Was it because of styles that Holmes and Foreman did better against Holyfield than Tyson?

As old boxers in young man's game, they had to use all the depth of their knowledge, skill, and experience, on top of being heavily motivated. Tyson was a watered down, undisciplined version of himself with a style that demanded peak physical performance and dedication he no longer could eke out. But yeah, Holyfield taking the fight inside didn't help either

 

Styles sure played a part. In Foreman's case, it sure wouldn't have been wise for Holyfield to keep the fight inside all the time against a Slugger such as Foreman. In the Holmes fight, Larry kept him off his inside game with the jab, experience, and using the many tricks that a veteran knows.

I also would assume that Holyfield learned a lot in those 2 fights, which shouldn't be discounted either.

 

I'd say so, even if that wouldn't have been the guess before that fight. Looking at it then I suppose that the general judgement was that he was too old to stick and move and that brawling would be suicide. But he managed to take the space away for Tyson's best punches and combos and dictate the pace from there. Showed his versatility and ring smarts.

 

Experience did the trick.

 

Holmes and Foreman were more negative and protected themselves better over the course of the fight.

Tyson never stopped trying to win and went out on his shield.

 

Holmes and Foreman weren't afraid of tough fights. They knew how to survive and had lots of tricks up their sleeves.

Tyson usually just had a plan and tried to execute it. If plan A didn't work, he didn't really have a backup. Post prison, plan A was usually just go in there and steamroll the guy. When he couldn't do that, usually didn't work out.

 

Yeah styles. The fact that Holyfield wasn’t as deadly of a puncher. And also he faced Holmes and Foreman when they were coming off of very active winning streaks.

 

Wasn't Holyfield also bigger by the time the Tyson fight came around than he was against Holmes and Foreman?

 

I think Holy was just a bit intimidated by Larry and George, at least going into the fights. He'd grown up with them being Champs, and probably had quite the impression made especially by Larry, whose reign would have coincided with Holy's pre and teenage years.

So, I think he was a little cautious against each of them. With Mike, he'd seen him get beaten badly in his prime made it clear he wasn't intimidated or worried at all during the prefight for I. In fact, he made Mike look like a little boy running his mouth.

We might also remember that the wars with Bowe matured Holy greatly, not to mention losing the title to Moorer.

So, I think psychologically there was a difference. Just my opinion.

 

This is a pretty good explanation. Tyson had a young man's style, had a layoff, and had even less discipline. Even at his best, Holyfield would have been a rough opponent so the outcome isn't shocking in hindsight.

Foreman also had a young man's style and an even longer layoff, but he had basically started his career over with more than 20 matches to shake off the ring rust. He had also made changes to pace himself better jabbing more, being more defensively responsible, etc.

Holmes on the other hand aged like wine and his style was elderly friendly. His vast experience and cagey style worked well even past 40 because he never relied on physical advantages even when he was younger. Holmes was also far better at surviving than Tyson and had more variety to his game.

 

Foreman negative? He kept coming all night. But one key difference was that Holy couldn't control him physically and thereby set the pace. Holy just bounced off him where as he walked Tyson back all night

 

Evander in 1996 was simply not impressed, and Mike looked as though he recognized that.

I don't think Mike liked what he saw in Holy's reaction to his bragaddocio. The psychological ploy completely failed.

This content is protected