Tyson-Holyfield in 1991 or Mayweather-Pacquiao in 2010

I was thinking about these two fights in the other thread when it was being debated who would have won if they took place as they originally should have.

I was going to ask what was the bigger letdown delay, but I figured that was an easy choice as Holyfield-Tyson 1 was a pretty good fight (although I think winning 1996 Fight of the Year was ridiculous) and Mayweather-Pacquiao was pretty boring.

But forgetting about the letdown and looking at the matchups, if you had a chance for one of these fights to have occurred, which would you have rather seen?




Thinking about what we missed out on is depressing

 

I don't even see this as being debatable. Tyson-Holy in 91 was guaranteed fire works, especially considering that Holy was more brawl happy then, and Mike could actually last longer than 5 rounds without burning out.

Floyd-Pac in 2010, and you're still looking at Floyd trying to safely box his way to victory.

Tyson-Holy in 91, neither man is looking to take any prisoners.

This is an easy answer for me.

 

Definitely Tyson-Holyfield 1. Guaranteed classic. I have little doubt Mike would have won at that point. Ahhhhhhh what might have been.

Mayweather-Pacquiao is just a bad mix of styles. Floyd wouldn't take chances and would win by making it a negative, boring affair.

Mike and Evander would have let their fists fly.

 

I would've enjoyed seeing holyfield beat tyson down in 91

 

Pac Floyd would be the exact same boring fight it was. I don't buy into this whole injured or past his best bs. He blew it and that's that.

 

The shoulder "injury" was bullshit. The whole world knows that. But it's idiotic to suggest Pac being past his prime had nothing to do with it.

It's a MUCH more difficult fight for Floyd in 2010, one he might not have won.

5 years is an eternity in boxing, and Pac lost A LOT in those 5 years... and Floyd realized that, hence why he signed the contract.

 

exactly. This wasn't a case of being in his prime 6 months before a la Curry. There was a very visible and gradual decline in Pacquia since 2009. Guy went from koing everyone, to being unable to score a KO

 

If Pac vs Floyd had never happened, I would probably have picked that. After seeing the fight, it is quite possible that it would also have been a stinker.

That being said, Tyson vs Holy was medicore fight at best, the surprise was what made such clinchfest feel special

 

I think I would pick Mayweather Pacquiao. at the time Pacman was such a little (juiced up) energizer bunny, that I'm sure he would have made a fight out of it, and not get discouraged as easily as politician pacquio did

 

Same. Tyson-Holyfield was no great fight either, but it still has more rewatchability than Pac-Floyd. Surely if they fought when it was first scheduled it would have been much better.

 

I made the point earlier that in order to get an electric matchup between Floyd and Manny you need to match them at the lighter weights. Meaning the 05 Floyd vs the 09 Manny at 140, or if you match them at 130.

At 147, I think it's always a boring fight.

 

Holyfield-Tyson for sure. Mayweather is brilliant, as was Pac at that time, and I think that version of Pacquiao had a very legit shot at winning. However, you know both Holyfield and Tyson are going to come to fight, Pacquiao too, but Mayweather is coming strictly to win, no matter how ugly or boring the means. Part of the intrigue surrounding that match-up was whether Pacquiao could force Floyd into a fight.

 

Tyson-Holy would have been a much better fight in 91 than 96, regardless of the winner. Much less holding and grappling and more exchanges. BOTH guys were much faster and sharper in 91, especially Mike.

There's no way it wouldn't have been brutal.

 

Tyson still had the raw talent and skill to defeat Holy in 91. The Tyson of the first Ruddock fight, for instance, was enough to beat Holy.

Now...Holy faced with the 87-88 Tyson.... that's a bad ass whuppin for Holy.

 

you cant really tell tyson fans shit. i always thought holyfield would beat the guy. the same ones in this thread claiming a younger tyson would be able to take holyfield out early were also saying the same shit when they actually fought.

 

While there's some truth to that you can't put Tyson down as a complete front runner. No, he didn't always do great when facing adversity but people go too far in the other direction and like to claim he was a bully and anybody who stood up to him could win. That's complete bullshit. The guy was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, not some dude who feasted on tomato cans and fell apart as soon as he went up in class.

I don't buy this line of Tyson without question beating Holyfield if (insert your favorite time period for Mike) but i also don't subscribe to the idea Holyfield always had his number and the result would be the same every single time.

 

Holyfield-Tyson is a slugfest
Mayweather-Pacquiao will always be a tactical affair

 

It's hard to say because by the time May-Pac actually happened I had trained myself not to give a fuck. It's as crazy in retrospect as it was in real time. The two top p4p fighters in the world, in the same weight class, avoiding ea h other for YEARS and making millions fighting other guys that no one really knew because people wanted to see who would lose first.

 

THIS!

 

Ok erratic, you have officially become my favourite poster on this website after making this topic. Great question!

I'd pick Holyfield vs Tyson, personally. I still grieve the fact that fight didn't happen

 

I was a die hard Tyson fan but even back then I felt that Holyfield could win. I saw it as a pick'em back then because the Buster Douglas fight had exposed the fact that Tyson didn't like adversity. Holyfield thrived on adversity and even a prime Tyson wasn't putting Evander away easily. Half of Evander's body weight was heart.

 

I would have rather have seen the Tyson fight because, in my mind, Tyson was going to slaughter Holyfield and of the four guys being discussed, Tyson was my favorite and Holyfied my least favorite.

Historically, knowing what happened later, the Mayweather Pacquiao fight would have been more significant.

 

Holy didn't even "slaughter" Mike in 96! Mike was in the fight through 6 rounds. After that, his piss poor post-prison stamina kicked in, and from then Holy took control.

So to say he "slaughters" Mike in 91 is laughable.

These Holy groupies make it seem as if their 96 fight was RJ-Hall.

 

He said Tyson would slaughter Holyfield

 

I think 91 Holyfield was not as crafty as he was in 96. He also was more of a risk taker then, not to mention he was on juice in the mid 90s.

I would take pre-prison Tyson to beat Holyfield but it would be competitive.