How does prime Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson go?

Witherspoon, Weaver, Norton, all landed regularly on Holmes. And Snipes, Shavers, damn near knocked him out with 1 punch.

Holmes was a great champion but could be a vulnerable one at times, I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume Tyson who's one of the quickest/hardest hitting Heavyweights of all time, wouldn't catch Holmes at some point who was caught by lesser fighters than Tyson.

 

This is something I always think in these topics. Holmes was a great great fighter and obviously had the ability to win. But he certainly was hittable and at time vulnerable. That’s not a trait against a 20 year old Mike Tyson, and it’s a reason I tend to favor him somewhat.

 

Tyson had too much right hand, Holmes kryptonite, Tyson always stops Holmes IMO

 

Do really believe it's science fiction that Holmes couldn't win a decision? Tyson was taken the distance several times. You could argue that the Tillis fight was a draw. And he got stopped by Douglas, who was not on the same level as Holmes. If we say Tyson at his peak was in 1988, he beat an old, rusty misfiring Holmes, fat Tubbs, and a scared-to-death blown-up light-heavy in M. Spinks. Tubbs was actually outboxing Tyson, but he was not in shape to maintain movement.

 

This has been a good discussion on both sides.

In think the transposition of what Mike did to lesser opponents, now matter how stunning and emphatic the complexions and outcomes, doesn’t necessarily hold for Holmes.

Particularly when factoring intangibles and understanding that Holmes would fight duly wary, at least during the most dangerous, early round period.

Some fighters, even great ones, can sometimes fight down toward the level of the opponent - and also fight up accordingly. At least in the case of the Snipes and Witherspoon fights, they weren’t the best versions of Holmes - though it’s still possible to identify long standing stylistic issues - issues that predated a fighters post peak form.

Ali’s susceptibility to the left hook - pre peak, peak and post peak , based on several fights, might’ve signalled greater disaster than what actually unpacked during his career - and, though not peak, he was dropped by two lesser lights - while, so many other, much better fighters were unable to turn the same trick.

In that regard, Holmes own vulnerability to right hands might be overblown when it comes to the specific opponent in question - Tyson.

I’m reading that Larry was “made” for Mike - tbh, that was the word on most of Tysons opponents, they were “made” to be KO’d quickly - but, as we saw in Mikes case, several forecasts of his absolute domination were more than a little off during his actual career.

I used to be a member of the Quick Tillis Blue Oyster Cult - but some very dodgy management and dealings behind the scenes gave me cause to get out. It was a “made up” religion (duh!) intended to serve James only - his faithful congregation always coming a long second.

Think of me as you might think of Leah Remini relative to Scientology. I escaped. I am no longer blind. I have seen the light. That’s a shoutout to @My dinner with Conteh

Re Tyson vs Tillis. Imo, Mike won. 6-4 sounds good. No doubt, Tillis probably scored “bonus” points in some eyes for defying most pre-fight forecasts - a not so infrequent phenomena in boxing - see Hagler vs Duran for one example of a fight that wasn’t as close as some have it - at least imo.

Any which way - Roberto surprised and performed a lot better than most expected.

Of course Mike wasn’t fully developed when he fought Tillis - but he was on a crazy KO streak, Tillis being his 19th pro fight. Mike wasn’t fully green.

Whatever Mike was at that point, with full disclosure on Tillis already in, Mike was installed as a 10-1 favourite - Tillis expected to be yet another early round KO victim. The complexion was quite a turn around relative to most forecasts.

Errant projections re Mike hit their extreme in Tokyo.

I think the proposition of “anyone who stands up to Mike beats him” was oversimplified.

Of course the fighter in question had to have the necessary skills in tow also - I think the proposition was borne out of seeing more than a few, excessively leery opponents who didn’t fully chance their arm for better or worse - in terms of mentality, Tokyo Douglas was the absolute antithesis of such fighters - and in particular, the absolute opposite of Mike Spinks, the latter playing his role in what many view as Mike’s absolute peak performance.

Even the guy who Spinks beat twice (2nd fight controversial), old Larry Holmes, lasted about 3 1/2 rounds longer than lamb to the slaughter Spinks.

Anyway, that’s just some considerations I’ve entertained - and certainly, there are some obvious counter arguments to be accommodated and chewed over. They are more than welcome.

The following linked articles re Tyson vs Tillis aren’t meant to bolster either side of the debate.

They’re just present as a nice byproduct to an already excellent discussion.

