I could imagine Holmes outpointing Tyson but my general feeling is Tyson would get the KO. Tyson would most likely be able to take Larry's punches, so in effect would stalk him like he did in their actual fight. Holmes might land some decent punches but I dont think it would be enough to deter Mike and at some point he would hurt Holmes. Tyson being the finisher he was wouldn't let him off the hook. You could be forgiven for thinking Holmes might survive the onslaught, as he had recovered from that unbelievable Savers punch. but the difference is Tyson wasnt Shavers by a long shot, he was able to finish a guy off without gassing. Larry was tough though, unbelievable heart and fighting spirit, so I do sway at times and think he might get the points win with his movement and ring craft. but when pushed my heads with Tyson.
It was a great blue print and no doubt would work against any version of Tyson, but its arguable he wasn't at his best that night. many might not agree, but that doesn't mean its not arguable. So for me that comparison isn't clean cut.
Yea im saying its not prime but the blueprint was there. Tucker did a version of it but he just wasnt good enough. A prime Holmes is on another level of guys like Tillis Tucker and Douglas. I really think people forget how great Holmes was at his peak. All this talk about Holmes was made for a Tyson. Complete bull sh#t. Prime 4 prime Larry stops him late.
I agree Holmes was awesome, I recently watched a load of his fights and its easy to forget the mans skill level. I just think Tyson had the style to give him major problems, Holmes was susceptible to that right hand, which would likely land at some point. I don't really think those guys had a real blue print, they kind of irritated Tyson but he was never in real trouble, they didn't assert themselves near enough. I'm not convinced Larry had the power to KO prime Tyson, I could see him winning on points if he managed to avoid Tyson's power for that long but again I'd find it hard to believe he wouldn't get hurt bad at some point.
Douglas who is bigger than Holmes but only half as talented KO'd a still very good version of Tyson. Douglas didnt have a jab on the same level as Holmes yet he controlled him with it. He also didnt have as much power with the cross and uppercut nor did he have his chin yet he knocked out Mike. Yet your gonna tell me Holmes couldnt do what Douglas did? I have to vehemently disagree
Question: If Spinks stopped Tangstaad then how in the world did he lose to Mike Tyson....i've lost many a nights sleep trying to solve that riddle!
the problem with Holmes fighting Tyson was, that punch he was hit with was not landed because of age. Mike found the opening.
Fair enough. Personally I think Tokyo Douglas gets underrated, you cant say it was a decent version of Tyson without admitted Douglas must have been pretty good to pull off that upset over a dominant champ. Tokyo Douglas would give any all timer a hard night in my view, including Holmes. He had damn near everything that night, including power and a great jab.
Holmes was highly susceptable to right hands even when prime. He dropped his left hand dangerously low at times. Unlike Shavers and Snipes, Tyson was a great finisher.
People bring up Shavers all the time but Holmes schooled him and was in no real trouble whatsoever the first time they met, and did something similar for the first six rounds of the second encounter. It took Shavers 19 rounds to find Holmes like that. I wouldn't expect Holmes to get so careless or complacent against Tyson as he did with Snipes either. Could Tyson catch him with a knockdown punch ? Yes, of course that could happen. Was Tyson a great finisher ? Yes, but Holmes was a great survivor too .... and obviously there are limits and uncertainties to both those. A prime Holmes is a completely different proposition to the one Tyson faced in 1988. He'd actually be landing sharp punches and breaking Tyson's rhythm from early on. He'd be defensive for a while and come on strong as Tyson becomes more predictable.
I think a lot of people are influenced by the 1988 fight when they imagine a prime v prime match. And to be fair, remembering a prime Tyson involves remembering that fight. But that was a shadow of Holmes he was up against, no relation to the Holmes of 10 years earlier.
Or maybe they've added up the sum of parts and formed their own conclusion. Just because it differs from yours doesn't make it wrong or fundamentally flawed.
I was clearly addressing the ones who are influenced by the 1988 fight. I think some people are, because there is often much mention of it to support their conclusion whenever this discussion takes place. And this thread has been done dozens of times and that's just an observation. I don't know if they're "wrong" or "fundamentally flawed". Yes, I'm contrasting with my opinion. It's a fantasy fight. There's no wrong or right.
