Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson

Few get more overrated than Holmes. Went life and death with a faded Norton, life and death with the then completely unknown Weaver, life and death with the largely unproven Co oney. People build him up for beating Shavers, yet for all his power Earnie had major flaws. Ali, Lyle and Quarry all beat him before Holmes did. So did Bob Stallings and Ron Stander. Flattened by Snipes, who wasn't known as a puncher. Out-boxed to many eyes by inexperienced Spoon and Williams. Refused to face the other champions in the division and ditched his belt rather than meet his #1 contender. Instead about 15 of his fabled 20 title fights were against no hopers or novice level heavyweights. Tyson gets criticised for beating a "blown-up light-heavy" in Spinks, well that's the same guy Holmes picked to chase Marciano's record against.

 

Larry's the most overrated underrated heavyweight in history.

 

Holmes is both overrated AND underrated.

I do have him high on my head to head list but he did struggle with more opponents than he should have. He wasn't a very dominant heavyweight in the sense of steamrolling his opposition. To be fair he was on top for a very long time and claimed victory in 48 straight meetings while facing good competition.

Struggles with Norton, Weaver, Coo ney, Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon, Truth Williams is nothing to sneeze about. He came out on top with equal displays of talent, heart and skill. He found a way to win.

My only gripe about Holmes is he should've fought Pinklon Thomas. Now, both Mike Tyson and Holmes had relatively the same competition level. Where Tyson was more dominant, Holmes had longevity.

 

Opinions on Holmes tend to sway from polar ends of the spectrum with little or no middle ground.. There are some who place way too much stock in his longevity and numerous title defenses while others clobber him mercilessly for his failure to skip a mandatory here and there or deny the occasional rematch... I try to keep my rating and opinion of him somewhat balanced or as much as one can. Larry Holmes captured the heavyweight title from an aged yet still able bodied ken norton.. He defended his crown 19 times often taking on young prospects on the rise along with lots of big punchers many of whom went on to capturing title fragments of their own at some point.. He also fought and defended actively and proved still formidable well into his forties and during the star studed 1990's... Then again he also failed to unify the crown, was stripped of the one fragment he DID have and denied a few men deserved title fights. He also arguably received a gift or two.. All in all he makes my top five but probably no higher than perhaps #4. Great champion but one who has some noticeable holes in his legacy and certainly lacking in charisma.

 

That a pretty crazy comment. Louis was beaten by Marciano,Ali was beat by Berbick,

 

Thats a pretty crazy comment. Louis was beaten by Marciano,Ali was beat by Berbick, Leonard stopped by Camacho R.Jones was just stopped by a guy who wouldn't of lasted a round with him 20 yrs ago. Are you saying, and do you honestly believe a prime Holmes would've had the same results with Tyson. If you do believe that I own a bridge in Dabai I want to sell you.

 

Tyson in his prime is too fast for Holmes. I believe the opposite of most. It's Holmes who would slow down from the pressure. And eventually get caught.

 

Tyson's style was designed to dissect Holmes. That's what Cus was teaching him. Would he pull it off? I think so but it's hard to say.

 

did louis come back 5 years later and beat a top ranked HW?
did ali come back 5 years after berbick?


no, but Holmes came back 5 years after tyson and did it. Please, where in Easton can you get these magic pills that turn you from "shot at 38" to "Back at 42". And don't give me the tune up BS excuse. if he had a few tune ups they would just blame the tuneups for aging him EVEN MORE in the ring for tyson.

 

Sure that happened but still Tyson was at the top of his game, Holmes was 8 to 10 yrs beyond his. And yes a tune-up could of made a difference, you just don't come off the street to fight the best heavyweight in the world without real preparation. Yes he was successful later against top 10 competition. But he had been fighting against sub par competition before his next ranked opponent after Tyson thus proper preparation.

 

Sorry I don't wanna buy a bridge.

 

8 to 10 years before he didn't look any better IMO. hE PROBABLY would have been Ko'ed by a 14 year old Tyson TBH