Who would have won and why?
Printable View
Who would have won and why?
At the time I fought Holyfield was made for Tyson and Mike would have won a war in about six rounds.
With 20 odd years of hindsight, I think the evidence suggests Holyfield would have gone punch for punch and foul for foul with Tyson, slowly gaining an edge and winning a decision.
Holyfield mentally was stronger, and Tyson's life was falling apart at the time.
No way Tyson was already quite burned out by the time that fight woulda took place let's say Fall 1991, Holyfield was a lean mean sleek high-speed machine with stamina to boot. Holyfield woulda sliced Tyson to pieces by the 8th or 9th. Stoppage.
As inconsistent as he was a champion, a fired-up and healthy Holyfield is the about the only guy that I think genuinely presents problems for just about any fighter going - past, present or future.
It pains me to say that He'd beat any version of Tyson - one way or another, probably 4 times outta 5.
Judging how Mike would have fared against Evander based on how their eventual fight went is as unfair as judging how Louis would have done against Marciano.
Mike had one the heavyweight title 10 years before and had an enforced break of 4 years thrown in. He just wasnt the same boxer.
So he is not allowed to ask the question ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
I'll go with Tyson, but it's really a pick 'em fight IMO.
Of course he is fuck face...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlSo he is not allowed to ask the question ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
It's hysterical giving Tyson a near pass as faded and imposter Mike in 97 when it was Holyfield who was being called a walking dead man going into that fight. Did Holyfield stop aging, taking damage and being ko'd in 91 ??? Mike sitting in prison is his problem and the same fat ego and scrabbled mentality that helped put him there would and was also brought into the ring with him.
90, 91 or 97 I think Holyfield had what it took to top Tyson. Combination punching and a determination and stiff mentality takes it.
and steroids?
Is that your default setting when it comes to a Tyson-Holyfield match?
What?
I maintain that Tyson would have won the first fight because Tyson still had a bit in the tank. His technique was not as good but his punch resistance and conditioning was better than when he came out of jail.
I think Tyson would have won and it could have easily been a KO1 but more than likely it would have been a classic war with Tyson coming out on top. Holyfield was smaller and lighter and did not bulk up until the second fight with Bowe. This smaller version was rattled by Cooper and Foreman and was vulnerable.
However I do think that there would have been a demand for a rematch and he would have won that and the final decider in this alternative dimension.
The trouble here is they fought in the same era, but didn't peak at the same time.
Tyson won a Title in 1986, and his peak was 1988, particularly against the undefeated lineal Champ Michael Spinks.
Holyfield, though the Cruiserweight Champ, only went to Heavyweight in mid-1988.
In the 1989 Bruno fight, I think Tyson was already showing a few problems, maybe not showing as much focus and dedication, maybe not training as hard. He won the fight, but he wasn't as awesome.
In 1989, Holyfield took out a good contender in Alex Stewart as he made his way up the ladder and developed into a better fighter.
In early 1990, Tyson was KO'd by Douglas.
In late 1990, Holyfield KO'd Douglas.
The big showdown was scheduled for Nov 8, 1991.
There were posters hyping it in the magazines, but Tyson got arrested for rape and later went to jail instead.
Tyson had been back on-track after the Douglas loss though, at least in the ring.
Leading up to Nov 1991, Tyson had KO'd Tillman, Alex Stewart, and did the 2 fights with Razor Ruddock. Fighters were no longer scared stiff of him because they had seen him getting knocked out, but it was clear he was still an elite fighter.
In contrast to Tyson's 4 fights resulting in 3 KOs, Holyfield had only fought once, and it was a very tough decision win over 42 year old Big George Foreman.
After the Holyfield/Tyson Nov 8, 1991 fight was scrapped, the promoter decided to try to make a little money anyway, so Holy's defense was rescheduled for 15 days later with a last-minute opponent. Old trial horse, Smokin' Bert Cooper, who fought a lot like Mike Tyson, took the fight though he was just coming off a cocaine-fueled, month-long bender, and he still almost knocked over Holyfield.
I think at that period in Nov 1991, if the fight had come off, I think Tyson would've been too much for Holyfield. And that's even with Holyfield's "supplements" that built his 188 lb body up to 208
.
The only reason they fought in the same era is that EVERYONE wanted to see the Mike Tyson that made sense of a division again. In fact some enjoyed just watching him knock out anyone, even if it wasnt a meaningfull fight.
Who did Mike beat after prison? I think one of his best wins was against Golota (after prison). He just wasnt the same fighter that his opponents struggled to land on or defend every punch in a lightening 5 punch combination.