Notably, both articles concretely confirm Tillis rating Mike as a harder puncher than Earnie Shavers - per Tillis’ own experience against both men.

I like that - because I do feel that Mike’s single punch power has actually been somewhat underrated over the years - and, curiously, a humble Mike Tyson himself has lent to that underrating.

The man hit like a truck per single punch, and combined with his hand speed and punching in combination - well, I can well understand the majority of his opposition absolutely ****ing themselves - but the very best are extraordinary and hold no fear - or at least not so much fear that it compromises the main objective - that objective being to actually prevail, not just survive.

LA Times Article

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-05-04-sp-3780-story.html

Sports Illustrated Vault

https://vault.si.com/.amp/vault/1986/05/12/winning-one-the-hard-way

 

Yes, good quotes as I highlighted - both articles containing Tillis’ opinion in favour of Mike.

Larry gives the power nod to Earnie as far as I’ve read.

 

At least you got out Pugs, I know people who've haven't been seen for years (the night Quick lost to Gary Mason in fact!) I heard rumours they were on some remote commune in Guyana...

Great post overall though and I agree that the Snipes/Shavers fights aren't great yardsticks to judge this one on- as both were one-pop shots out of the blue, whereas vs Tyson, Larry would have no time to relax or think he has the fight in the bag (due to the intensity of the earlier rounds especially)- and I doubt he'd get hit with such a shot. Vs Shavers, he'd hardly lost a round in the previous 18, and could be forgiven for thinking that huge right hand was never going to land like it did. Snipes? Basically a filler defence before the Big One that Larry had been seeking for most of 81. The quote "Snipes hit Holmes so hard that Gerry Cooney felt it in his back" did the rounds afterwards.


I've also mentioned the 'hit hit harder than Acorn' quote many times myself- of course, he's revised that years later, like fighters often do and prefers to say Mike hit like a girl/homo

 

Of course he doesn't. Larry thinks most decent heavyweights of the 70s would beat Tyson, including Mac Foster and Oscar Bonavena, so giving out any credit to someone who mashed him isn't really his 'M.O".

 

40-32 for Tyson, the worm has turned a bit on this one. Not many years ago Holmes would have led.

 

Aye, must have been all those fights Tyson had since 2010 that got him ahead, especially that Roy Jones one.

 

Quick did have a way with words - I was lucky to break from his hypnotic ramblings.

No fear, I’ve noted your mention of the orig. Tillis quote previously - I was aware of the quote also but when testimonies in favour Shavers are listed - the orig. quote often doesn’t see the light of day if at all. Some quotes are OTT- lol.

I used to joke about Ali’s Kinfolk in Africa being jittery every time he fought - at the possibility of their being suddenly and violently shook at any moment - they be like, WTF just happened then?

 

...and of course that intended uppercut that got caught in the ropes was going to end Mike, I mean, how lucky was Iron Mike?

According to Larry also, he could’ve risen after the last KD - but Larry thought, hey, why bother?, I’m only going to lose anyway. I coulda sworn Larry was out - at least for several seconds - maybe he was having a dream within a dream - Inception?

 

I have pondered this long and hard and so far I haven't seen any post that has helped me decide!

These are my thoughts anyway for what they are worth!

Larry Holmes
Very disciplined with iron resolve, fought a very wide range of styles and for 48 fights found a way to win. These are the sort of figures that have people raving about Floyd so we should give him points for his consistency and will to win over a long period of time. But if we take away the Buster loss and factor in a jail sentence Iron Mike wasn't exactly lacking in these qualities until the very end of his career.

Larry was decked by pretty crude fighters in Snipes and Shavers and it is hard to imagine Tyson letting Holmes off the hook if he caught him with such punches, he was so fast and had such killer instinct at his peak. But Larry got the f*ck up and won both fights after punches it is hard to imagine other champs recovering from. Lennox Lewis seems to get a surprising amount of leeway for getting decked by two lesser fighters and he didn't even win! Worth remembering Shavers and Cooney were both hellacious punchers so it is not like Larry would not have fought anyone with Tyson level's of power. I will say that Iron Mike is a far far better technical fighter than either of those guys so even if Ernie was a bigger puncher than Tyson I feel it is a fairly moot point (other than showing that Larry could get up from a brutal shot which if course is a factor to consider).

