Tyson would have beaten wlad pretty easy and heres why

Holmes knocked people down with his jab and had such force and snap he could win a whole fight behind it. It didn't stop Mike from Knoking him out in 4 and Wlad has a massively inferior jab to Holmes.

 

holmes came out of retirement ffs..take a redner..

and on top of it..holmes era was ****..

tyson beating holmes was like iggy beat holyfield..FACT

 

Holmes beat prime Mercer after that. Years later 35 unfit Mercer gave Lewis a very close fight. Holmes also went the distance with Holyfield.

 

and??more triangle theorys ffs..

holmes came out of retirement and got into the ring with tyson..its as simple as that.tyson himself said that he waited about for holmes to get old..and gave the same advice to haye regarding the k bros..

mercer wasnt a great boxer just a tough s.o.b who if you let him would drag you to places you didnt want to go..

how did holmes - holy pan out tho..regardless that he went the ****ing distance with a cw...that same cw who beat tysons ass..so does that mean tyson would beat holyfield cause he knocked out holmes but holmes went the distance with holy.oh wait my head hurts..****ing triangle theorys dont work in boxing..because styles do make fights..but real good boxers find out ways to get through the test even tho they find it tougher than someone else does...

 

Im not talking any triangle theorys.

Holmes was still good enough to win over 20 fights after Tyson, beat prime Mercer and go the distance with Hoyfield who was undefeated and on a massive knockout streak.

 

triangle theory is exactly what your talking about....


80s and 90s are great eras yet a fat george foreman wins a trinket lol... no problem..

tyson is a great boxer...no question..but he is no mythical beats who walks through prime atg superheavyweights...

 

LOL man you're clueless. Do you even know how fat and shot the version of Holmes was that Mike fought? And that ancient, retired and fat version Holmes still landed dozens and dozens of jabs on a prime Tyson. How's that possible? :deal

You can say what you want about Tyson knocking Wlad out, fine. But argueing Wlad won't land jabs on Tyson because he's 'too elusive' to be jabbed just doesn't hold up to the evidence.

 

that uppercut is a thing of beauty,


it was far from prime holmes when tyson got to grips to him but after it he went on a 6 or 7 fight win streak or something and was fighting for the lineal title so i dont think he was as shot as **** as everyone makes out

anyway holmes only lost cos he got his arm stuck in the rope...apparently larry was jus waitin for tyson to finish his combo so he could counter and tee off a beautfil counter hook, true story well according to holmes on ESPN, suppose the 2 knock downs before it all the jelly legs after gettin beatin round the ring were 'all part of the plan' as well haha

that been said tyson TKO 6 :hi:...(or less)

 

Seen as you have a fascination for trannies i found 3 stunners for you :rofl:rofl:rofl

This content is protected

 

wow .comparing LARRYs power to VLADS just adds more comic stupidity to this already stupidity riden thread . These ROSE CLORED GLASSES that we're looking through show only the beaty but hide all the truth . yep Oh the highlite real croud is truly something . lol

 

Where did i claim Holmes was more powerful than Wlad ?One post from you is enough to tell me you're authentically stupid. Stay away from me idiot.

 

By saying `massively inferior'.

You're basically implying it.

 

Massively inferior jab you ****ing fool.

 

Tyson's win over Holmes means very little. Anyone arguing otherwise is a fool. If he beat a 1981 prime Larry Holmes that would have been an amazing achievement. Beating the fat old coming out of retirement for a payday Holmes doesn't mean you beat an ATG :-(

dino - Holmes jab may be better than Wlad's, but there isn't much between them. Wlad's jab is certainly not 'massively inferior'.

 

38. Not much older than Wlad is now.