Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson

Swag

First of all

You appear to be a "know it all." Such people have trouble learning because they think they already know everything. As such, the people they denigrate as "trolls" and "knownothings" usually know more than they do.

You're also extremely immature in calling people who disagree with you ridiculous deriivatives of their handles.

I would venture you are not old enough and/or mature enough to hang with most of the people on here.

 

Explain how a thread to do with Tyson v Williams impacts upon Holmes v Tyson please .

 

Swag was right about the Tyson v. Williams / Holmes v. Tyson ****ogy in that Williams beating Tyson does not mean William would beat prime Tyson, just as Tyson beating Holmes does not IN ITSELF mean Tyson would beat prime Holmes.

Still, he's being a di$k calling you 'stupid.'

Of course, valid arguments can and have been made by several posters in this thread why prime Tyson could beat prime Holmes.
His logic is off in many of his posts in this thread, however.

Especially glaring, is his refusal to watch or acknowledge if he has watched, any prime Tyson fight (other than Douglas, when he had been slipping defensively post Rooney), where it is plain to see (against Tillis, Thomas, Biggs, Tucker) that Tyson has almost impenetrable defense, especially a great ability to slip a good jab).

He's the type who will start a thread, blast anyone who offers a post that contains a view contrary to his, and when someone makes a valid point that undermines his, he'll resort to hearsay such as "oh Holmes was sick against Weaver." When someone resorts to such tactics, you know you got 'em.

He also does not understand the meaning of term 'shot'

'shot' is when a fighter is DONE like post Braxton Saad Muhammad. It certainly does not apply to pre Tyson Holmes, or even post Tyson Holmes, for that matter.

 

While post Spinks Holmes was still an able opponent he was far from prime Holmes.

 

I'm not a Tyson fan. I wanted Bruno to beat him.

 

I don't hate Holmes. I would have rooted for him against Tyson and I felt he beat McCall in his comeback.

 

Nah it was just a tongue in cheek remark that you seemed to take seriously so I carried the joke on.

I do pick Tyson but not on the strength of his victory. I pick Tyson because whilst Holmes does have one of the best jabs in recorded history he had a tendency to get drawn into a fight and start exchanging. I don't see Larry having the discipline the jab and move for 12 full rounds.

I see Larry taking the early rounds as Buster did but as Tyson gets closer and slips his way into hooking range Larry will start to move less, he'll feel he has to get Mike's respect and to do that he's gonna have to start throwing right haymakers and commit to the body. By doing that he is gonna present Mike with more opportunities to counter over the top of him. At some point Mike catches Larry and hurts him, at thay moment Larry needs to decide whether he sticks and moves or whether he tries to Duke it out, I'm convinced he goes for the latter option presenting Tyson with a lot more opportunities leading to the ko blow.

Larry has all of the tools to beat Tyson, he has the size, the style, the speed and the movement but his fighting mentality will cost him imo.

Tyson tko9

 

That's true

That is one reason a prime/v prime matchup

1986-1988 Tyson v. Say 1979- 1982 Holmes would be a much tougher, more competitive fight than 1988 Tyson v 1988 Holmes. Tyson wouldn't be able to just walk through him.

Holmes showed vulnerabilities even his his prime that tell me it would be a competitive fight, with Mike having a good shot at winning. Those vulnerabilities have been described by several people earlier in the thread.

 

Holmes wins prime for prime.