In comparisson to 1988,when they really fought,Tyson was a little more green but still near to the best we ever saw him. Holmes was n't AS over the hill,but still way passed his best. Tyson still wins. It just takes him a bit longer. Holmes gets stopped around the the seventh or eighth.
tyson by ko anytime vs any version of holmes, larry did trade blows with punchers, tyson would finish the job that shavers could not end because he was a crappy finisher. holmes was too static , he would not dance during all the fight like ali would do. tyson by ko. clean ko. period
Also don't forget Tommo, that Larry did far, far better against McCall than Lennox just had against Oliver. In his 40s, Holmes produced very favorable contemporary results against common opponents of Lennox. I always raise questions of how much Larry's rustiness played a role in Tyson's win over him. Earlier in the bout, the commentators were making note of how badly Holmes was misfiring. Still, it took Mike 45 seconds between the second and third knockdowns to end matters, and Larry came within five seconds of surviving the round. Presuming Tyson likewise succeeds against a prime, competition ready version of Holmes like that requires a certain leap of faith. Larry was tying him up pretty effectively before the first knockdown.
Holmes always looses. 86, 82, 80, 78. No matter what version it is a **** poor matchup. Tyson's style was made specifically to counter the jab, stick and move type boxers. This is why he blew through berbick, spinks, holmes, and berbick with such ease. The more a guy turns sideways and has a "great jab" like Holmes is the more the fight favours Tyson. I'd only favour Ali of any great jabber, stick and move type boxer over Tyson because he is the only one smart enough to figure it out that fighting that way is fighting into Tyson's strength. Holmes would never beat tyson for the same reason frazier would never beat foreman or liston would never beat ali. Because even on the former's worst day, they'd still school the later. Whereas Lewis had that big right or even douglas could fight like a mother****er when he chose to (how many heavyweights get up from a 9 count in late rounds to fight like crazy). You'd probably have to go back to Joe Jeanette vs langford to find such a display of heart. While tyson was not at 100% that night, Douglas was, and I don't think more than 2-3 boxers was going to beat Douglas on that night. I don't see Larry at his best which I would consider between the norton and shavers fight beating Tyson. Because shavers laid him out and norton gave him a real real close fight. Larry was always a very hittable boxer. On the good side he almost always got up/ But you aren't going to win a fight when you keep get laid down. And its not like larry got up just a little late after the count. Larry was planking on the matt like pacquiao vs marquez.
The first time I agree with Tommo on anything. when you realized what Tyson did to holmes, gave him a 9 minute nap. Lennox would have given him a worse destruction with all that right hand power. Even in his prime, once larry gets hit in that jaw with that right, I cannot realistically believe that larry isn't going down.
Also, I think, regular competitive activity to stay sharp. Early in his 1990s career, Larry freely admitted in televised interviews that he was adapting what Foreman was doing successfully for his own skills and style. [Larry says he and George got along quite well before their aborted rivalry.] At 38 years of age and with 18 months on the shelf, he tried to box Mike as if he was ten years younger for Shavers I, and paid for it. But intelligence is the ability to learn, and that's something clearly in the Holmes make up. My belief is that Holmes might spot Mike a knockdown or two, but still produce a clean UD over 15. Agree that it's not likely Larry gets a stoppage here, and expect he'd be boxing for a points verdict all the way. There's been posited the argument that he only cleanly lost Tyson and Holyfield, and could well have retired at 73 (44) 2(1) 0. Decent resume to generate over nearly 30 years in four different decades. He'll always be the first champion to successfully defend in eight consecutive calendar years.
I'd love to know what years those was. He lost to spinks from back in 85 didn't he? Never won the wba so he never even became the lineal champ. While he did beat Ali in 80' Ali vacated the title previously, meaning he was no longer lineal champ when holmes beat him. At best one could argue Larry became lineal champ around 84 after he beat a good deal of the guys around that time. Problem was he went so far as vacating titles to avoid even fighting his mandatory challengers. If Klitschko did the same, these larry holmes fanns would be yelling how proof of how shitty klitschko or any other boxer was. The other difficulty is he also chose to avoid pinklon thomas. Further he only fought spinks because he thought spinks would be easy. I mean he saw spinks at 175 thinking this will be an easy win and got schooled. I cannot think of any legit hw champion losing to a lhw champ. I mean if either k2 lost to Bernard Hopkins or Adonis stevenson we would be hearing how worthless they are. So why does Larry get away with it?
I am not a Tyson hater and more of a fan who thinks he is a bit too under-rated now by the boxing cognoscenti. But I think a prime Holmes is a nightmare match-up for Tyson, just as a prime Ali would be. Holmes has the height, jab, and movement to keep Tyson away and has the savvy to clinch when Tyson gets too close. And above all, he has the chin to survive a few times the above fails and Tyson does land a bomb or two.
I think a prime Holmes outboxes Tyson if he's very careful,otherwise he gets knocked out.Holmes had a great right and awesome Jab. Remember Buster Douglas? Homes was better,and had a better chance against even a prime Tyson. And Tyson can get knocked out.Larry must be careful though. Would be an interesting matchup. :happy
It would probably go the distance. It would probably be very close, maybe a split-decision either way. I'll take Holmes, but many would feel Tyson got robbed.
Holmes has a better record than Buster Douglas because Douglas was notoriously inconsistent. However the Douglas who showed up to the Tyson fight would beat holmes in 4.