Right, so Shavers, Weaver and Snipes could get to Holmes but Tyson couldn't? Snipes wasn't even a big puncher and he had Larry staggering across the ring. Everyone outreached Tyson. He excelled at getting past good jabs and long reaches. In what way did Holmes trouble Tyson? Staying upright for four rounds? Holmes had much more trouble in his prime with lesser fighters than Tyson.
Jabs clearly troubled Tyson. I don't know what you're talking about. Douglas was giving Tyson all kinds of hell with his jab and his jab was NO WHERE near that of Holmes'. Holmes clearly won the third round.
You know nothing about boxing because your argument that Tyson could beat Holmes is based on the fact that Tyson knocked him out. Leotis Martin knocked an old and comepletely shot Liston out, so he beats a prime Liston to right?
This is a Holmes v Tyson thread. If you wanna debate Tyson v Williams make a Tyson v Williams thread.
No, you're arguing that Tyson beats a prime Holmes simply because he beat the shell of him. So, that means Williams beats a prime Tyson because he already did.
But we aren't debating a Tyson v Williams fight. That inference had nothing at all to do with this thread. We're debating a Holmes v Tyson fight, that should be your focus.
Right hands clearly troubled Holmes. I've named two men who almost had him out with rights. That's a pretty big problem when you're fighting a fast handed powerful opponent guy who has already KO'd you cold with a right hand. Is your only point of reference Buster Douglas? How about the other men Tyson fought with good jabs? Pinklon Thomas? Tony Tucker? Carl Williams? Tony Tubbs? Holmes himself? Tyson handled all of them. Difference is Holmes proved he wasn't a shell by returning four years later and upsetting an unbeaten, well regarded contender and losing a competitive title fight with Holyfield. Tyson didn't. Unless you're going to argue that Holmes created history by being shot at age 38 when Tyson beat him before resuming his prime at age 42.
For fukc's sake dude! The point I'm trying to make is: You said that because Tyson already beat Holmes, Tyson beats prime Holmes. Since Danny Williams already beat Tyson, he beats prime Tyson. It's so simple. Jesus ****ing Christ!
But we aren't debating a Williams v Tyson fight. We are debating a Holmes v Tyson fight. Please stop talking about Williams and stick to the topic at hand.
He didn't "Handle" Pinklon Thomas. Thomas had recently hurt his shoulder in sparring. Dundee didn't want him to take the fight. He was starting to win a couple of rounds when his glove split. It took him like ten minutes to get a new glove and even longer to continue. By then he'd lost his rhythm. He clearly troubled Tyson. Everytime Tyson came in, Thomas would his use left jab to keep Tyson off-stride. Both Holyfield, and Lewis clearly troubled him with his jab. For the ONE MILLIONTH time, he had several tune up fights for both Holyfield and Mercer. When he fought Tyson, it was his first fight in two years. Are you really insinuating Holmes was prime at 42? :roflatsch
So you're not gonna answer my question? If you say Tyson beats prime Holmes because he beat his ghost, then you also have to say Danny Williams beats a prime Tyson for the same reason. If you're unwilling to do this, you're a hypocrite.
I've said nothing on thai thread that is hypocritical. If you want to debate Williams vs Tyson then start a thread on it.
Tyson had so much trouble with Thomas and he gave him a one-sided beating and stopped him in seven rounds. Only you could think Thomas was "troubling" Tyson. Then again you probably think Bonecrusher troubled Tyson as well. You've still not addressed Holmes' known vulnerability to right hands and how this somehow won't be a problem against Tyson. You've already said Holmes was shot and a "shell" when he fought Tyson. Did he manage to shake off being shot with a few tune-ups FOUR YEARS LATER? Are you really arguing that Holmes was shot when he lost to Tyson at 38 but not at 42? Or did a shell manage to beat Mercer and go the distance with Holyfield?