Mike Tyson vs Larry Holmes | H2H (prime) and legacy discussion

I had Larry up in legacy but possibly loses head to head. Not guaranteed of course but….

 

I'm a big Holmes fan but I'll break it down in what I think is a non biased opinion.

H2H = I think Tyson beats any version of Holmes he was specifically trained in preparation to go against Holmes to counter over his sometimes lazy left hand in which actually happened in their actual fight. I think Tyson is too good of a finisher and would eventually catch Holmes and finish him off unlike Snipes, Shavers. But there is always a decent chance Holmes could extend the fight into the 2nd half and his chances of winning then greatly increase as Tyson wasn't known for late stoppages.

Legacy = I rate Tyson higher in the 80s based on the undefeated record and unifying the belts. But overall resume I have Holmes slightly ahead of Tyson based on more title wins, better longevity, more wins against ranked opposition.

 

It's close, honestly. H2H I definitely think Tyson has the lead. He has a style that would be hard for Holmes to deal with, and Holmes tended to get lazy and get caught in a lot of his fights (Weaver, Shavers, Snipes). If Tyson catches him, he’ll finish him as he did in their fight, there's a reason Tyson is the only man who was able to finish Holmes.

As for legacy, it's a lot closer than many people say. Tyson shares a lot of the same opponents Holmes does (Smith, Frazier, Berbick, Spinks, Williams) and fought some of the contenders Holmes avoided (Pinklon Thomas). In all of those, he looked much more impressive than Holmes, knocking out two guys who beat and arguably beat Holmes respectively (Spinks and Williams).

Of course, Holmes has a few more wins than Tyson and fewer losses in his prime. Even after his peak, he was still much more competitive with fighters like Holyfield than Tyson was. So in the end, it’s close. I think I’d say at their peaks, Tyson was definitely better, but Holmes was more consistent and had the longevity that Tyson never did, so it depends on what you value.

If you value dominant wins and who was better at their peak, then Tyson was better. If you value consistency and longevity, even though it wasn’t nearly as dominant, then Holmes is your guy.

 

Considering many people view Holmes as the 3rd best heavyweight on the sub it will look good if Tyson can hold up here.

 

Holmes both

 

Tyson wins H2H
Holmes better legacy overall with Tyson having a better peak
Both top 10 HW

 

If we're being realistic, prime for prime, I lean toward Holmes beating Tyson H2H, but Tyson still ends up behind Holmes in legacy.

At their absolute best, Holmes' jab, chin, and survival skills make him a brutal style matchup for Tyson. Mike had the speed, power, and explosiveness to trouble anyone early, but Holmes was incredibly hard to finish, had one of the best recoveries in heavyweight history, and knew how to weather early storms. He could box long, tie Tyson up when needed, and use his jab to disrupt Tyson’s rhythm before Mike got inside.

If Tyson didn’t get him out early, and against a prime Holmes, that's a massive "if", I think Holmes’ jab, gas tank, and composure take over as the rounds go deeper. You’d probably see Tyson have big moments early, but Holmes clawing it back late and winning a close but clear decision over 12 or stopping Tyson late over 15.

Legacy-wise, Holmes clearly edges it. Tyson burned hotter, no question, peak Tyson was an absolute wrecking machine, but Holmes had longevity, a decade of dominance, 20 title defences, and consistency Tyson never matched once the wheels started falling off. Holmes' résumé holds up better across time, even if Tyson's peak was higher.

So yeah, prime Holmes beats prime Tyson H2H, and Holmes wins the legacy argument too.

 

Good breakdown overall, you made fair points.

I agree Tyson was built stylistically to give Holmes huge problems early. His ability to slip the jab, close distance fast, and explode with counters would always be dangerous, especially against Holmes' sometimes lazy left hand like you said. Tyson’s finishing instincts were way sharper than guys like Shavers or Snipes too, if he hurt you, he didn’t let you off the hook.

But I still think prime Holmes isn’t the same target as the 1988 version. The real prime Holmes had better legs, better timing, and a lot more consistent survival instincts. Even if Tyson had big success early, which he probably would, keeping that up for 12 or 15 rounds against a guy with Holmes' jab and gas tank is a different animal. Holmes would start making Tyson reset more, slow him down with the jab and clinches, and once Tyson’s early explosiveness drops a little, the fight flips fast.

On legacy, yeah, Tyson was the king of the 80s for sure, unifying everything, but the overall body of work tips toward Holmes. More title defences, longer consistency at the top, beating multiple generations of contenders. Tyson’s peak was hotter, but Holmes' longevity and quality of wins last longer.

Close call H2H depending how the early rounds go, but overall I’d still slightly edge Holmes both ways.

 

Tyson top ten consensus wins with vote tally:

Larry Holmes 14
Tony Tucker 14
Trevor Berbick 14
Michael Spinks 14
Razor Ruddock I 12
Carl Williams 11
Pinklon Thomas 11
Bonecrusher Smith 9
Tyrell Biggs 9
Razor Ruddock II 8

Holmes top ten consensus wins with vote tally:
Norton-5
Witherspoon-5
Shavers 2-5
Cooney -5
Berbick-5
Leon Spinks-5
Bonecrusher-4
Mercer-4
Shavers 1-4
Weaver-4

In my book, Tyson by a good measure.

Also, Tyson was undisputed.

Head to head is speculative, but I think Tyson has the style to beat him, with every punch in the book, and thrown with speed and power.

 

I am a big fan of both; and found Tyson to be more entertaining and awe inspiring, but Holmes was a real winner who found ways to win even when adversity came his way, and he did it over a much longer period of time. Hence, I see him finding a way to beat Tyson even if he had to endure some bad rounds or bad moments.