I think Tyson would have beaten him. Most people mock Tyson because his prime was only 4 years(86'-90') and that he didn't beat a top contender. That however has nothing to do with the abilities of a prime Tyson. Ronaldo's prime in soccer was also only 4 years (98'-02'), but no soccer fan mocks him for that. And that Tyson didn't face some top contenders wasn't his fault. The 80's were the weakest period in boxing since the early 50's. But nobody mocks Marciano for not fighting one single top contender, but everybody mocks Tyson. The Tyson that faced Holyfield in 96' was a joke. That Tyson didn't used the peek-a-boo technique, was slow and seemed to have lost his punching power. When the 80's Tyson could have knocked out Larry Holmes, Holyfields chin wouldn't be a problem for him(I know that Larry was out of prime, but that doesn't affect the chin. Best example: Ali-Shavers I). I'm not one of those unrealistic Tyson fans, who think that Tyson is the greatest boxer ever and that he could have beaten Ali and s*** like that, but I see that Tyson's prime was very short and I see that the Tyson of 96' wasn't the same of 88'. I know that Tyson did drugs, was in prison for 3 years, lost Cus D'Amato and was a mess after that. You don't have to be a Tyson fan to recognise that. And I see that Holyfield is hyped. He would simply be too slow for Tyson. Holyfield is probably the greatest cruiserweight boxer ever, but in the heavyweight division he slowed down too much for a prime Tyson. Tyson would use the peek-a-boo style to come close enough to Holyfield and a prime Tyson had enough power to knock Holyfield out, even though Holyfield had a very hard chin. Damn, Tyson could knock Larry Holmes out!
Holyfield should win as long as he's respectful of Tyson's power (which he would be). Holyfield already decisively beat Tyson twice when both men were past their primes and I see no reason why he shouldn't be the favorite in a prime for prime fight.
Tyson was the less versatile boxer and wasn't physically or mentally equipped enough to deal the kind of work rate Holyfield brought.
If Holyfield doesn't respect Tyson and gets reckless, Tyson could end up stopping him in the mid rounds. I think it's more likely that Holyfield weathers the early storm, takes Tyson into deep waters, and either wins on points or gets a late stoppage.
Holyfield is a true ring warrior and he would have faced anybody then as now without dread or reservation. Tyson had made us believe that he was a fearless ring gladiator for years since his debut in 1986 but he blinked and folded up with the first real boxer with a full ball to dare stand up to him mano a mano in 1990 in the person of Buster Douglas.
I don't think that the result would be any different from the two eventual Holyfied-Tyson fights. I think Holyfield would have eventually discover that Tyson was not that invincible and impregnable as Tyson would inevitably blink and fold at the first sign of defiance and strong response from Holyfield of his intimidation and bullying.
Note that Holyfield at that time of their first fight was coming back from devastating loss to Bowe and a suspected heart condition. What roid are you talking about, dude?
Holyfield beats Tyson whatever time period or circumstances you like. Watch their bouts, it is just a really bad match up for Mike. He could train, be in the best state of mine possible, etc. There was no way at any time he could have beaten him. Holyfield would have had to performed terribly to lose. 80s Tyson was very good but trust me, he is not an all time great. He demolished nobodies but always struggled or lost to fighters on par or better than him.
Tyson chose not to fight Holyfield 1988-1990
I Holyfield because he almost beat Tyson when Tyson was in his prime and he was not roided up. The only reason he didn't get the win was because of Tyson's infamous stunt to bite off holy fields ear
Holyfield by UD
Could a heavily roided Holyfield beat a clean Tyson
