what would the ATGs do in tyson vs holyfield 2?

Which ones?

 

Well IMHO, ATG's, Joe Frazier, Foreman, Ken Norton, and Patterson,.to name a few. Maybe Marciano due to his size, not his spirit. I think these guys would have a lot of issues against that version of Holy.. Holy was just a f'n warrior for both I. and II. fights... . but its too tough to speculate on what would have happened. I'm usually not a good picker when it comes to fights anyways.

 

2 Key points here

1. Even if you plug in another ATG fighter who would have been willing to fight through the cut, it doesn't mean that it would translate into a win. Marciano beat Charles, and IMO would have always beaten Charles. Hagler beating Hearns isn't just an indication of his heart but his ability as well. Hagler would have and should have always been favored over Tommy Hearns (of course if we are looking at it in foresight I'd say that Tommy is/should have been a live underdog). The point is, Tyson could have fought on, I concede that, after all, he was clearly winning the 3rd round but snapped overcome with uncontrollable emotions in a sport where the object is (mentally) to manage and control those very emotions. But even if you do it doesn't translate into a win.

2. I'm not sure what the underlying point is here, but if you're making the assertion that Tyson lost what was a very winnable fight against an opponent that he had the God given ability to beat; then fine. But if you're of the contingency that believes that Holyfield would have always won in 1991, 1996 and 1997 then you are in effect faulting Tyson for losing to a fellow ATG would have always beaten him anyways. It's like faulting Frazier for losing to Foreman 2x in very one sided fashion and claiming he didn't have the heart of a champion since he didn't get off the floor to win.

So if you were to plug in Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Marciano or Frazier this fight would have been a very different fight altogether. It would have been either in favor of Holyfield or in favor of his opponent either way a cut may very well become an inconvenience to a fighter who was beating Holyfield soundly before experiencing a cut so it's difficult to compare.

The only ATG's that I believe that would fared better than Tyson would have been fighters that would beaten Holyfield anyway. The rest would have lost just as well. Maybe they wouldn't have fouled out in the same grotesque manner but it would have still been a loss.

 

The best part about the fight was that after the SECOND bite, Holyfield reacted by running AT Tyson ready to fight. He didn't kick him. He did not bite back. He ran to him with gloves up ready to rock.

Tyson got beat up by Evander the first fight and knew he was headed to the same. He wanted out.

 

I think some of you need to watch the fight again. Tyson fought well at times but was in no way kicking Holyfield's azs like some of you think he was.

Anyway, when a fighter charges at you and you duck your head down with the thought of... if he catches my head oh well... what's the problem? Tyson charged at Holyfield, he is an aggressive fighter, Holyfield simply tucked his chin in and said fvck it!. I'm not saying he was trying to headbutt Holyfield. I'm saying that if Holyfield had not done this that he would have been headbutted in the face and chin several times. Holyfield protected himself and let Tyson get the worst of the collision. This is boxing not a tickling contest.

Ya'll sound like a bunch of bitches when you defend Tyson's actions in this fight.

His plan didn't work so he lost his cool, it didn't take much for that to happen in those days.

 

Who here is defending his actions? Before his first fight with Holy, Tyson NEVER got cut before. All of a sudden in the rematch, as early as the second round, he gets cut again illegally. Obviously this happens in the game of boxing. But no, there's no defending him for biting. And no, I don't believe he wanted a way out. Tyson was simply abiding by the old testament: An eye for an eye!

 

Guys, Holy brought a fight, dirty as it was, against a Tyson that couldnt deal with it. It has nothing to do with Tyson trying to get out of the fight. If someone is fighting you with a bat, you will pick up a knife or a gun. The problem is that there are rules in boxing, and Tyson was getting owned by Holy with those rules. That is why Tyson went to the next level with the biting. He couldnt beat Holy at his game so he went to the next level. It has nothing to do with Tyson trying to get out of the fight, or anything like that. It just is Tyson upping the game, so he could find some way to victory,The problem for Tysons strategy is that it wont work in a boxing fight where there are rules you must obide by. Holy may have headbutted, but look at how dirty Tyson was, and had been up to that point. Holy was a great champion, but at that time, Tyson was at his weakest and most vunerable point around that time. Basically, Tyson was spiraling towards bankruptcy, -mentally, financially, morally, and lastly, emotionally. I take nothing away from Tyson. He was a great champion during his day, back in the 80's. He had a great team around him then, and guiding him. However, he was a loose cannon waiting to happen, and it didnt take much for him to go off the rails because it doesnt have the emotional fortitude that some of the great fighters have, no fault of his, since he came off the street with no family ties or emotional support system.

 

Holyfield headbutted the hell out of Tyson....agreed that alot of heavyweights use questionable 'tac-tics'...tyson himself with his elbows here and there in the past....but holyfields headbutting, was atrocious.

to answer your question, holyfields headbutting worked great on a mentally vulnerable Tyson, but they would not have worked against any of the ATG's...a peak tyson included in that batch

 

Cant think of anybody else who would have bitten Holyfield.

Or, for that matter, would have fouled out in response to some butting.

 

I can think of a lot of guys that would headbutt hit low, elbow or foul in another way. Tyson had a habit of biting on his gloves when he sparred in training, so Im sure thats the first foul that came to his mind. In the old days he would have elbowed the hell out of Holyfield. He could throw some serious elbows.

 

IMO, he simply lost his bottle in prison. Put the "Ruddock" Tyson in there and youve got a good fight

The 95-96 Tyson was just a poor mans version of the 91-92 Tyson, and that Tyson was just a poor mans version of the 86-88 one.

 

Think theyd have done it after the final warning and receive a guaranteed DQ? Thats the kicker for me. You don't bite a dude twice and keep going. Tyson knew EXACTLY what was gonna happen.

I agree lots of guys would have responded with their own brand of roughness, but they wouldnt have fouled out. No way.

 

I agree with this as far as Tyson not wanting any part of Evander once punches started landing. I remember in the rematch at one point the fight started to look like the first fight, only Mike was being hit earlier in this fight. Holyfield backed up a little and landed I think a 3 punch combination and Mike was stunned. At that point I knew it was all over. Mike would not win. Evander was dominating Mike and I think Mike knew that Evander was too quick. I love Mike, but in 1997 he could not beat Evander. in 1990 he probably could have had he fought his old style of defense and working to get inside, and then come upstair after working the body-but in 1997 his style of defense was beyond his prime more than Evander's style. Mike's style of fighting is not a style which is benefitted by experience as much. It is about youth. Evander's had to do with experience more since he was a more complete fighter than Mike. Not as hard a puncher, but more complete and fought many different styles and ways.