How does prime Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson go?

How was Holmes not the warrior/gladiator type? He had his flaws, but when it came to heart, bravery, willingness to take risks, etc, he was up there with anyone.

 

I remember that especially in dying moments of the 10th round brave effort from Tillis for sure.

I think sometimes people forget Tillis was highly rated undefeated contender at one point, then he lost a few fights and turned into a gatekeeper for upcoming prospects.

 

But again, while Holmes’ perceived stylistic vulnerability to right hands might come into play, his vulnerabilities in ‘88, at an old, inactive and ill prepared 38 yo were heavily exaggerated or even newly evolved (byproducts of age and/or due to inactivity) as compared to his prime.

He was that much slower in hand speed speed and reflexes. His movement was minimal, languid and a bit clumsy in its own right. It was also clear that his stamina was beginning to fail him in the near 4 rounds the fight lasted.

Albeit so very brief, when Holmes offered greater movement in round 4 - it made somewhat of a difference. Larry wasn’t forced to stop moving - he simply stopped, he didn’t have the gas for it.

The right hand that landed to put Larry down for the first KD wasn’t a counter shot, Holmes wasn’t jabbing. Mike simply executed a beautiful 1-2, which one might argue to be all the same in terms of Mike’s ability to land a definitive right hand on Larry.

However, freeze frame just before Mike lands the the big right hand, a tired, immobile Holmes leaning forward is absolutely asking for it - prime Holmes wouldn’t be there to be hit like that - certainly not as early as round 4.

Not to be hypercritical of Mike, but if he’s afforded to be one of the best finishers, his finishing of Holmes should be reasonably examined.

I’ve said it before but I see that it has been mentioned on this thread - the time it took for Mike to finish Larry after the first and second KDs. After the first KD, it took a a minute plus before the final KO blow was landed.

After the first KD - the one I believe prime Holmes would not suffer in the fashion that occurred and as early as it did - saw Holmes equilibrium screwed and his legs extremely unsteady.

He arose however and we know Holmes could fight hurt effectively, particularly so in his prime.

This version of Holmes was less resilient, including his ability to recuperate after being hurt - after the first KD, he basically fell again shortly thereafter, more due to himself and the effects of the first KD - not so much from Tyson’s follow up - and Tyson notably missed two big right hands despite a “there to be hit” Holmes.

As to Holmes ability to survive for the duration that he did after those KDs - Larry’s legendary durability and will did come into play.

However, Tyson in hot pursuit, also wasn’t landing everything he threw - even with a very unsteady Holmes in front of him.

While Mike could perhaps be credited with being patient - after the first KD, he did appear to focus more on landing another single big shot (rather than combos) to finish it -

Interesting musing - IF prime Tyson did, in reality, have an early early to mid rounds KO victory over a prime version of Holmes on his resume - would that not constitute Mike’s most impressive victory - more impressive than any victory he achieved in his actual career?

Not to be apologetic, but Larry isn’t one of my favourites either - but I have to objectively respect and realistically factor the prime versions skills, heart and determination.

 

This is a worse version of Mike Tyson’s Buster Douglas nightmare. Larry controls the action and makes Mike look one-dimensional.

Tyson lands a few big punches but not enough to upset Larry’s applecart.

I leaned toward UD at first, but I don’t see Mike hanging in there for a sustained beating.

 

That telephone pole jab of Holmes would give Tyson trouble for a while, but that's about it. Tyson would burrow through and repeatedly land big shots which would wear Holmes down at some point and Tyson would finish him. Like most ranged fighters who like the jab, Holmes infighting skills are lacking, but then again I think Holmes is all around a tough opponent for Tyson due to his overall strength, the jab and ability to move for 12 rounds, 15 rounds technically since we're talking peak Holmes.

Close, but I'd go with 7-5 Tyson.

 

Y'know I actually thought about mentioning the Big O, Pugs, as an 'in joke', seeing if you'd cotton on, but thought i'd end up explaining it to other posters, so didn't bother.

 

Aye, 6-4 seems about right for both fights. Only difference is Clay-Jones was a controversial decision but i've never known the Tyson-Tillis decision to be even debated, really.

 

It's been debated by some at various times. Tho there wasn't that much traction for Tillis this thread went 16 pages. It's come up in quite a few other threads too.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/tyson-vs-tillis-who-really-won.255919/

 

Aaah, well that's a new one on me. I suppose every close one eventually gets debated.

 

There's been a lot of anti Tyson over the years here. His detractors like to wheel this one out.

 

Oh I know that, it kinda made me stick up for him quite a bit- even though I never liked him.

 

Yeah I've swung both ways over the course of a lot of years. If i see extreme unfairness or over the top hugging I've often stuck my two bobs worth in. Made for a few good barnies and debates

 

At the time it was a bit controversial according to Boxrec: "Some said Tyson won the Fight, Some said Tillis won, it was quite controversial."

That Tillis did much better than expected can be a factor in this, but I've personally also had it for Tillis the last two times I've scored it.

 

There was a while that you could see the old "anyone who would stand up to Tyson...", but it hasn't been around for a while from what I've seen. And Tyson probably has the most rabid fans of any fighter on this forum, so that will always cause a bit of a backlash.

 

Agree on both counts. It's been a couple of years i'd say. There was a handful of usual suspects.