Do you agree with Mike Casey that Tyson's stoppage of a past it Larry Holmes was not an aberration

I think honestly Tyson being one of the best finishers ever, is what edges it for me in Tyson's favour. Whilst you rightly say Holmes had tremendous heart in recovering from sticky situations. But you could say fighters like green Witherspoon, Weaver before his peak, wern't the deadly finishers like Tyson was. And I think we've discussed the Shavers fight before, that yes Shavers obviously hit tremendously hard. But when he tried to finish off Holmes he did it in a very sloppy manner, and I think if Tyson is in that situation he finishes the job.

As I've said a few times Holmes was a great champion, but he could also be quite a vulnerable champion aswell. And I feel like at some point Tyson will catch Holmes, and I don't think Holmes would be able to recover the situation like he did vs the likes of Weaver, Witherspoon, Shavers, etc.

 

Shavers may have been a harder puncher than Tyson, but Tyson was much faster and had way better head movement. He put his punches together in rapid combinations. Could a prime Holmes have done much better? I'm not so sure. I think Tyson wears him down in the later rounds. Let's not forget, Tyson fought men who were bigger and stronger than Larry, so Holmes would have be on point for 12 rounds if he expects to survive or even beat Tyson.

 

Guy's I believe were talking the best Holmes ( say 78 - 80 ) vs the best Tyson ( essentially the version that did fight Holmes ) ... that is a match up of two of the five all time great H2H heavyweights and one that could go either way in my opinion ... great arguments can be made for each fighter .... I truly don't know ..

 

i agree with @he grant that it could go either way. but part of me also thinks Tyson would too easily poke holes in Larry's guard and cut the ring off on him. Tyson's so precise in his prime and Larry's rather open guard will always present problems, I just don't see Holmes taking the win more often than not.

 

I think the consensus ten+ years ago was that Tyson would lose. Tyson is more favored now.

 

If they had never fought, it would be fair of course for anyone to reason a Tyson win based on all other information.

But the platform of this thread is that their actual fight in 88 gave information as to how a prime vs prime would’ve fallen into Mike’s favour also. I totally disagree with that.

I find it ironic that Mike’s deemed and abbreviated prime is treated like a faberge egg, not to be moved, modified or scratched in any way.

But here we have a prime Holmes losing points due to the performance of a 38 year old, inactive and ill prepared Holmes. We also have performances at age 35 and 36 being called in to Larry’s detriment.

Speed and reflex are crucial - old Holmes was clearly degraded in those areas and not even tuned into his 38 yo potential at any rate - totally unrelated to perceived stylistic disadvantages.

You could see Holmes once laser jab was that much slower and off the mark. His excellent right cross was notably slower and lacking the old accuracy. Holmes also tried to incorporate the uppercut with some measure of success.

Holmes plan was obviously to jab and try on the right and uppercut as and when opportunities presented. Otherwise, Larry opted to clinch but not overly imo. Imo, Holmes appeared to actually tune himself in better over the brief rounds the fight lasted.

After round 3, did it appear that Mike was going to necessarily end it in the next round? Personally, I don’t think so. Mike simply landed a great right hand with Holmes curiously leaning in to bridge the distance. Was old Holmes getting quite tired? Likely.

Also note that Mike was showing hints of frustration in the first few rounds - Larry was evading him pretty well - which saw Tyson, gum shield bared, beckoning Larry to “come and fight”.

Mike also introduced the forearm to the neck several times - and copped a warning for same. There were a few shots south of the border also - and a punch after the bell but Larry’s punch just prior was also after the bell - but barely so but Mike’s own after bell punch could’ve been seen as tit for tat.

It also seems remiss not to account for the resilience, recuperative abilities and fight back potential of the prime Holmes. When hurt, Larry himself could become that much more dangerous. I know this has been cited as a potential weakness vs Mike, but I think the threat cuts both ways.

I’m not going to argue that Mike wasn’t a great finisher - but Larry was mortally wounded by the first KD - with 1 min and 10 secs to go - yet, he was ultimately put out with just 7 secs to go in the round - close to perhaps at least surviving the round - without exaggerating his viability for round 5.

