How does prime Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson go?

Prime Holmes via UD for me.

The flashiness and excitement of Tyson’s early career KO streak always leads to people over estimating his results against high calibre HWs in H2H matchups.

Tyson’s career best win isn’t on the level of a prime Holmes.

Larry Holmes didn’t even lose a fight until he was 36 and he has a superb resume of big name wins

 

True, but you could say that the other way too. I think their best wins over top 10 fighters are comparable though, say, “Spinks, Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock” etc compared with “Cooney, Weaver, Norton, Shavers”, etc.

 

Extremely surprised at the 49.4% Tyson knockout vote ratio. Larry Holmes had it all to beat Mike: great movement and ring geometry, all-time great lead hand, Carnera/Fury tier of recuperation and a sturdy chin, educated punch selection, and a hybrid of Ali's and Foreman's control game with those kangaroo-esque clinches, leverage guards, and forceful rear hand stops.

As Eddie Futch said: tall, rangy boxer who can move and tie Tyson up would cause him immense problem. We've already seen one-armed Tony Tucker expose a chink in Mike's armor, and Buster made a name for himself by applying the principles to beat the living daylight out of an ill-prepared Kid Dynamite. Heck,

To quote the great Ray Arcel:

By fight time Holmes was so eager to get into action that he was trembling. He came out eagerly, but under full control. His jab flickered like a snake—four, then three, then four. Obviously tight, Shavers stalked him, powerful fists at the ready, blinking at the rain of jabs.
Midway through the first round Giachetti yelled at Arcel, "How's he look?"
"He's beautiful," Arcel screamed. "He's just beautiful."

And Tyson himself:
"Larry Holmes was a legendary fighter, and if he was at his best, I couldn't stand a chance."

 

And yet when they actually fought, Tyson destroyed him. On paper yes I agree Holmes had everything you’d ever want in fighter to crush Tyson, but in reality it panned out a lot differently. Even if it were against a prime Holmes, I doubt it would’ve ended up much different. If anything Holmes would’ve sustained a beating a lot longer due to his better durability.

Also just to note, Tyson equally excelled against guys like Holmes. He was trained from the ground up to deal with guys who were tall, cagey and had a longer reach because he was always shorter than his opponent. Heck his whole career dealt with having to get past this disadvantage which is part of why he’s so admired.

This advantage for Holmes is just as much of an advantage for Tyson.

The whole Douglas thing was due to Tyson not coming into the fight prepared and that lack of preparedness made him a sitting duck that allowed Douglas to become confident and take control. If Tyson had came into the match prepared, he’d have flattened Douglas early on before he had any chance of becoming confident.

It’s akin to one claiming Holyfield was the man because he destroyed a fat version of Douglas who had long checked out of boxing due to all the legal issues with Don King and general lack of desire to be anything greater after he won against Tyson.

 

a) Larry Holmes was 38 years old, had to lose a lot of weight from after his retirement, lost his two last fights, and was nearly fifteen years into his professional debiut.

The state he was coming back in was arguably worse than that of Tyson in Tokyo, who despite being ill-prepared (as I pointed out) would likely headhunt a lot of fighters who were not Buster Douglas that night. He was coming off a brutal demolitions of Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, and Williams, having fought 7 months prior. Sure, his personal life was imploding and his camp was likely dog****, but it's the combination of how splendid Douglas performed that night, and how poorly Mike carried himself leading up to that point that combined into his downfall. Comparing it to Buster-Holyfield is not apt either. Douglas balooned 30lbs since Tokyo and was mentally shot when he entered the ring with Holyfield. He had a non-existent camp, once ordered almost a hundred dollars worth of food to sauna, and subsequently after the loss enlarged further to 400lbs before falling into diabetic coma. Mike was a far cry from the finely tune machine he was with Cus, but both his fights before and after Tokyo still indicated elite level, whereas Buster seemed hell bent on retiring from the world.

