Had Holyfield and Tyson fought each other at their best

[them_apples]

It would have been a real brawl. Both these guys knew eachother well, and although I give Holyfield the mental edge Tyson vs Holyfield in particular would have been close to even if they both showed up at their best.

when they did fight Holyfield seemed to be in better condition and came to win. Mike certainly knew Holyfield would show up in this fight so it was probably lingering in the back of his mind. They had a little altercation as amatuers, Holyfield claimed they broke the sparring up because they didn’t want the heavyweight future getting beat up. He stepped to him over a pool game and Tyson sort of backed down. This doesn’t mean everything, but it’s something to make note of that Holyfield had the least fear of Tyson.

for the record I’d still pick Holyfield, I think it would have been and absolute brawl though, and probably closer than the fight in 96. Maybe even a trilogy. I don’t think Mike instantly wilts against tougher fighters. He knows what it takes for the most part, just like the Ruddock fight. I just see his skillset is a bit limited if someone knows how to fight him.

I think when they did fight Mike was all gassed out from ******* and Holyfield was just bringing way too much that night. It was likely Holyfields number one goal to beat Mike.

a lighter Holyfield didn’t take quite as good of a shot which is expected, though his chin and heart were still top level. His speed and power were definitely better at 205-210 though. His combinations were nasty at that weight.

heres a possible outcome, Holyfield touches the canvas early but proceeds to lay a beat down for most of the rounds and wins a UD. I don’t think he stops Mike in 89. It was hard enough in 96 and a lot of it seemed to be Tysons poor conditioning in regards to the pace Holyfield set. Holyfield seemed to really handle Tyson inside. Tyson, like Patterson really couldn’t fight inside despite being built for it. It shows the limitations of the overated peekaboo style. Although certainly exciting, as was Patterson.

if you watch Tyson vs Mathis jr, from a purely stylistic standpoint it seems that a fighter like Frazier would really beat Mike up bad. Foreman vs Frazier is an absolutely terrible reference for how Mike would do. They both hit hard thats about it, but Foreman was pushing Frazier all night and never let him inside. Tyson never did this and nor could he vs Joe.

[JAB5239]

It would have been a real brawl. Both these guys knew eachother well, and although I give Holyfield the mental edge Tyson vs Holyfield in particular would have been close to even if they both showed up at their best.

when they did fight Holyfield seemed to be in better condition and came to win. Mike certainly knew Holyfield would show up in this fight so it was probably lingering in the back of his mind. They had a little altercation as amatuers, Holyfield claimed they broke the sparring up because they didn’t want the heavyweight future getting beat up. He stepped to him over a pool game and Tyson sort of backed down. This doesn’t mean everything, but it’s something to make note of that Holyfield had the least fear of Tyson.

for the record I’d still pick Holyfield, I think it would have been and absolute brawl though, and probably closer than the fight in 96. Maybe even a trilogy. I don’t think Mike instantly wilts against tougher fighters. He knows what it takes for the most part, just like the Ruddock fight. I just see his skillset is a bit limited if someone knows how to fight him.

I think when they did fight Mike was all gassed out from ******* and Holyfield was just bringing way too much that night. It was likely Holyfields number one goal to beat Mike.

a lighter Holyfield didn’t take quite as good of a shot which is expected, though his chin and heart were still top level. His speed and power were definitely better at 205-210 though. His combinations were nasty at that weight.

heres a possible outcome, Holyfield touches is in 89' or 90' i the canvas early but proceeds to lay a beat down for most of the rounds anthink Tyson sets the tempo and has the power to keep Holyfield offd wins a UD always gsme. But if this fight don&#8217a;t think he stops Mike in 89. It was hard enough in 96 and a lot of it seemed to be Tysons poor conditioning in regards to the pace Holyfield set. Holyfield seemed to really handle Tyson inside. Tyson, like Patterson really couldn’t fight inside despite being built for it. It shows the limitations of the overated peekaboo style. Although certainly exciting, as was Patterson.

if you watch Tyson vs Mathis jr, from a purely stylistic standpoint it seems that a fighter like Frazier would really beat Mike up bad. Foreman vs Frazier is an absolutely terrible reference for how Mike would do. They both hit hard thats about it, but Foreman was pushing Frazier all night and never let him inside. Tyson never did this and nor could he vs Joe.

I think Tyson wins at their best. Mike had far less head movement and defense when they fought. He wasn't as aggressive. If he established pace he can win. It would never be an easy fight because Evander was always game. But evander can't brawl with the best version of Mike in my opinion. My hit harder than Bowe and was faster. He also had great punch resistance. You can point to the Douglas fight, but Mike took a beating for 10 rounds against a much bigger man. Not saying I couldn't see a Holyfield win....but if I had to bet on a single fight vs the best of each other Tyson would be my pick.

[GhostofDempsey]

A prime Tyson at his best is a 50/50 fight for any great HW throughout history. His skills are underrated. He gets credit for his power and speed, but what a lot of people gloss over was his ability to create openings with rapid combinations and head/upper body movement.

When do we say Holyfield was at his best as a HW? His win versus Bowe or Mercer, draw with Lewis, Foreman? He ran out of steam versus Bowe in their trilogy, George was a stationary, slow target, Lewis was robbed of a win in the draw, and he lost the rematch. Mercer was a very good win, and he was the first to knock him down. We can argue his wins over Bowe and Mercer were > than Tyson’s wins over Biggs, Spinks, Ruddock, and Tucker. Where does that leave us?

