An unbiased evaluation of Tyson.

Tyson beat Holmes so decisively I find it difficult picturing him losing even if Larry trained his ass off for 6 months. I'm also of the school of thought that Tyson could well have beaten Holmes in his prime, if he got him hurt he wouldn't have let him off the hook. I know how great Larry was but as said, styles. Its not impossible to believe that Tyson could get inside and land something, then keep Larry hurt. Its all conjecture, I guess you could say Larry would out tough Mike and jab him to death, but imo Tyson could take this.

beating old fighters doesn't mean a hell of a lot in the big scheme of things but Larry did last pretty well after his prime years. How much was he really trained for Tyson is the question. using that fight as a conclusive measure of Tyson's greatness is difficult as people have an easy argument about Larry being old, and Larry himself will always say he didn't train. Thing I wonder about is he was never stupid, he was a very savvy guy, would he really go in there with two weeks of training against the divisions current killer? there must have been some prep.

 

The condition of Holmes takes nothing away from Tyson. Tyson just did his job.

 

I agree but what does that win mean is the question? Is it a signal that Tyson could have beaten prime Larry? if so then that enhances Tyson's legacy but there are many arguments against, that beating that version of Holmes don't mean much. personally i'm in the camp that thinks that win was significant

 

It depends on who you are asking. To me, it doesn't mean much.

 

Let me split the difference; I believe that peak to peak Tyson would be able to get through & table Holmes. But how can beating an ATG who was gradually fading the last several years & retired for several mean anything?

Holmes still was impressive for years because even reduced he was a contender quality fighter. The ability to do sowhen ancient is very impressive indeed, like Archie Moore & a few others. It does not show exactly how great he was against other ATGs in his prime. His style, not depending upon high enegry swarming, jab dependent, long, defensive...Carried over well to his 50's,

 

great thread

 

I just watched the Holmes fight with no sound and a few things struck me. One was that Tyson was a beast that night and I think he was in one of the most destructive moods of his career. When looking at the slow mo replay it looks as if Tyson literally wanted to kill Holmes, those punches were designed to enter Larry's body and come out the other side. When you look at that stuff its easy to be seduced by Tyson's brute force and think no one could handle it.

Another thing was that Larry just couldn't do anything with Mike, he was landing a few uppercuts and rights but they just bounced off, he must have been shitting himself because there was nothing he could do, he couldn't hurt Tyson or even slow him. So Mike was just walking through him. I think as time goes on people will examine performances like that and really see you had to be something special to keep this beast off, especially when he was in a mood like that.

 

Yep.

He broke him down. That was the one part of Tyson's game we really had not seen before. Systematically break a guy down. All those right hands to the body and then come over the top. Just like lots of guys had done to Holmes. But do it early in the round so he can't escape. And if you want to beat Larry Holmes, breaking him down is the way to go.

I just thought it was up there as probably the finest performance by Mike where they studied an opponent and carried out the tactics perfectly. The pre-fight preperations.....and that was the strongsuit of the opponent. But when that window of opportunity presented itself, did he ever take advantage.

And if a guy wants to beat Larry Holmes, that skill is an absolute requirement.

 

Substitute the names Douglas for Tyson, and Tyson for Holmes, and there you have it.

Nothing Tyson could have done in preparation could have prevented Douglas laying that beating on him in Tokyo that night.

 

I kind of take a middle ground with this one. I always felt that even fully trained and prepared Tyson would have had a tough fight with this version of Douglas. He was out matched in nearly all areas, that had to mean something. On the other hand we saw that Tyson had the power to hurt Douglas, its the old cliché of bringing up the 8 round KD.

Its reasonable to assume that Tyson could have done more damage if he was on. Many people believe he was fully trained and don't give him that excuse, personally I think its ridiculous not to say his prep had something to do with that performance. I think Douglas had the best style to best prime Tyson, he was big, strong and had the jab and combinations to keep him off, that night he was one of the special fighters that could tame the beast. But Mike wasn't really a beast in the sense he usually was, so I give Mike that possibility, but in no way say its clear cut.

One thing I'm convinced of is that Tyson would have taken the rematch in one or two rounds, as I don't believe Buster would have repeated that performance. He was a great fighter that night, but not a great fighter.

 

In Tysons autobiography, it says Richie Giachetti said before the Tyson fight, he saw a look in Holmes, a look that hed never seen before in any of Holmes' other fights, he said, it was the look of FEAR.

 

Because he knew he would have to endure a beating before he could cash his check.

 

or maybe it dawned on Holmes that he was about to come face to face with the most ferocious fighter that ever lived. Suddenly Holmes realised what hed got himself in for. Holmes ruled for so many years, made so many title defences but hed never fought anyone like Mike Tyson before or after