Mike Tyson vs Larry Holmes

No

 

Holmes did well in the four rounds he lasted, better than most Tyson challengers were doing, Holmes had barely taken anything and he came out with confidence with a sharp jab in the fourth round, its just that he got caught with powerful punches that Tyson might have landed on Holmes at any time of Holmes' career when they fought each other.
Unlike other opponents, Shavers for example who had Holmes hurt and down, Tyson at his best was a tremendous finisher, when he fought Holmes he hurt him with one devastating overhand right halfway through the round and was relentless in his attack and absolutely destroyed Holmes, a devastating knockout that probably had lasting damage.
If Holmes had been 7 or 8 years younger would he have been different? Would he have survived the onslaught after being caught like that? Would he have been caught like that? I think he would have been caught the same way at some point, but he'd have made a much better fight of it. We didn't see much of the great fighter Larry Holmes against Tyson we only saw a once great defensive fighter for a few rounds, if they fought 8 years before Holmes would be punching more and would be quicker and more agile the ring, he'd be smart defensively but he wouldn't be trying to preserve energy for the later rounds as much. Holmes would be fighting a lot more and landing some decent shots on Tyson as he came in and his quickness and youth would make it much more awkward for Tyson to land his own shots and there would be some frustrating moments for Tyson who will swing wildly at times and pay for it.
Its a longer night for Tyson than their fight in 1988, but after what could be a frustrating 5,6,7,8,9,or even 10 rounds I think that Tyson will catch up with Holmes with big right hands that he was susceptble to and finish him the way he did and other fighters were unable to do.

 

Good post. I could see a younger Holmes winning...but the thing is (to me) Tyson was practically trained from day one to counter a jab with a right hand...He was thinking about fighting and beating Larry Holmes a long, long time. I think Tyson has his number.

 

Prime Larry wins by a UD over 12 maybe even a late stoppage in a 15 rounder.

I'd see Larry maybe going down, and several hairy moments early. If Mike don't stop him by the end of round 6, I'd take Larry to see the job out

 

If prime Larry were to go down, and if he got up, Tyson would have finished him off...after all, this wasn't the less than sterling finisher Shavers, or the wild, inconsequential Snipes we're talking about who would be following up on Larry.

 

The same would hold true if Tyson had gotten to Ali.

 

I think any prime version of Holmes gives tyson his hardest fight and any prime version of tyson gives prime holmes his hardest fight. It really is that simple to me. Both guys had a shot of winning. It's who wants it the most imo

 

I think it’s reasonable to suggest that the bout would have been different. I also think it fair to suggest that a prime Holmes could have beaten Tyson. But I don’t think the latter is a given or even a considered safe wager, by a long chalk.

In my opinion, Holmes’ performance in ’88 was undoubtedly compromised by his age and inactivity.
Physically, his speed, timing, reflexes, legs were not the same.
Psychologically? I wonder if ’88 Holmes even believed he could win the fight.

His strategy was inconsistent. It sometimes looked like he was trying to manage the risk of being taken out early and yet, at the same time, would keep his hands low; was making high risk punch selections (mainly the right uppercut) and taking chances with his range (mid-range, well within Tyson’s strike-distance).

He switched between sporadic use of the Jab, combined with some backward/lateral movement, and standing virtually static to presumably draw Tyson on to him (Huge Mistake!).

Holmes was a cerebral Boxer; a championship fighter, who knew how to win over the stretch. I wonder if, in '88, he had a strategy, just not the physicality to execute it and, realizing this, knew he was going to have to take his chances. The way he actually fought when they met could be interpreted as bearing that out. Just a thought.

 

Yes

 

I'd back Holmes in this scenario although Tyson would have an excellent puncher's chance.

 

Holmes had actually had a 2 year layoff and he claimed he felt fresh as ever. Yes it could be argued he wasn't at his best but he knew from 1985 that a show down with Tyson was inevitable, i refuse to believe he just turned up for a paycheque, his trainer Giachetti himself has acknowledged it was the first time he saw him scared of a fighter.

 

Tyson in his prime would destroy Holmes in his prime..............Tyson v. Holmes was a total mismatch, almost hard to watch, but I will never forgive Holmes for what he and Don King did to Ali after Ali was over-the-hill, made me sick.........................so very sad.....................

 

You can't blame Holmes for what happened to Ali. Ali was a grown man.

 

Next we'll hear how Holmes was peak.

Holmes was miles past it by the time of the Spinks fights. He'd been slipping for a couple of years as it was which was offset by his steadsfast refusal to fight the top dogs any more.

Holmes efforts post Tyson, surprisingly good at times do nothing to change the facts.

Most believe Holmes was performing better post Tyson due to actually having some ring time. Regardless Holmes was over the hill years prior.

You can take out a couple of little positives for both. Tyson showed if he could get enough quality punches in he could stop him. Holmes, despite his over the hill rusty self proved a little awkward at times tho he had little offensive output or success.

So their actual fight doesn't really answer much either way for me.