He stood static in front of opponents and threw one shot at a time and not because he thought it was better to fight that way but hed forgotton what made him great and no one he was prepaired to have as his trainer could teach or remind him of it.
I still have a poster for the 1991 clash. :)
It was good that the Holyfield/Tyson fight finally happened in 1996, and it is a classic fight, but we can only dream what would have happened if the fight had happened 5 years earlier...
Yes the fight was under rated, Tyson nearly knocked him out with the first punch! After 5 rounds Tyson was shot and started trying to get out of the fight. When that was not going to happen he took his beating and went out on his shield.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
No poster here, but I have an old mag, Bert Randolph Sugar's Boxing Illustrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
It says the Champ Holyfield was guaranteed 30 million and Tyson 15 million, with both getting a percentage of ppv tv receipts. The promoters were anticipating grossing 100 million dollars in Nov 1991. Tyson was an 11-5 favorite at the time of publication, and the Ruddock rematch in June 1991 had already happened.
Hey Master, we all know Buster did have some talent but psychologically, he ran hot-and-cold, sometimes motivated, sometimes not giving a $#!t.
Do you think Buster could have got up from the Holyfield knockdown?
Do you think Buster just decided to stay down knowing he had a 24 million dollar payday win or lose?
I think Holyfeild had Tyson number and he actual won a lot of his big fights and was not crushing cans a lot of his career. I laugh when people say Tyson was not prime because neither was Holyfiled. I mean if i had to call the last prime version i say it was Bowie rematch he won after that Holyfeild had some really bad problems health wise after. Holyfeild was just more solid on his fundamentals then Tyson was so he pretty much outclassed him even though he was older and in worst way when it came to his health.
Definitely Buster could have gotten up and he decided to stay down and collect the cheque without minimal damage. He was going to lose anyway he was not motivated as he was against Tyson. Now that version would have never have gone down in the first place and may have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180No poster here, but I have an old mag, Bert Randolph Sugar's Boxing Illustrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
It says the Champ Holyfield was guaranteed 30 million and Tyson 15 million, with both getting a percentage of ppv tv receipts. The promoters were anticipating grossing 100 million dollars in Nov 1991. Tyson was an 11-5 favorite at the time of publication, and the Ruddock rematch in June 1991 had already happened.
Hey Master, we all know Buster did have some talent but psychologically, he ran hot-and-cold, sometimes motivated, sometimes not giving a $#!t.
Do you think Buster could have got up from the Holyfield knockdown?
Do you think Buster just decided to stay down knowing he had a 24 million dollar payday win or lose?
Holyfield took steroids to get to the top and stay there and had been active.
For one all we know most boxer have taken steroids even your god Tyson has. Thing is did Holyfeild ever fail a test in 26 years that he been fighting because since he was such a huge user pretty much says it all. As for them fighting i say Holyfield wins anytime was better fighter and had better wins in his career. I dont really think if mike came in the 90's during his prime he would of looked as good to be honest with you. The 90's had alot top fighters including the men who beat him Holyfield and Lewis during the later part was quite good as well.
My god Tyson did not take PED he just took recreational drugs and alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Well master do you think Holyfeild was a ped user because he never failed a test in the 26 years he has been fighting. I mean if Holyfeild can do it i don't doubt a lot of fighters if not all at top level do it and have been for sometime. Also ross love all the excuse you give your boy when he losses i find it funny.
I hate to think any boxer is taking it especially top boxers like Holyfield or Shane. I have never accused them and would not do so unless caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Tell me one other fighter since Tyson that has defended the WBC, WBA and IBF title 6 times?
Do you realise how difficult it is to keep all the titles together and make that many defences? Its very difficult which is why Lewis and Holyfield could not match Mikes dominance.
Wlad now really has no claim to be the top man in his division. Ots a small acheivement that hes managed to hold one title for so long but hes never held all 3 major titles at once.
Ha you dont need to accuse them. Shane admitted taking EPO and Holyfield has admitted buying growth hormone.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI hate to think any boxer is taking it especially top boxers like Holyfield or Shane. I have never accused them and would not do so unless caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
I am sure they had their reasons/excuses for it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossHa you dont need to accuse them. Shane admitted taking EPO and Holyfield has admitted buying growth hormone.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI hate to think any boxer is taking it especially top boxers like Holyfield or Shane. I have never accused them and would not do so unless caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Shane didnt. He had to admit he knew he was cheating in court. Basically admitted hes a dirty cheating cunt. Shane Mosley Admits to Knowingly Using EPO in Lawsuit Against BALCO's Victor Conte - YouTubeQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterI am sure they had their reasons/excuses for it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossHa you dont need to accuse them. Shane admitted taking EPO and Holyfield has admitted buying growth hormone.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI hate to think any boxer is taking it especially top boxers like Holyfield or Shane. I have never accused them and would not do so unless caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
I don't think Holyfield had better fundamentals than Tyson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Holyfield was more versatile. For example Tyson couldn't fight going backwards, Holy could.