So as I said, Tokyo still held hints of what troubled Mike, much like some of his other fights. Douglas was preparing for the night of his career since his mother died, and he was stylistically well suited to take on Tyson's aggressive-counterpuncher style, similarly to how Tony Tucker was (their fathers knew each other and according to Tony trained them very similarly to the point where they knew what to expect from the other), in spite of him breaking his right hand before the fight, and further shattering it in the second round. He claimed Buster took a lot out of his gameplan.

To quote Eddie Futch:

I predicted the Douglas win over Tyson three years before it happened. I'd seen Tyson box four different tall men, and although he won in each instance, he had trouble with tall men. He had trouble with men who could box, tall men who had good mobility and a good left hand, and Buster Douglas had all of those things. A tall man who was smart enough to set the locale of the action. He boxed him on the outside, stayed off the ropes and out of the corners, and tied them up on the inside, and beat him.

Somrack, F. Daniel; Strain, Geoff. THE EDDIE FUTCH INTERVIEW: A Conversation with Boxing Legend and Trainer of Champions (p. 33). The Art and Sport of Boxing.



b) Tyson did not excel against fighters like Holmes, because fighters of Larry's caliber are extremely rare.

To say that Tyson, a 5'10 fighter trained to take the heavyweight crown, was being prepared to fight short is as bland and uninformative truism as you can get. The tall versus short boxing dynamic is ageless, and likely as old as the sport. At the same time, it can be equally complicated -- Joe Frazier prepared himself to fight short his whole career, but his stylistic choices were entirely different than Tyson's. Similarly, Holmes was an outboxer, but it's a very general categorization which fails to capture the nuanced blend of techniques, tactics, and strategies that a fighter displays through his career.

And no, it's not an equal match-up that relies purely on skill. It's still skewered towards the bigger man, but due to how immensly complicated preparation, skill ceiling, stages of fighter's career, and boxing itself is, there is still place and possibility for smaller fighters to thrive, especially when they are blessed with some exceptionall attributes and will.


c) Prime Mike Tyson would not flatten a prepared and motivated Buster Douglas. It's far more likely that he would still be in a damn tough fight, akin to a healthy Tucker.

 

Which is a fair representation of the matchup you'd think. There's noway possible one could be hugely confident of the outcome either way, it's just not realistic.

 

Bad for Holmes, he doesn't have the power to keep Tyson off him, and prime Tyson was quicker and deadly with BOTH hands.

 

@Rollin has already laid out the screaming context for the 38 yo, worn torn, inactive and ill prepared Holmes (vs Tyson in 1988).

As far as the 88 match pertains to how a prime vs prime between the Mike and Larry might’ve played out, there is very little if anything at all that can be realistically be taken away in Tyson’s favour.

All due respect, to source any positives for Mike from his actual fight vs an irrefutably diminished Holmes but then allow concessions for a 23 yo Tyson (vs Douglas - we also saw how that “panned” out ) amounts to extremely uneven treatment and heavily biased accent in Mike’s favour.

In fact, though brief, there were some positives for Holmes in that fight that could be extrapolated back to the prime version - allowing for calculations that more than. reasonably support how much better a peak Holmes would’ve fared against Mike.

It’s somewhat glaring that some float Mike’s perceived invincibility via blatant rejection and denial of his obviously less invincible moments and outcomes - a case of self serving, circular reasoning.

Meanwhile, it seems every performance of his hypothesised victims are called in to reason Mike’s advantage over them - even when there are a number of said performances that are far less “admissible” than the performances some choose to not to include when assessing Mike himself.

 

I rewatched the first Holmes Shavers fight last night and...yes, I know Earnie was nowhere near the fighter Mike was.

H2h I honestly don't see anyone besides prime Louis, Frazier, and Ali getting past that Larry Holmes. He was the ultimate heavyweight matador. I doubt Mike would have won a round.

Just my opinion.

 

Rollin did a reasonable job of also accepting Tyson's drama's when many won't give an inch.

I think there are plenty of positives to take away for Tyson. Firstly he actually won the fight which is certainly a lot better than losing, drawing or even having Holmes run him close as if any of that happened we wouldn't need to debate the fight at all.

