In their fight Holmes was clearly past his prime, he was flat footed and he barely threw his jab. I do favour Tyson prime for prime, you need to push Tyson back and Holmes didn't have the power or the strength to do that IMO.
I'm inclined to believe this. Mike caught Larry on the downside, just at the right time. A prime Holmes is a whole different beast.
I don't see prime Holmes avoiding being hit by peak Tyson cleanly to the jaw. Surely he'd be more competitive but it won't be enough to win
Holmes was past his prime since 1982 and ready to be taken since at least 1984. That's why he was cherry picking in the later stages of his career. 2 year inactivity didn't do him any good either.
Holmes at his very best can go the distance and lose a UD. I just don’t see how he can win. He just doesn’t have the power to truly keep Tyson off him. sometimes someone just has your number. I believe Tyson was that for Holmes. meanwhile, Holyfield was for Tyson. A 10 years past his best Holmes went the distance with Holy, won 4-5 rounds, was never hurt or in danger. In fact, I think Holyfield always loses to a prime Holmes. Styles makes fights. Just how it goes.
Holmes was on the slide when he scored a win over a young, hungry, well-conditioned version of Tim Witherspoon, better than any of Tyson's prime wins. And yeah, I know it was a split decision, but Holmes soundly outboxed him. It wasn't close, despite what the commentators might have one believe. Tim's technical skills, counterpunching, and strong resume were better than Berbick, Smith, or Tucker combined.
The reason why I say Holmes would beat Mike Tyson, was because he never had the conditioning. He had bad stamina, most fighters lost to him because they didn't go the later rounds. Larry Holmes does bad at the start, but in round 6 he starts to pick up.