80s Tyson vs 80s Holmes

A 1980 Holmes and 1988 Mike would have been a great, great fight. I'd actually rather see that than even my "other" desert island fantasy fight: Holmes Foreman.

Ultimate boxer-puncher showdown!

 

God, it would have lit up the public’s imagination as brightly as Holmes-Cooney did!

 

Prime Holmes vs prime Tyson? If the bell rings for round 6 Holmes takes a decision.

 

I am not underrating Tyson's power, but simply making proper judgement on how strong Tyson was when compared to other all time great punchers. Going not only off of visible assessments but also given statements FROM PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT TYSON- Tyson was an inferior puncher to men like Jeff Sims, men like James Smith, and men like Tommy Morrison in his own era. He is obviously leagues above all of these men in strategy, skill, and everything else, and yet he is still below them strength wise. An old George Foreman had a rightful claim to the title "Strongest Puncher of the 90s" going off of statements given, and a younger version of him was inferior strength wise to Earnie Shavers- But prime Tyson, a man rated under many other punchers of his own time, is stronger than him? Give me a break.


Holmes was more often than not dropped by the types that I refer to, just as Ali was exclusively dropped by left hooks, both men had been shaken up otherwise, but had a defined weakness to specific types of punches. It is easily seen when you go through and look at who dropped Homes, and if you really can't see a pattern like that, then your mind is rigid and dead set on not seeing it.

When a man is "weak" to a specific punch, it doesn't mean that they take double the ****ing damage from it, but that they are defensively weak to it, Holmes was weak to punchers like that because he adopted an offensive version of Ali's style and would leave himself in positions where heavy handed fighters could blast him, whereas Ali was weak defensively to left hooks because he'd drop his right hand.
Is what I'm telling you that hard to understand?

And I agree with you there, but it seemed like a complete mockery of what I was saying when you stated that Tyson was a more destructive puncher than Shavers.
I use the labels "explosive" and "destructive" to highlight the difference between strong punchers, with explosive punchers having strong punches, but getting more leverage off of their own because the opponent doesn't see them coming, and therefore they will be more outwardly dangerous in most cases- Whereas destructive punchers are those with extremely heavy hands that can knock you out even if you can see and do prepare to take their punches, simply because of how strong they are.
You can make this comparison with whoever, as dangerous as men like Joe Frazier are, they are not as strong as men like Earnie Shavers, or Ron Lyle, or even Gerry Cooney. George Foreman made that distinction, Muhammad Ali made that distinction, and yet it still seems somehow hard to believe.

 

Fair points. I favor guys like Tyson and Louis over Holmes due to much of this.

 

You said "all the men that hurt and dropped a prime Holmes" were "superior punchers to Tyson".

This is blatantly false. As a said you are underrating Tyson's power. The rest is filler. Guys like Norton, Snipes and Witherspoon are not harder punchers than Tyson.

Again, Holmes didn't fight Frazier or you'd almost certainly have to sing from a different songbook. Holmes fought plenty of the types you are claiming and no Tyson/Frazier types, well he did fight Tyson post prime.

You aren't picking up what i am putting down.

Did someone say they take "double the ****ing damage from it"?

Holmes got blasted by left hooks and put into trouble by them. Again, Frazier was the best left hooker ever per utilization and is quite a unique heavyweight......tho green he used to put loads of heat on Holmes in sparring to where Holmes had the utmost respect for the man.

This isn't hard to understand. If you think Holmes could fight Frazier and not take loads of left hooks you are wrong.

If you are going to accuse get it right. I said, and i quote, "Shavers was and a more "dangerous" puncher because he was simply so much better."

This is unerringly correct. It's part of why Tyson was a much greater fighter than Shavers, levels above.

I know what categories punchers fall into. The whole point is you underrate Tyson's raw power which you do.

 

Tyson's power is quite underrated by some nowadays. Sure his speed and combinations were a big factor in his success, but he also had plenty of one shot power, as demonstrated against Berbick, Tubbs, Williams, Tillman, Botha and Etienne. And I can't recount how many times he knocked down or hastened his opponents demises with one shot.

 

Tyson all life.

 

Norton was a notoriously hard puncher that was able to break a prime Ali's jaw, Witherspoon had a devastating overhand that knocked out a prime Tillis in one and hurt every high class opponent he faced, Weaver was able to stop Mercado, and Snipes is really the only outlier here, so my claim was wrong, but I still believe that the other three have superior punching power to Tyson.

I believe that the Tyson fight is enough evidence to show that if an off the couch Holmes could suffocate Tyson's offense for multiple rounds in a losing effort, a prime Holmes would be able to do much better to both him and Frazier. His style is just wrong for the two of them, a more offensive version of Ali with the grappling and guard manipulation of Foreman, it wouldn't be a pretty sight.

I said "double the ****ing damage" because it seemed like you really didn't understand what I was saying.
I guess I'm wrong.

I was going off of memory of what you said there, sorry for getting it wrong.
I'm never gonna claim that Shavers was better than Tyson, I was just saying that he had the superior punch.

And it really seemed like you didn't.

