All throughout the build-up the likes of Bobby Czyz are talking about how winning the Holyfield fight would not vaildate Tyson's comeback and prove that Tyson is back at his best, stating that in the eyes of the experts he will have to defeat the likes of Bowe, Mccall, and lewis to prove that he is is back. If he had knocked Holyfield out he wouldn't have recieved much credit for it, they'd have used the excuses they were talking about before the fight such as Holyfield's age and heart condition. So wasn't this fight a lose-lose situation for Tyson and a win-win for Holyfield as not many were expecting much from Holyfield? forward to 1:17:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJfU5H0fGPs
Well win over McCall instead of Holy fight would've meant nothing as McCall struggled badly vs 45 y.o. Holmes, and then lost to Bruno (whom Tyson destoyed in the very next fight). But Bowe fight would've been very good as THAT Bowe was winnable fight for Tyson in 1996.
I think it was a great payday against a guy who they thought was on the downside if not totally shot.
Call it a lose-lose situation if you want. But beating a washed-up Holyfield still would have been better than getting beaten the sh!t out of by a washed-up Holyfield. It would have to count for something. Another feather in the cap. I mean, it's not as if Tyson's reputation wasn't partially built on KOs over washed-up fighters or fighters who were somewhere on the downside of their careers anyway.