Note when Larry arose from the first KD, Mike stalked, launching single shots - Mike was actually quite open to return fire but Larry was already impaired and, again, he was old and out of condition, so his return fire wasn’t so efficient or on point.

The prime Holmes, even after such a KD, could’ve easily fought hurt and lashed back with no mean offence. And prime Holmes would be that much more careful and better equipped so as to avoid such a right hand in the first place.

As to how Larry performed after that fight - well, he was obviously better tuned in and conditioned than he was in 88.

Those performance don’t necessarily completely serve as plugging in greater credit for the result Mike achieved against the exact version of Holmes that he fought.

I mean, look at the overqualified explanations for Mike’s own downfall aged at just 23 but old Larry is being assessed, absolute, with little or no concessions on his performance in 88, at an age that was 15 years beyond what some allege to be Mike’s own use by date?

 

Prime for prime bad matchup for Tyson. The closest fighter to a Prime Holmes that he fought was Douglas. Prime Holmes does everything much better than that Douglas. Holmes lays it on him stopping him between 8-10

 

Sorry but I think you are wrong in several crucial respects.

1) That Douglas is widely & fairly regarded as great-at least for this single fight.
As Rumsfeld's excellent video showed on a recent thread, & most accept his conclusions.
Thus at least competitive with a prime Holmes, whoever you would favor H2H.

2) If this is true, there is no way that Holmes or ANY fighter ever could be "much better" in every way than him.
Even Douglas' jab was good-& long enough-to be at least close to as good as that of Holmes-& it was his best weapon.
Other things like power & combinations were at least as good.
Size & strength, better.

3) However much Tyson was declined (his own fault, + poor training, in ring support), virtually everyone acknowledges this was not Tyson at his best.
Most fairly believe that if Tyson was not declined he would have beat Douglas, even with a struggle.

I buy the argument that Tyson would have the style & talent to be favored.
Another conclusion is more than respectable & possible.

But the specific argument you make does not seem plausible.

 

Right. But what has also been pointed out is Mike Tyson's preparation for an old Larry Holmes was much more intense and focused than his preparation for the 40-1 underdog Douglas.

So Tyson isn't going to show up in the same condition for a prime Holmes as he did for Douglas.

The fight would be a prime Holmes against the version of Tyson who Larry actually fought and got knocked out against.

Not the version of Tyson who fought Douglas.

When Tyson was coming up, Larry was the champion. Tyson was never going to show up ill-prepared to face him. He was always told he'd have to fight Holmes one day. That was always going to be a fight he was intent on winning.

And, no matter when they fight, at some point, I believe Larry is going to eat that right hand that put him down.

To me, who wins just depends on how a younger version of Holmes handles that.

Because Larry could definitely win on points. But I don't think Tyson would be as inept at stopping him like Snipes and Shavers and Isaac were.

Tyson was pretty clinical when he was in his prime and had a guy hurt ... as he showed when he actually stopped Larry Holmes.

 

Flying Easton Assassin sounds like a WWF finisher.

 

Tucker at least tried. Made me chuckle here n there too seemed like quite the personality.

Bonecrusher was more of Boneclincher. He couldn't keep himself from holding Tyson.

 

Reducing Tyson down to the Douglas fight is even less valid than reducing Holmes down to Tyson fight.

 

I understood his points - so what I wrote holds, addressing the relevant points.

He said the “ageing” Holmes, he didn’t actually concede that Larry was diminished, how he was diminished, to what extent he was diminished nor the context surrounding their fight otherwise.

He simply used the fight after the fact to suggest that it reflected how it would play out in any circumstance - and in doing so he completely avoided examining how Holmes’ own deteriorations played a big part in the complexion and outcome.

Notably, he called in Louis vs Marciano for comparison. However, his conclusion was the complete opposite for the much revered Louis, and just as superficially, he stated that he simply saw a different outcome in Joe’s favour.

I actually agree with him on Louis vs Marciano but there are some features in that fight also that one could over exaggerate and say that even the younger Louis showed the same vulnerabilities in some way or another.

But that type of assessment of course would be completely ignoring the impact of Louis’ notable losses in speed, reflex, etc - deteriorations that are to be expected and have major negative effects when you’re 137 years old.

 

I whole heartedly disagree.