While Tim Witherspoon is several notches below Tyson and was almost a novice when they fought it is still worth noting that Larry found a way to beat a fresh and motivated hall of famer using all his experience to effectively kid Tim out of the win. Again while Tim is not Mike, he was a very quick and hard punching fighter and it shows Larry could take on an excellent younger man and win (although a rematch would have been nice!). But contradicting myself I am not sure if overall it reflects positively on Larry's chances vs Mike due to Mike's superiority over Witherspoon as a fighter.

Larry was a big guy with a brilliant jab, surprisingly quick and with a great boxing brain. I also feel that like many greats Holmes sometimes fought to the level of his opponents and could sleep walk a bit. If he is anything other than 100% Mike could nail him but I doubt prime for prime Larry would underestimate him. I feel Larry was maybe a little more clever at adapting to different situations and was a master in the championship rounds so if he gets through the early storm I feel the odds sway towards him. Worth noting Tyson never completed a 15 round fight so if scheduled for 12 or 15 rounds maybe a factor.

Mike Tyson
As mentioned above the key factors for a Mike win are his speed and killer instinct. If he hurt you he was all over you with a hurricane of of punches the likes of which no-one in HW boxing had seen before. In a sense Mike was an evolutionary dead end in that no-one has come along who combines any of his techniques in quite the same way. Although at the time it genuinely looked like we had entered a new era of HW techniques, strategies and physical attributes. Larry would not have fought anyone remotely like Tyson before so simply figuring him out would cost him rounds and one slip and Mike brings the curtain down.

I feel it is almost a given Larry goes down, even if it is just flash knockdown. Both Buster and Pinklon were in trouble early but managed to box their way back into the fight (albeit briefly in the case on Thomas). If Larry can survive an early bombing and somehow keep Mike off him then the fight becomes more interesting.

I am not enough of an expert on the exact circumstances and perhaps others can enlighten me about how much these fights should be taken into account, but I feel it is worth throwing the Tucker, Smith, Tillis and Green performances in the mix. Any young fighter will have tricky fights on the way up so it is easy to blow up valuable learning fights like Tillis and Green to mean more than they do. The Smith fight is negligible as evidence as Bonecrusher was so negative and it is hard to imagine Larry fighting like this. I do feel the Tucker fight does give us some useful points of comparison, and I also acknowledge that nothing is guaranteed to enrage a Tyson fan more (well OK one other thing mentioned below!) than bringing up this match as negative evidence to Mike's H2H chances!

What we know is Mike fought a big talented guy who fought effectively one handed. Mike did win almost every round (I seem to remember) and after an bright start Tony failed to bring much to the table. And yes styles make fights blah blah blah but if we plonk the Tyson of this fight in with prime Larry I pick Holmes over 15. Contrastingly Holmes had two hard fights with similarly young unbeaten talented guys in Witherspoon and Williams so a lot may depend on how you rate Larry's performances in those fights. I think styles wise the Tucker fight tells us more about Mike vs that type of fighter than Tim or Carl fights do for Holmes vs a Tyson type.

Another thing that will never be resolved (and will push the Tyson fanatic into a spluttering rage) is the importance of the Buster fight. Many Tyson fans simply dismiss it when discussing his H2H legacy while others perhaps over emphasize it. Considering that other greats get a ton of stick for certain losses and poor showings, often against far better fighters I don't see why Iron Mike should get a golden pass. Someone with fine fundamental boxing skills, a ton of guts and bravery took on someone considered invincible and beat him. Also it is not like Tyson retired or faded away afterwards. Again we put the Tyson of Tokyo in with prime Larry and I give it to Larry.

Conclusion
For fighters with such long varied careers I find it very hard to consider all the factors. As will be noted I have not factored in key Tyson fights such as Holyfield and Lewis or Holmes fights like the actual Tyson fight, Holyfield, Mercer or Spinks 1 & 2 for various reasons, including trying to focus on what is considered the absolute peaks of both fighters.

It really depends on which fights you decide to focus on. As mentioned above Tokyo and Tucker version of Iron Mike vs Cooney or Norton version Larry I pick Holmes. But Berbick and Tubbs version Tyson vs Snipes or Williams version of Holmes and I pick Mike. Also over 15 I pick Larry over 12 Tyson, if Larry gets through the 5 or 6 rounds.

My knee jerk poll pick was a Holmes win on points but after doing this post and with a gun at my head (and to my surprise and distress) I am possibly switching over to team Tyson. I will leave my poll pick though as in my heart I want Larry to win!

 

It's great to have you on the forum Mr Davis, must be a few years now since you beat Tony Canzoneri? Will you be doing some Q&A videos like Marlon and Tim?