We're talking 86-88 Tyson here, not the defensively deficient, homerun seeking, rudderless guy who fought Douglas.
exactly, and another point is this: Where is this monster prime holmes everyone is talking about? A young Holmes had problems with a lot of fighters. I think we are also forgetting his controversial decisions vs wither spoon or the fact that his two best wins were Shavers who was already figured out by Quarry and Ali and a Norton who was getting up there and already beaten much more thoroughly by Foreman. I don't know how you can objecitvely and honestly look at a young Holmes struggling against an Old Norton and figure it so you end up with Holmes UD Tyson. The evidence I just presented plus the evidence of their actual fight only points to one conclusion and that is that Holmes would lose to tyson AGAIN. I really don't know how you can see it any other way.
A Shavers who was the hardest hitter the heavyweight division has ever seen. Larry Holmes had an arm injury when he fought Norton. Douglas vs Tyson. Nuff said. You'll list Holmes' weaknesses but you won't however, do the same with Tyson. Don't worry, I'll save you trouble. :good James "Buster" Douglas, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, James Tillis, Carl Williams, Tyrell Biggs, and Pinklon Thomas, all presented problems for Tyson or beat him. What do these men have in common? They possessed some of Holmes's attributes. Also, Tyson enjoyed a HUGE intimidation factor over most of his opponents. You can forget that here. Of all the heavyweight champions I've ever seen. I could argue that, with the exception of Joe Frazier, Larry Holmes has shown the least amount of fear. Tyson's record against "Holmes-like" opponents, is not very good. Holmes' record against "Tyson-esque" opponents is very good. Why? Is your DVD player busted up? Anyone else can see, Douglas handing Tyson's ass to him. Everything Douglas did Holmes did better.
Shavers is overrated and was already beaten worse by lyle and Quarry. Norton was past his best and was never a puncher and he rocked Holmes. You bring up fights from after Tyson prime. I only brought up fights from a prime late 70's Holmes. The trouble holmes had with a limited guy in Shavers and an Old Guy in Norton is MUCH MORE telling than a small frustration vs Quick Tillis. And Please stop saying ATG puncher in Shavers, for all of his power he lacked the boxing IQ and ability. If this is Larry's signature win than I'm sorry it's pathetic.
Shavers himself is overrated? Or his punching power? Either way, I disagree. Norton was never a puncher? He broke Ali's jaw. He was the only man to do so. He also stopped Ron Stander. Ron Stander had an iron chin. Shavers himself couldn't crack his jaw and ended up getting knocked out. When Tyson was at the ripe old age of 23, undefeated and a 42:1 favorite? A small frustration? You're the one who bought Shavers up. Not me. Nobody is talking about his boxing IQ and ability anyways. We're talking about his punching power.
And Holmes didnt get up vs Tyson, he got up vs Shavers, so that should tell you something right there. check the scoreboard
I pick Tyson. Tyson was too fast and I didn't see an endurance problem til Douglas. He fought completely different from Douglas including Douglas on. He was more upright and less head movement less combinations. Why. . Because he got lazy and arrogant
This is dishonest, revisionist, bull**** of the worse kind. Tyson knocked him down in round 4 when Holmes arm got caught in the rope, and Holmes got up. Here's a video of it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W8RQyP_BdOE Holmes clearly got up and you're acting like it never happened. It is outright lying.
The 1981 Holmes would beat Tyson points or late stoppage would be a very hard fought contest .Holmes would not be intimadated by Tyson could see Larry getting up to win would box like buster did hard jab and big rights locking Mike up in close.think Larry would do it the bloke had bal1s like king kong would not give up.