 

Prime Larry Holmes that beat Shavers would beat prime Tyson.

 

Norton was a pretty hard puncher but he was never considered a puncher. Witherspoon did hit hard, harder than Norton i reckon. Despite some good ko's i still wouldn't out and out label him a puncher. He caught Page with his best punches and didn't make him blink and the same occurred with Pinklon Holmes. The massive majority would certainly not consider Witherspoon the puncher Tyson was, not a chance.

Weaver has a big punch, absolutely. One could put up for debate his best single punches were comparable to Tyson's. He has a couple of good one punch KO's and some impressive stoppages.

So we will have to agree to disagree on Norton, Witherspoon and Weaver punching harder than Mike Tyson.

Holmes fought mostly to survive and spoil and still had miles of experience, durability and awkwardness. He was still a very hard man to stop as proven for years thereafter. Holyfield didn't even really get him in trouble. I think Tyson at his best meshes vs Holmes just fine. You can make a good argument for either and for me personally i liked more of that i saw from Tyson in that bout. He pressured while staying patient, utilized his own jab, worked the body and basically fought the perfect fight.

All good.

It's all good, no worries at all. Been there done that. Yeah Shavers has as good as or better claims than anyone ever to being the hardest puncher in history.

I rate Shavers #1 for power and have stated that for near 20 years in here as well as starting thread on it.

 

I quite agree, although I thought Ettiene laid down.

 

Peak vs peak, I’ve got Larry. No walk in the park mind you. I see him boxing with a good dose of practical caution through about 6 rounds and then incrementally pulling ahead of Mike and ultimately dominating in the very later rounds.

 

Not lying, I thought that too but looking at how his leg twisted during his fall, there's no doubt that he was hit hard + Etienne did the removing of his mouthpiece in others fights too.

 

Holmes would've taken Tyson very seriously. But Mike was 5'10" if that, and had a 70 inch reach, with a peek-a-boo stance. Bonecrusher showed how easily Mike got frustrated by clinching, and an unprepared and rusty Larry had some success with that in their actual bout, lasting 45 seconds between the second and third knockdowns and coming within a ropes caught right uppercut and five seconds from surviving round four.

Snipes was 6'2" and never provided any indication he could punch like that, yet the knockdown round was the only one he won over Holmes. Evangelista said Renaldo was the hardest puncher he faced, and Snipes did drop the durable Berbick, the only guy to do that other than Mercado and Tyson. The long armed Shavers caught Larry once in 23 rounds and it was the only round Earnie won between them. (Nobody else dominated prime Shavers over multiple rounds like this.)

Nobody of Tyson's height and reach took on Homes from Shavers I until Mike himself. Either Tyson's not getting close enough, or he gets clinched if he does. And Larry did have that experience of sparring Frazier, a far greater and tougher fighter. (Mike relied too often on that huge shot, and he didn't have that level of power, being naturally more attrition oriented.) Again, finishing Holmes off when they did square off wasn't that easy for him, and he was somewhat lucky he did before round four ended.

Peak for peak, he's not surprising Larry, will have trouble getting close enough with his lack of height and reach, Holmes has too many survival skills and recuperative powers if Tyson does manage to catch him, then, Mike has to also get past what many here have called the greatest jab of all time, regardless of weight.

Nor was pre incarceration Tyson some kind of irresistible force, as Tillis, Blood Green, Bonecrusher, a one armed Tucker, Douglas or Ruddock demonstrated. (and Ruddock I was a premature BS stoppage, as Ruddock II proved).

Tyson's not somehow magically winning if he manages to reach the final bell. And there's no solid evidence he stops Larry aside from the situation where they actually did square off, with Mike at his peak and a rusty Holmes trying to box on his toes as if he was still in his 20's and early 30's. (Even then, remember that Larry actually did win two of the first three rounds against one of the two fastest starting HW Champions in history at his very peak.)

Following Tyson-Tillis and Tyson-Green, pundits were comparing Mike's power to Frazier's, not Foreman's or Lyle's, a more sober assessment validated by the issues he had with Bonecrusher, a one armed Tucker, Douglas and Ruddock 2X. (And if Tucker could suddenly rally from way behind to suddenly stop Buster, a subpar Tyson would've done it if all the mythology and mystique surrounding him was truly as valid as his fanboys like to claim.)

Favoring peak Tyson over peak Holmes means rationalizing that Mike had GOAT finishing ability like peak Louis or peak Liston if he did get Larry in trouble. Yet again, Holmes got through 45 seconds and within five seconds and a caught right uppercut of reaching round five. (Even then, from ringside, Michael Spinks yelled at him when round four began, "What are you doing? CONCENTRATE!!!")

Straight up, a competition active Larry at 42 did do better against Holyfield (coming off Mercer) than a post incarceration Tyson later would at age 30 (in a bout Mike was heavily favored to win and was defending Champion) and still 30 again. You want to spout about the actual bout Holmes and Tyson had in Mike's favor for prime for prime, then spout about their respective performances against Evander much closer together in time and activity, with Tyson a dozen years younger than Larry.