Prime Larry Holmes vs Prime Mike Tyson

Mike tyson would win via 12 rd decision.........mike tyson aint mike weaver and mike weaver gave holmes fits........i luv larry holmes/but mike tyson would win by decision.

 

The 6'1" Tillis was 207, Holyfield, 215 for Tyson I. Holmes was 217 for the Cobb shutout.

"THE punch?" No one punch could ever do this to a prime Holmes, or Shavers and Snipes would have dethroned him. Weaver would shortly bomb out both Tate and Coetzee with single shots, but he couldn't drop Holmes, who wound up stopping Hercules as the result of a single uppercut himself (in his worst title fight performance until Witherspoon). Larry wasn't Lennox Lewis. Shavers and Cooney desperately tried to get inside and work his body until landing a punch upstairs, to no avail. Earnie wound up winning but one out of 22 completed rounds for his trouble. Mike was not a true infighter like Frazier, but a mid range puncher, like Foreman.

For a prime Holmes, with the best jab in division history, a reach advantage of ten inches is an awesome gap for Tyson to overcome.

Drawing conclusions according to the match they had in 1988 is akin to asserting that Danny Williams, Kevin McBride and Lennox would have always stopped a prime Tyson, or that Holmes would have always stopped Ali. It's ludicrous. Larry Holmes, in 1988, was DISSIPATED from two years of drinking, pleasure and soft living. Starting with his next comeback in 1991, he was taking far better care of himself.

 

Holmes wins.

 

He forgot to mention, he fought a 12 round exhibition three months prior to entering training for Tyson and looked pretty good.
The bottom line is he got nailed by a very quick righthand and he was hurt. Tyson finished him because he was a great finisher, greater than Shavers or Snipes. If Tyson hurt Larry like he did in his prime it would have been the same outcome.

 

How fighters do in exhibitions is not a good indicator of what they will do in a fight. Holmes was regularly sparring up until about 4-5 years ago, but it does not mean he was in any kind of fighting shape. He fought an exhibition 6 years ago but again, it does not give much of an indicator of how he would do in a real fight.

 

Sorry it was a 15 round exhibition. You gotta be in some kind of shape to go 15. I understand completely what an exhibition is, the point was he wasnt drug out of a nightclub and thrown into the fight. People downplay it because Tyson stopped him in four rounds and noone else could. Im not saying Holmes was at his sharpest, but he was as good as he was during his comeback. 3:45

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m861f99Nkvk[/ame]

 

Yes you need to be in good shape to go 15, but it also hardly means he was sharp or in fighting condition either. The Holmes of the Tyson fight would lose to the Holmes of the Mercer and Holyfield fights. He might have looked physically better against Tyson because he was a bit younger and weighed 5lbs less, but he was still in better shape and much sharper for the major comeback fights than he was against Tyson. No matter how much sparring a fighter does it will not shake off the rust like fighting does. For whatever reason sparring is simply not enough.

 

Well your entitled to your opinion. Holmes was about 8 pounds heavier when he faced Mercer, and if you factor in the exhibition and training camp, his time off most likely didnt produce as much rust as you think? I think he actually fought pretty well against Tyson, he just go caught by a very good righthand.

Each additional year for a 38 year old becomes a dog year and he was laid off quite a bit more post Tyson. I dont think Holmes was any sharper post Tyson, Tyson was just that good, at that time, but thats just my opinion..

 

:good agreed

 

I think Holmes did ok in the 3rd and did good at the start of the 4th before he had to go flatfooted again. Post Tyson Larry didn't fight for another 3 years, but he eased his way back into fighting, he fought some clubfighters and journeymen to get some rounds in to get back into the swing of fighting, the exact opposite of what he did for his fight with Tyson.

Eitherway I think any version other than the Holmes of 1978-1982 was going to lose to the 1988 Mike Tyson, but I think Holmes could've made a better fight of it had he taken a warm up fight or two and was in fighting shape, not just in shape.

 

Let me just add that dont you think a pretty green Mercer and lighter punching less pressure fighting Holyfield, allowed Holmes to fight a more "Holmes" style fight?
A 22 year old bulldog Tyson wasnt going to let a 37 or 40 year old Holmes ever settle into his fight, Holmes was just too old and slow to deal with the kind of pressure Tyson could bring.

 

Tyson wasnt even in his prime when he fought ***** green, he was still improving at that point

 

I think Holmes was able to fight his fight against Mercer more so than Holyfield. Both did not apply the fast paced pressure that the prime Tyson that Holmes fought did, but either way any version other than a prime Holmes was going to lose to the Tyson of 1988.

 

When fighting mediocre, average, merely-okay opposition, Holmes looked like a million dollars. The meetings with Cobb, Marvis and Shavers are proof, but, when discussing a bout with Mike Tyson, I believe it more useful to compare how the two styles would mesh in the ring.

Even at his best, Larry Holmes always evidenced a vulnerability to punchers. Twice –as champion—he came close to being stopped by a single right hand. This is important, because it clears away the fog of confusion that will have us believe Holmes is Muhammad Ali in the chin department. False. Ali took a punch and mugged, basically shrugging bombs off. From Ken Norton, to Mike Weaver, to Gerry Cooney, Holmes took a hard punch and it hurt him, patently upsetting his rhythm and giving his opponent control of the moment.

But Holmes, an extraordinary boxer with decent –never great-- power, always quickly regained control. His attackers, after all, were never great fighters, great finishers, like a Joe Frazier, Foreman, or Mike Tyson.

Snipes and Shavers dropped Holmes with thunderous right hands, coming within inches of victory. Well, suddenly-discombobulating right hands are a Mike Tyson specialty. But, whereas Snipes and Shavers followed up haphazardly and ineffectually, Mike Tyson was, next to Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey, perhaps the greatest finisher among the heavyweight champions. In fact, any reference to Tyson’s utter stoppage of Holmes within two minutes must only underline the fact that the vastly resourceful Holmes tried everything to survive, and was crushed.

The first Tyson right that floored Holmes in their actual fight was not a product of capitalization on age-related weakness, but on an ingrained tendency: Holmes would tend to stand and lean his head a bit forward, within punching range, his left hand raised miles away from his chin.

To win, Holmes would have to start with a blistering offense, cutting Tyson down physically and thus mentally, en route to stopping a totally hollowed-out foe around the tenth round.

But he will not be able to deploy such an offense without being in the firing line of Tyson’s arsenal. While Tyson can take Holmes’ offense for ten rounds, Holmes could be winning handily and suddenly get caught with a game-changing right at any time within the first eight rounds.

This would be the end because of another ingrained tendency: Holmes always fought back like a wild man when hurt. Tyson, a great counterer off misses, would study him and deliver the knockout as he did in their real fight.

Holmes has the bigger balls as a fighter. No question. But this is also true of Joe Frazier as compared to George Foreman, yet styles make fights.

 

Unbelievable Post and Arguements. In total agreement. I rate Holmes # 4 all time and Tyson # 7. But I feel Tyson matches up favorable to Holmes, as I feel strong, fast swarmers with ATG finishing ability and a big right hand will beat Holmes.