Holyfield had many Great attributes, bur he had some shortcomings:
I think Holyfield fought off-balance a lot.
He didn't move his head enough; that's why he got hit so cleanly by so many fighters; he'd just stand there. His world-class chin, one of the best in Boxing, is what kept him in there many times.
He didn't have Heavyweight power, and part of that was all that nonsensical bouncing around excuse-for-footwork he'd do. When you bounce like that, your feet aren't planted, and you lose power.
He also hardly ever gets called for all the rule-breaking he did with his chronic head-butting and elbows.
Tyson, likewise had many Great attributes and some shortcomings, but he had excellent fundamentals for the style he utilized as a 5'11" guy consistently fighting 6'4" guys.
Tyson could be pushed back but he came at you from the sides and obliterated you.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180I don't think Holyfield had better fundamentals than Tyson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Holyfield was more versatile. For example Tyson couldn't fight going backwards, Holy could.
Holyfield had many Great attributes, bur he had some shortcomings:
I think Holyfield fought off-balance a lot.
He didn't move his head enough; that's why he got hit so cleanly by so many fighters; he'd just stand there. His world-class chin, one of the best in Boxing, is what kept him in there many times.
He didn't have Heavyweight power, and part of that was all that nonsensical bouncing around excuse-for-footwork he'd do. When you bounce like that, your feet aren't planted, and you lose power.
He also hardly ever gets called for all the rule-breaking he did with his chronic head-butting and elbows.
Tyson, likewise had many Great attributes and some shortcomings, but he had excellent fundamentals for the style he utilized as a 5'11" guy consistently fighting 6'4" guys.
Yep, that's the liability of squaring up: you can be pushed back, neutralizing your punching power because you don't have time to punch before getting pushed back.
The advantage is more torque and power on your hooks and uppercuts when you get inside...
Holyfeild was very masterful in how he took advantage of that.
It's not how Buster defeated Tyson at all.
I always think of Buster getting off first with long-range right-hand leads...
Very dangerous to throw right-hand leads, but it worked for Buster on Tyson, and it worked for Ali on Foreman...
Mike would be dangerous in the exchanges but unless he landed something big early I think it would go the same way it did in 96.
Holyfield had Tysons number and once he had absorbed his initial assault he would start roughing him up and wearing him down.
Holyfield in 91 was a machine and could go non stop for 12 rounds, Mike would only be a threat to him for 5 or 6 rounds
Holyfield was a skinny heavyweight then, Tyson would have butchered his body. Later he put on the muscle to absorb the heavyweight shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAME
Do not make out alphabet crap means anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
At the time Tyson was THE MAN, there was no else coming close to making $10 Million plus a fight.
If you are the WBA, C or IBF do you keep taking your cut from Tyson defences, or do you strip him for not fighting Adilson Rodrigues and set up the money fight that is Rodrigues/Witherspoon for your vacant crown?
On top of this as Messrs Lee, Suliman and Mendoza found out; if you running a little short of dosh, Mr King was very willing to help his 'friends'...
Trust me, Kin... I mean Tyson had no problems keeping his gaudy belts together!
Typical response of a 14 year old kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossOf course he is fuck face...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlSo he is not allowed to ask the question ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
Looks like we were right guys he is just a teenage troll.
Teenage Troll Club it is seeming like. OK, we need to start labeling them as they are coming onto this forum in large numbers lately: I want to name Jerry Rice, and jahmez .Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlTypical response of a 14 year old kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossOf course he is fuck face...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlSo he is not allowed to ask the question ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
Looks like we were right guys he is just a teenage troll.
Typcal response of someone with no response;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlTypical response of a 14 year old kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossOf course he is fuck face...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlSo he is not allowed to ask the question ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
Looks like we were right guys he is just a teenage troll.
I think the Holyfeild that beat Bowie in the rematch was about as good as he got. After that he started to have hart problems and got hep b but i believe that version of Holyfeild can beat any Tyson there was. So i guess the Holyfeild of 1993 was his last time at his best i believe and then medical issues kicked in. Thing is though it doesn't really matter that much because Holyfeild already kicked his ass and fought better comp but for hell why not argue it because we have nothing better to do.