BoxRec

I gotcha, & to clarify, I don't think he has a late-advantage --- just that I don't see him as being in deep sh!t if it isn't over in four or five. Tyson's stamina was respectable --- he wasn't Joe Frazier, but he wasn't George Foreman, either.

I don't think Hollyfield walks through Tyson in '90-'91, in fact I see it being a bit of a war with the first 4-5 rounds being even in a topsy turvy way, then Hollyfield slightly taking the next couple of rounds with his superior boxing skills and possibly breaking Tyson's heart, leading to a late stoppage, probably through attrition.
I think this scenario would play out most of the times they met if they met regularly. Hollyfield always had Tyson's measure. He was a multi dimensional boxer with a fighters heart as opposed to a uni-dimensional fighter with some boxing skill.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

dberry wrote:Well I'm changing mine to "Hollyfield always had Tyson's measure" just to be different.

Nah, I got you covered there. I said everyone states that, "Holyfield always had Tyson's number, or words to that effect" --- Devil in the details

Well played sir.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"When did Tyson ever look strong late? Holyfield didn't fade against Dokes which would be the signature fight heading into this one. Nobody else pressed him until after he won the title. Even then, I fail to see any evidence of Mike being stronger down the stretch. Tyson was all holding late in fights." - Saad

Hadn't said Tyson was the stronger fighter down the stretch --- just that I don't see him as having any serious disadvantage in endurance. He looked strong late against Ribalta, & also Green. Bowe showed how worthwhile a consistent & well-applied body assault could sap Holyfield's strength, & that was still during the latter's prime, for mine. He was even tired beating on Foreman in the last two rounds of their fight, which was 91.

I didn't say Holyfield was immune to tiring, just wondering how someone would expect Mike to be stronger late. Bowe & Foreman were certainly much larger men than he is. Riddick was leaning a lot of size and weight on him all night, an option Mike wouldn't have being the weaker man. Not to mention Bowe delivered a vicious beating to him. That's more tiring than anything else.

Agree that Bowe's size & leaning was an issue for Holyfield, but I felt the primary source of Holyfield's fatigue in their first meeting was attributable to Bowe's outstanding bodyattack.

I think Bowe's attack was more consistent and relentless, round after round, than Tyson's more sporadic, opportunistic yet nasty assaults. Plus Bowe was just way bigger. Tyson is more Hollyfield's size.

dberry wrote:I think Bowe's attack was more consistent and relentless, round after round, than Tyson's more sporadic, opportunistic yet nasty assaults. Plus Bowe was just way bigger. Tyson is more Hollyfield's size.

Conversely, Tyson was a faster-handed, heavier-handed puncher than Bowe, with a better punch-delivery system, more accurate shots, superior defense, a sturdier chin, & a hotter killer instinct.

I don't know that Tyson had a better chin, Bowe could take a wallop. The size and versatility was the real issue for Holyfield in the match up with Bowe. A bigger man who was a better in-fighter. Tyson was neither.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

dberry wrote:I think Bowe's attack was more consistent and relentless, round after round, than Tyson's more sporadic, opportunistic yet nasty assaults. Plus Bowe was just way bigger. Tyson is more Hollyfield's size.

Conversely, Tyson was a faster-handed, heavier-handed puncher than Bowe, with a better punch-delivery system, more accurate shots, superior defense, a sturdier chin, & a hotter killer instinct.

I, too, don't know that Tyson had the sturdier chin, I think all three had a good chin but I don't think Tyson's was the best of the three. I agree with the faster hands, which, of course, can only mean more power if delivered correctly, and Tyson did know how to deliver the punch. He also had a great killer instinct and pretty good defense for a heavy weight, but would still be fallible to a boxer, which is what Hollyfield was. Tyson was also at his best coming forward onto an intimidated, retreating opponent.
I won't say he was one dimensional but he certainly preferred that way of fighting. Tyson's always seemed to lose a little bit of self belief as the rounds went on.

dempseyfire wrote:It's not about anyone having someone else's number, it's about Evander being the more well rounded, complete fighter. Plus Evander showed he could beat other great heavyweights, something Tyson never did (unless you are grasping at straws and want to throw in the semi-retired Larry Holmes)

Who are these other great HW's?

He lost 2 out of 3 to Bowe
He went 0-1-1 with lewis
He beat a 43 year old Foreman and a 43 year old Holmes.

Are you including Moorer, Ruiz and a washed up Dokes as great?

Look Ive recently been forced to revisit Holyfield and now include him in my top 6 HW's of all time.
But I still beleive Tyson 88 beats any version of Holyfield. Ive previously argued Tyson would have won a 1991 clash. I still beleive that.

Many many people chose to forget that arguably the worst Tyson of the 1990's was neck and neck with Holyfield for 5 rounds until the horrific headbutt scrambled his senses and made his eye sensitive to any mere jab.

Clearly the post bite fight Tyson isnt worth considering and the imposter who entererd the ring in 1995 wasnt even half the man he had been in 1991 let alone 1988

Tyson won one round in that fight. Nothing neck and neck about it. Overrated from an action stand point and the aura of Tyson always gave the impression that he could turn things around with one punch. But there wasn't a thing close about it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Tyson won one round in that fight. Nothing neck and neck about it. Overrated from an action stand point and the aura of Tyson always gave the impression that he could turn things around with one punch. But there wasn't a thing close about it.

Bobby Czyz disagrees with you

You can call it "had his number" or you can say it plain and simple: Holyfield was a better fighter than Tyson.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Tyson won one round in that fight. Nothing neck and neck about it. Overrated from an action stand point and the aura of Tyson always gave the impression that he could turn things around with one punch. But there wasn't a thing close about it.

Bobby Czyz disagrees with you

Saad we can agree to disagree on the scoring that night. I stick with what happened, it was an even fight until the headbutt....thats not to say Tyson might not have faded down the stretch anyway but we dont know. Tyson didnt fade in the Ruddock wars the same year, and even against Douglas he was competing until the end of the 8th.
On the other hand It's also not beyond the realms of possibility that his exertions in 1991 would have seen a worn out Tyson put in a terrible performance........no one knows for sure.

You can count the significant punches Mike landed on one hand. He instigated that headbutt anyway. Evander uses his head like a third glove a lot of the time, in the first Tyson fight it was Mike that butted him.

Thats certainly a valid viewpoint and one that many share.

Actually I think that Tyson when he was in his glory would have defeated Holyfield.

dberry wrote:Hollyfield did always have Tyson's number, it wasn't unlisted or silent.
Seriously though, Hollyfield was a game, come forward fighter with a magnificent chin, all of the things that gave Tyson, at any time of his career, troubles. To add to this he was probably the best 'boxer' at heavy weight from that era.

The other thing about Holyfield is that he had a very very hard jab, and a massive heart. I love Tyson but he was an in front fighter, only good when he was on top. Never won a fight from behind. Holyfield would have won a decision in 91.