Tyson showed great poise vs a very wiley, experienced ex champion who was mostly intent to survive. This is Tyson at his absolute peak with his most effective team in place. He's getting great corner advice (that's actual fluent and effective vs Tokyo) and is cool, calm and collected when he could have easily got frustrated.

The big thing for me is that diminished and past prime or not he showed he can actually know Holmes out.....and he was one damn hard sucker to knock out at every stage of his career. Even after this he survived easily vs Holyfield and even won 4 rounds or so. Tyson however showed he had the power of punch to, if given decent opportunity, to knock Larry out.

Compounding positively IMO is the fact that peak Holmes would only be in survival/full careful mode for the first few rounds. So opportunities are going to open up for Tyson even vs the peak version as he would be very focussed on winning. Virtually every decent opponent Holmes fought got in on him at various times and Tyson is certainly going to have his chances. The debate and crux of it for me is whether he can take them or not.

I think you can take the positives i mentioned above while still allowing Tyson, 23 or not, reasonable leeway for Douglas. It's carved in stone that Tyson had umpteen things going on in life and with his team. We can see Super Greg Page put him on his ass in sparring.

To put forth a great example of how Tyson's condition would have affected him one only need to look at Roberto Duran and Dejesus. Duran came into their first fight ill prepared, undertrained and complacent and we saw exactly how that affected him vs subsequent in 100% condition Duran in both rematches. Some will also put complete and utter faith in Durans condition in the SRL rematch being the only difference between them and not some change in SRL. Quite a few of these no doubt won't allow Tyson any leeway vs Douglas, ironically. Tyson had it far too easy at this stage and it caught up with him and then some. We saw him rebounding pretty well vs Ruddock but just how well we will never know as he got locked up.

Duran was both young and if anything actually pre peak so Duran - Dejesus and Douglas - Tyson events can and do happen via preparation et al. Now that's on both of them but it bears thought in absolute peak vs peak discussions.

True but much of it can be a double edged sword. I've seen so much made of a 30 second (or however brief) little period where Holmes got up on his toes and bounced about while throwing a couple of jabs but i find it to be very fleeting and overstated. Admittedly it's been a while tho.

Tyson had some brief moments of difficulty at his peak but they were extremely fleeting and swiftly overcome or worked out. Holmes was dumped by Snipes and badly hurt vs Weaver during his peak period. Even Berbick, while barely winning a round, landed numerous hard clean shots and got up close and personal many times. Louis was dropped quite a few times, almost all of them have their drama. The big thing is that they get past it, which Tyson did in those rare flashes as did Holmes and Louis of course. Pre exile peak Ali is immune but his opposition was less than was available later of course.

Obviously the very best of Tyson is from Berbick until his team dispersed which was just prior to Bruno from memory which is only 8 fights but no-one would be putting in the version post Spinks best for best. He had his struggles against Bruno, pole axed the glass chinned Williams and then got schooled himself vs Douglas straight after.

I don't buy into the invincible with Rooney myth but i certainly concede he was much much better during that period. His life was falling apart at the same time his boxing was.

He was a mental midget in life in the long run and never had the mental makeup for effective longevity. He was an absolute loose cannon and ill prepared for fame in the long haul. Guys like Holmes were much more grounded and level and it shows in their career both in and out of the ring. It's also fair to say Holmes, despite being a star never had to put up with a fraction of the attention Tyson did.

 

First off, total respect and all valid points.

Just my view and some further points: -

Sure, Rollin did accomodate some context re Tyson, but AB, who I was replying to, didn’t do likewise re Holmes.

That’s the point, the uneven treatment.

In addition to that, I personally think Tyson’s state of disrepair for Tokyo is overblown - the complexion and outcome being far more about what Douglas was that night than what Tyson wasn’t.

This partially involves a comparison of Mike at just 23 yo vs Holmes at 38 - A 38 yo Holmes already clearly on the slide several years prior to 88 - unlike Tyson in 1990. Tyson still came in at virtually prime weight - Larry was clearly more than a few lbs over his best weight. .

Even before first bell, I’m not sure how much credit Tyson could be eligible for when taking on Holmes in 88 (all context already laid out and considered).

