat him in all departments that night. This is just my view but I think Tyson was going to give his best effort regardless, he might even have gone out on his shield but the cut gave him an out and he took it. although it wasn't really an out, he made it one....

 

You don't use it and therefore you lose it, those 4 years that Tyson was away pretty much ended his reign as a top tier fighter, sure he was still a good puncher but the skill set that enabled him to unify the division during the 80's and which he still had to a point in 91', was gone by 96/97..I'm not a Tyson nuthugger more so a Holyfield fan though i wouldn't assume Evander would always have beaten him and had they fought in 91, it would have made for an interesting fight no doubt.

 

This. I see the same result happening. People seem to forget that like Tyson Holyfield was also a better fighter in 91 as well and Tyson still wouldn’t have an answer for Holyfield lighting him up on the inside and would still get broken down and stopped.

 

Holyfield used his helmet.

 

We saw Holyfield get battered by the stronger & bigger Riddick Bowe on the inside. Holyfield got stronger as he aged. And he also became a better in-fighter as he aged. Holyfield couldn't outfight Tyson on the inside in '91. You either hold Tyson or you get battered. Why did everyone lock Tyson's arms when he got close? No one was willing to fight him inside. Holyfield did the same in the early rounds in '96. He clinched and frustrated Tyson. He waited for the ref to break the clinch. Holyfield was past his prime in '96 but his skills didn't deteriorate the same way. What was Holyfield doing worse in '96? I'm sure he slowed down with age, so did Tyson. Tyson was not even close to his prime form. Why was Tyson not going to the body at all? Tyson was known for his body punching in his prime. Tyson was also known for his stiff jab, didn't see that in his comeback. Where was the methodical head movement? Tyson had one of the highest slip-rates in heavyweight history. The way tall fighters use their jab to set up their offence, Tyson did so with his head movement. Where was the footwork? Tyson moved in straight lines and led with left hooks and overhand rights. Tyson had incredible footwork in the 80s. You can watch the Buster Douglas/Razor Ruddock fights and you'll see a clear decline in Tyson's ability.

There's no way anyone can argue Holyfield had declined more than Tyson by 1996. It's not even debatable. We saw Holyfield beat Tyson and he went on to give Lennox a tough fight 3 years later. People bring up the Bowe and Czyz fights. Bowe battered Holyfield in '92 as well. Bowe stopped Holy in '95 but that Holyfield also dropped Bowe and was up on all scorecards. Holy simply didn't have the energy to finish the fight. His performance against Czyz wasn't impressive at all. But no one said Holyfield was a consistent fighter. He hardly looked great against anyone, even when he won. Holyfield looked much better against Tyson than he did against Bowe/Czyz. Tyson looked the same as he had during his comeback. He was always looking for one big punch in all his fights. He was frustrated when Mathis and Bruno clinched. He was predictable as hell. Just watch the Bruno fight and look at how many overhand rights he throws without setting them up. Bruno could see them coming and avoided most. When Tyson got in close, he started swinging wildly. Tyson's performance against Bruno and Mathis were among his worst (up to that point). Buster Mathis put Tyson on the ropes and went to work. Tyson used no angles at all. He was so much quicker than Mathis but he stood right in front of him and let Mathis drive him to the ropes. All he had to do was pivot. No one mentions how bad Tyson looked in those fights because he still got early KOs. But that's what Tyson does. He stops mediocre fighters with ease. Did Tyson's KO over Etienne mean he still got it? Of course not. He was almost 37. Even when he fought Danny Williams at 38, he was dominating him for the first 3 rounds. Holyfield doesn't do that. Holyfield is known for being inconsistent and struggling against inferior fighters (Stewart, Dokes, Cooper, Moorer, Mercer, Bean) and old fighters like Foreman/Holmes. How many fights can you name where Holyfield looked unbeatable.

I think Tyson would've beaten Holyfield in 1991. He was faster, stronger and still an elite fighter. In 1996, the matchup favours Holyfield. He was stronger than Tyson and a better fighter than Tyson. He wasn't a great in-fighter in '91. He got better with time, he learned the art of clinching and how to control yours opponents in the clinch. Prime vs prime, Tyson was the superior fighter imo. Holyfield's longevity was remarkable. He outclassed WBA champ Valuev at the age of 46. Fighters age differently and have varying peaks. The two didn't meet on an even playing field. Holyfield went on to dominate Moorer and looked great against Lewis in their rematch. Moorer was washed up but if Holyfield was washed too, it shouldn't have been as one-sided as it was. Holyfield dominated Moorer. Lewis II was 3 years after the Tyson fight.

 

Holyfield was engaging Tyson plenty as early as the first round. Sure he threw clinches in there (so did Tyson at times) but he also worked in some of the clinches and one of the keys to his victory was not letting Tyson have it his own way as he came flying in - many times he punched with him so as not to get overwhelmed. In short he didn't let Tyson have things his own way.