[Tatabanya]

If someone like Bert Cooper puts a prime Holyfield on the canvas, the best Tyson - which is 1986 to 1988, not 1989 if you ask me - most probably keeps him there. In his best condition, young Tyson was quick and precise with his punches, thus I'm not sure there would be a real brawl.

[them_apples]

If someone like Bert Cooper puts a prime Holyfield on the canvas, the best Tyson - which is 1986 to 1988, not 1989 if you ask me - most probably keeps him there. In his best condition, young Tyson was quick and precise with his punches, thus I'm not sure there would be a real brawl.

Fighting Bert Cooper was a tune up for Holyfield. Fighting Tyson isn’t. Holyfield underestimated Cooper but was superior in every way.

[Tatabanya]

Fighting Bert Cooper was a tune up for Holyfield. Fighting Tyson isn’t. Holyfield underestimated Cooper but was superior in every way.

Cooper was not a tune up but a late replacement for Francesco Damiani, who got injured a few days before the fight. Holyfield had completed a whole training camp. If anything, we could justify him with being slightly unprepared to the change of opponent and style.

[Tatabanya]

One thing that not many people remember, including many experts, is Holyfield's inconsistency even in his best periods. Evander could look just over average in some fights (Moorer I comes to mind) and amaze the world in others.

The Tyson of 1986-1988, on the other hand, was maintaining the same pace and intensity from one opponent to the next, at least until the Spinks fight.

So, after analyzing their respective styles, strengths and weaknesses, we should also ask ourselves: which Holyfield would show up in the ring against Tyson?

[QueensburyRules]

It would have been a real brawl. Both these guys knew eachother well, and although I give Holyfield the mental edge Tyson vs Holyfield in particular would have been close to even if they both showed up at their best.

when they did fight Holyfield seemed to be in better condition and came to win. Mike certainly knew Holyfield would show up in this fight so it was probably lingering in the back of his mind. They had a little altercation as amatuers, Holyfield claimed they broke the sparring up because they didn’t want the heavyweight future getting beat up. He stepped to him over a pool game and Tyson sort of backed down. This doesn’t mean everything, but it’s something to make note of that Holyfield had the least fear of Tyson.

for the record I’d still pick Holyfield, I think it would have been and absolute brawl though, and probably closer than the fight in 96. Maybe even a trilogy. I don’t think Mike instantly wilts against tougher fighters. He knows what it takes for the most part, just like the Ruddock fight. I just see his skillset is a bit limited if someone knows how to fight him.

I think when they did fight Mike was all gassed out from ******* and Holyfield was just bringing way too much that night. It was likely Holyfields number one goal to beat Mike.

a lighter Holyfield didn’t take quite as good of a shot which is expected, though his chin and heart were still top level. His speed and power were definitely better at 205-210 though. His combinations were nasty at that weight.

heres a possible outcome, Holyfield touches the canvas early but proceeds to lay a beat down for most of the rounds and wins a UD. I don’t think he stops Mike in 89. It was hard enough in 96 and a lot of it seemed to be Tysons poor conditioning in regards to the pace Holyfield set. Holyfield seemed to really handle Tyson inside. Tyson, like Patterson really couldn’t fight inside despite being built for it. It shows the limitations of the overated peekaboo style. Although certainly exciting, as was Patterson.

if you watch Tyson vs Mathis jr, from a purely stylistic standpoint it seems that a fighter like Frazier would really beat Mike up bad. Foreman vs Frazier is an absolutely terrible reference for how Mike would do. They both hit hard thats about it, but Foreman was pushing Frazier all night and never let him inside. Tyson never did this and nor could he vs Joe.

- - Mike always more talented than Vander, Bowe, and Lewie, hence his record setting run. They was that giant sucking sound that filled the vacuum while he was squirreled away in the pen.

[Ascended]

If someone like Bert Cooper puts a prime Holyfield on the canvas, the best Tyson - which is 1986 to 1988, not 1989 if you ask me - most probably keeps him there. In his best condition, young Tyson was quick and precise with his punches, thus I'm not sure there would be a real brawl.

I dont like that cause bert was skilled and fast so why did you say someone like as if he was trash
and I have said mutiple times that a young holy was to small and was a brawler which never beat Mike I was told I dont know boxing as if that's a lie

So the crazy idiots will tell you the same since your not saying that dumb quote of holy always beats mike as if he fought the same his whole career

[Ascended]

A prime Tyson at his best is a 50/50 fight for any great HW throughout history. His skills are underrated. He gets credit for his power and speed, but what a lot of people gloss over was his ability to create openings with rapid combinations and head/upper body movement.

When do we say Holyfield was at his best as a HW? His win versus Bowe or Mercer, draw with Lewis, Foreman? He ran out of steam versus Bowe in their trilogy, George was a stationary, slow target, Lewis was robbed of a win in the draw, and he lost the rematch. Mercer was a very good win, and he was the first to knock him down. We can argue his wins over Bowe and Mercer were > than Tyson’s wins over Biggs, Spinks, Ruddock, and Tucker. Where does that leave us?

I wouldnt say that young holy was the best just he was the fastest i say his 90s ver was his best ver since he was better all around and way tougher

But that young holy is the one they use for prime and I have said that holy loses cause he was to small and brawl happy I was told I was wrong as if I was lying when I wasn't

if your not using that dumb quote of holy always beats mike you will be told some dumb quote of you dont know boxing or you wrong when your not