When I say credit, I mean the type of credit that could be used to factor into the complexion and outcome of prime vs prime match.

That Tyson levelled older Larry spoke mostly of Mike’s power - as to whether Tyson lands as well against prime Holmes and with the same effect on a younger, more resilient Holmes would be another question again.

Older Holmes could be landed on - the power Mike carried separated him from the rest of the field. Even if anyone else landed exactly as Mike did for the first KD - I can’t see many putting Larry down with one punch like that.

As good a finisher as Mike was, Larry was still able to stall the ultimate KO - longer than what some might’ve expected after the first KD. I guess Mike could’ve been described as patient after the KD - be he wasn’t throwing the combos that he is often celebrated for - he fixated on throwing single shots.

Holmes would be far more cautious against Tyson than he was against the likes of Weaver and Snipes - the latter fight occurring after Holmes reasonably accepted prime at any rate.

True, some features to the fight in 88 for which one might credit Larry were all too brief - but then that also comes back to Holmes age, inactivity and lack of preparedness. For one thing, Larry did look okay when he danced - and he only came down off his toes of his own volition - due to a limited tank.

To illustrate the significance and positive effect of a younger, more prime Holmes remaining mobile and pumping the jab for longer- we can partially analogise how effective second career Ali could be when he danced - even when he no longer had the legs or stamina to maintain the mobility of old for the whole fight.

Accounting for how Mike won (including how quickly) when he was deemed to be at his very best - a few extra rounds of longevity, achievable by the very upper level of ATGs - including Holmes imo, could be fairly calculated to make all the difference.

Even for the Tillis fight Mike gets cut undue slack imo.

Mike wasn’t quite prime of course but he wasn’t as “green” as some would have it - and exactly as they stood at their respective careers, Mike wasn’t so “green” (his 19th pro fight - all prior wins by KO IIRC) as to not be installed as prohibitive 10-1 favourite as he was.

The perception of Mikes perceived superiority was somewhat miscalculated as at that time - and it wasn’t to be the only time in his career when that was the case. However, each time after Mike didn’t perform as expected, there was mucho explaining and excuses after the fact.

While mental stability and discipline inside the ring aren’t exactly the same as demonstrated outside the ring (see Carlos Monzon for a prime, conflicting example of the two concepts) they still can, I guess, also correlate to some degree.

Certainly, a lot of other fighters had plenty of sh*t going down in their lives also - with little or no concessions allowed for same. Some could even turn such adversities to their advantage in the ring (see, of course, Buster Douglas).

Just my own observation, but even before his alleged “fall”, I personally saw frustration creep into Mikes game when things didn’t go exactly smoothly as planned.

Take the first Bruno fight. Perhaps more difficult than expected - even though Mike looked to be making it another early night with Bruno down shortly after first bell. If it ended shortly thereafter, then it would’ve been interpreted as the same old Mike.

What was difference? Bruno hung tough, hung on for dear life and made it rough and dirty at every opportunity otherwise.

Bruno was also very strong and could punch - clearly rocking Mike at one pint in the fight. Fair to say Bruno presented new, unprecedented obstacles for Mike - so, at least imo, the bulk of the difference in that fight was brought to the table by Frank -

I actually credit Mike a lot for that fight - dealing with Bruno’s less than legal tactics and hanging in there to ultimately finish him off - but even in that fight, a degree of frustration appeared to be creeping into Mikes game but he kept it in check.

At least where I stand with it, it’s not so much about not giving an inch to Mike - it’s about affording an inch or whatever in kind to all concerned parties - tbh, I’ve read far more excuses and explanations afforded for Tyson than anyone fighter I’m aware of.

 

Fair, i hadn't read far enough back to catch that mate.

I don't think it is but it's a grey area with room for interpretation for sure. I still think the sparring KD is telling and he was very placid about it.

I do agree Douglas was on fire and i see it as a solid combination of both.

I can only revert back to my comments per Duran - Dejesus per preparation. At this level preparation can be the be all and end all.

