Prime Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson

he did

 

I know. I was using that to point out the stupidity in the argument that Machen wouldn't go the distance with Tyson on the sole basis of his performance against Ingo.

 

I wonder if Ingo was the lucky punch, didn't-see-it-coming type fighter. Because from what I've seen, he didn't seem to have the kind of grip on leverage that, say, Liston and Tyson did. He had at times a really nice, perfectly placed shot of course.

And wasn't Ingo a bit of a one trick pony in general? I'm open to schooling.

 

Tbh, I think it was a fluke. Ingo was still relatively unknown at the time so Machen didn't respect his power at all. BIG mistake. Machen pursed a rematch which Ingo mysteriously (and imo wisely) reneged on after agreeing with it in the contract. Machen would've won the rematch comfortably imo.

 

I'm not arguing Tyson hit harder than Shavers i am merely laughing at Shavers hitting harder because some machine said so. I'm not at all convinced it even happened.

Earnie wasn't a "scientific" anything and he was sure as heck not as accurate as Tyson. I don't think this could even begin to be debated.

I know you weren't referring to me but you've come out with a lot of rather wild stuff yourself to put it mildly.

We were definitely talking heavyweights, surely.

They are simply the ones i want you to show where they were "down, cut badly, or behind on points and come back" as blatantly stated by your good non psycho self.

Now upon questioning you massively backtrack and say "most of the fighters i listed were not in those kinds of situations"!!!

That's one helluva about face. I'm going to stick to your original statement below.

So Liston fails under your claimed criteria, obviously.

I believe Liston had plenty of heart but again he does not fit your model.

So he doesn't fit either.

Another that doesn't fit. I'm not sure what chin claim you are talking about.

I'll pay Seldon. Realistically it was just a close fight where one guy stopped the other in the second half.

Mercer is a fit then. When you say back and forth slugfests was Tyson - Ruddock not a bit back and forth? You've previously discounted Ruddock as mediocre or something yet you've been big upping the likes of Seldon, Cooper, Marshall and Damiani. Strange balance going on there.

A no fit then.

Thomas has a fantastic chin. Probably a fit too.

Witherspoon had a fine chin but i am not sure how you've become fixated on chins when that is not the debate. With me anyway.

You should have realized Holmes hurt Witherspoon but obviously didn't. It wasn't just fatigue that had him backing off. A no fit by the looks.

It most certainly looks that way.

 

Well your descriptions are mighty peculiar.

 

Ok.

Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Foreman, Young!, Holmes, Holyfield, McCall! (old mates sparring partner), Mercer and Bowe would beat Tyson "any day in the week".

Tyson could "probably" beat the juggernaut that was Chuvalo but it's 50/50.

You would favor (i think, vaguely, maybe, possibly) Machen!, Lyle, Witherspoon and Frazier.

You've said it peeves you when people pick Tyson in fights but can't give a decent explanation of how he wins.

I'd be most intrigued in an enlightening of exactly how Jimmy Young, Ray Mercer and Eddie Machen beat Tyson.

 

Your narrative is spot on and it's one of the bigger problems i have too. Holmes dances around jabbing peoples heads off while taking nothing in return and then swoops in to stop them later on. This is against ATG's like Tyson, Liston, Foreman, Holyfield etc etc etc. In the real world however he had some trouble with average to good fighters. That's always refuted with flu's, torn biceps (tho the prognosis was he might lose 5% of function late in the fight), under prepared etc. This is for wins not losses. The narrative is akin to 1 + 1 = 3.

 

Cus died 11 months after Tyson turned pro. He had groomed Rooney to be his protege and the Cus style was very unique and very structured.

Rooney in reality took him to the title. Losing Cus to death was obviously more devastating than losing Rooney as a trainer but it was not more detrimental in a boxing sense so i'm not really sure many would agree with the underlined.

Losing Rooney as a trainer was just one part of it. Tyson's support system was steadily dismantled and he was a mental midget really, unable to deal with fame, fortune, Givens and the like. For all his ferocity in the ring he was pretty fragile. His rise and fall is well documented. Plenty of top athletes have fell off the cliff at a young age. The likes of Holmes and Ali etc come from a much different background. Holmes did it the hard way over time and for him that worked perfectly. This of course doesn't mean he necessarily beats Tyson at his best. Maybe he does maybe he doesn't it's an open guess.

 

He did? One for Ovah to add to his list.

 

Anyone dong sure that either guy wins this match is kidding themselves. That much is blatantly obvious.

 

Really? You've been backing Holmes all the way in anything and everything yet say he did not have good ring IQ. This confuses me greatly.

 

Losing Jimmy Jacobs was important as well imo.

 

When people are seriously putting forward George Chuvalo as 50/50 with Tyson, and Mercer and McCall as guaranteed Tyson losses, you have to wonder. George frickin' Chuvalo, basically a latter day Joe Grim who was losing all through his career (and it never took an all-time great to do it) and was brutally TKO'd in a few rounds by Foreman and Frazier, is 50/50 to beat Tyson. Mercer was doing so badly against Jesse Ferguson he was trying to bribe him to take a dive in the ring! But he's a lock to beat Tyson as well.

Still, it's a relief to know that Mike would beat Doug Jones.

 

That whole support network. He was high maintenance.