There's quite a bit of debate as to whether a guy can take as good a punch or better when he is older. I think Holmes was taking as good a punch as ever and he took some bombs before succumbing and had never been caught like that in that sort of timeframe leading to the KO. I agree a similar finish peak for peak is open ended and again a grey area, absolutely. That's the meat in this sandwich i think.

I don't take much stock in the time it took Tyson to finish. If anything it gave Larry more time to recuperate which still didn't actually save him. I think it's a short straw to grasp, personally. We've seen others go hell for leather trying to stop Holmes when he was hurt and not get the job done, fair chance Tyson was patiently looking for that shot. At the end of the day his finish did work whereas no-one else could get it done, ever.

Yes no-one would mistake tat Holmes for a prime version. He was still very canny and awkward tho. Larry didn't actually achieve anything when he tried to dance for 20 or thirty seconds. He pumped the jab etc but Tyson was slipping. Sure, this is an old slowed Holmes but he never got anywhere for me personally. The crowd were very excited that's for sure.

Tyson never tired against anyone. He finished very fresh at the end of Smith and Tucker and stamina was never a problem for him. The flipside is the movement a guy like Holmes would have to employ to survive the early rounds is certainly going to take a bit out of him. Holmes has to get a lot more out of his legs than Tyson during general play and Tyson is going to be banging to the body better than anyone ever did vs Holmes. That's going to add up too. The more Holmes is able to move the more Tyson is going to look to the body.

I don't see the big deal myself. We all chatted it the other day and most can't see the closeness. Ali was almost knocked out by Henry Cooper right before fighting Liston and that wasn't reflective of him virtually one fight later. Tyson was on the fastrack the likes of which we have seldom ever seen and fighting so often it's barely fathomable in this day and age. He was never going to be perfect every night and Tillis really did have a red hot go.

Holmes had plenty of subpar performances against expectations too. No-one could believe Snipes dropped him and Weaver took him so deep. Larry was the king of excuses for these but like Tyson he came thru to win. It's almost impossible to dominate all the time unless your opponents are very subpar.

Oh Tyson is a mental midget as i said. He capitulated right when he should have been soaring to immortality. That's why he is below the likes of Holmes on ATG lists. Holmes was much better equipped to maintain form over the long haul and get thru tough nights when he wasn't 100%.

I think the major difference is Tyson didn't have the extremely underrated between rounds advice of Rooney. For me it's the most underrated part about the pair. Rooney knew where to direct him and what tactical buttons to push. Frank really did have a go tho and perhaps it was his night to impress. I do think Tyson would have adapted a little better with Rooney, could be wrong.

 

PART 2

Yeah mate Tyson seems to attract very few middle ground commentators that's for sure, maybe more than anyone ever. I've had some good clashes with nuthuggers and I've had plenty of solid debates with guys that won't give him an inch and want to take the most negative route they can on everything Tyson. He's just so polarizing.

My final thrust and main crux of the fight IMO-

In the third round, Holmes became more offense-minded, trying to use his jab as he had in his prime. Holmes even danced on his toes, drawing a cheer from the crowd.

"The people were more excited than I was," Tyson said later. "The crowd got pumped up and Larry let his ego get involved. I said, "Now he's going to get it." Tyson said that even as a champion, Holmes was susceptible to the right hand.

"He made the same mistake back then," Tyson said. What was the mistake? "He always kept his left hand low."



I've greatly enjoyed the exchange of opinion my man and will leave the finishing touches to you if I've misunderstood anything or you want to make further points or finesses.

Our first debate!!!! We might be fighting like cats and dogs down the road!!!!!!!

Not!!! We seem to align on just about everything else thank god hahaha

 

All fair points brother JT.

I won’t belabour or expand on the points I’ve already made and there’s several fresh counters/points I could make, but we’re both pretty much on the table.

Naturally we don’t agree on all things here - but that’s the beauty of discussion.

If Mike comes up again in similar regard, perhaps I will calibrate my position more finely if we’re up for it.

Until we meet again Moriarty.

Notice I cast you in the role of bad guy. <jk>.