Mike Tyson vs Larry Holmes

Holmes was mostly spoiling and surviving before he got knocked out. A younger, more confident version of Holmes might be more open

 

A younger Holmes would definitely be trying to win. You are spot on.

 

I try to be

 

Haha! Before prison Tyson went 10-1 when going past the 5th round. KOing Ferguson in 6, Ribalta in 10, Thomas in 6, Biggs in 7 and Ruddock in 7. Winning unanimous decisions against Tillis, Green, Bonecrusher, Tucker and Ruddock. Thus your entire post is null and void.
Thanks for playing. Bye for now!

 

Are you drunk? Your mad ramblings do not null and void my post, at all.

All you have done is list several opponents Tyson beat beyond round 5, before he went to Prison - What's your point?

Nothing in my post specified a 'pre-prison' Tyson. I was not looking at a specific period of Tyson's record.
Nothing you have mindlessly reeled off addresses my response to your 'Ali-Clone' claim.
Your rabid reproduction of Boxrec rows does not address my dismissal of your "Holmes was tailor made for Tyson" line.

However, since your focus does seem to be on Tyson's results, when going beyond a certain number of rounds, what I stated is...

"Of the times that Tyson went beyond round 4, he was, on paper, as likely to either go the distance or be handed a stoppage loss, as he was to win himself by stoppage."


Tyson's record of fights going beyond round 4...

- Wins By Stoppage: 9
- Wins By Decision: 5 (fights that went the distance)
- Losses by Stoppage: 4

In case you really need these figures spelling out...

Nine stoppage wins is equal to...
Five fights that went the distance; plus, Four Losses by Stoppage.


Your c0cky riposte (which has turned out to be no more than an utterly thoughtless rebuttal and has you appearing to be little more than a pubescent keyboard warrior) makes your lack of basic reading, comprehension and arithmetic ability all the more shocking. Hence my initial inquiry, as to your sobriety.

I doubt you will respond to this post; unless you have the guts to apologize for your mistake, which is I strongly suspect is unlikely.

 

Holmes had a style tailor made for Mike Tyson. Even a past prime Tyson would convincingly KO the Larry Holmes of 1978-85

 

Not at all. prime Holmes UD Prime Tyson.The jab and movement of holmes ultimatel prevails.

 

You stated...

This content is protected

Tyson went 10-1 with 5 KO's after the 5th round. It's really that simple. I added the pre-prison bit because that's Tyson's prime. If we're assessing a fighter than let's assess him properly. Make sense? Moving on...

You also stated...

This content is protected

So if we go past the 4th round to your idiotic statement, Tyson adds another 2 KO's to his victories: KO5 Mike Jameson and KO5 Frank Bruno.

That's a 12-1 record after the 4th round you fukcing dummy! Prime Mike Tyson, the element I added to your silly anecdote.

Going further, I responded to Reinhart's post about "Sooooo Buster Douglas is better than a prime Larry Holmes?".

Keep it simple, stupid.

 

Good grief - What are you going on about? I have already been very clear that I wasn't looking at a specific period of Tyson's record. What part of that did you not understand?

What has the "10-1" got to do with it? Why are you cherry-picking a certain period of Tyson's record, as it seems you are?

Tyson has a 50-(44KOs)-6-0 career, with 2 NCs; Not an 11-fight career.

With that fact in mind and, even if you want to set "after the 5th round", as the standard for him getting a stoppage beyond 'the half-way mark', Tyson only scored 6 wins by way of stoppage, after round 5. That is out of 50 wins - of which 44 were stoppages. This means only 14% of his stoppages occurred past the 5th round. And, since you are arithmetically, as well as literately challenged, that means 86% of Tyson's stoppages occurred within 5 rounds.

If you think the gap between 86% of stoppages and 14% of stoppages, either side of a 5th round completion threshold, does not indicate that Tyson's chances of a stoppage, after the half-way mark, fell through the floor, then you have bigger issues than your lack of reading, comprehension and math skills.


It only gets worse, if one uses the championship distance of 12 rounds and the halfway point as being completion of the 6th round. Using this threshold, Tyson only scored a stoppage in the second half of a fight three times (and I've even included the 7th round Biggs stoppage, despite it being a 15-rounder). That's a 93%/7% split either side of a 6th round completion threshold. So, just to be clear that means Tyson scoring a stoppage in rounds 7-12.

Let's have a look at those stoppages, shall we?

- Biggs: 15-0 Novice; was stopped 7 times out of 10 losses (one of his decision losses was a 3-rounder)

- Ribalta: Had no offensive armory and was stopped on his feet, under protest in the 10th.

- Ruddock (1): Was giving Tyson all he could handle; was stopped too soon, as seen by just about any reasonable observer.

Additionally, Tyson's 3 biggest losses occur after the 6th round in championship bouts - Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis.


Are you getting where I am coming from, now, you vaguely half-witted numptey?

I've been through this with you already and, here you go again with the slice of Tyson's record, rather than his career, as a whole.

You clearly can't read or do math...

What part of (5+4) = 9 do you not understand?

Think hard, now...

Tyson went beyond 4 completed rounds, 18 times in his career. Of those, he went the distance 5 times, winning UDs, and Lost 4 by way of getting stopped; winning 9 of them by stoppage.

So, when I say that, ON PAPER, Tyson was as likely to either go the distance or be handed a stoppage loss (5 + 4 = 9), as he was to win himself by stoppage (9), the equivalence I am pointing to is obvious.

I even spelt it out for you in my previous post, so as to assist you with your clearly impaired ability to comprehend basic sums and clear English. But, I'm guessing, even after me painting the pictures for you again, you still won't get it.


Not only that but your pet 'Ali Clone' theory remains just that: a pet theory. Perhaps you could elaborate on your reasoning behind that one?

On second thoughts, don't bother - you are a proven moron and a lost cause. So, just p!iss off and share your imbecilic rearrangement of numbers with the dullards, who might actually be impressed by you being simple stupid.

 

Anyways, Larry Holmes came from the Ali school of stylists who were mobile and pumped the jab. They moved around the ring and tried to drag you into deep waters and drown you with experience. This is the style that Cus knew would dominate the heavyweight scene in the 80's. And he found the perfect foil for this particular style in "Iron" Mike Tyson, the man who would always beat a prime or not Larry Holmes.

Mike Tyson could knock you out early, mid rounds or late. And if he couldn't get you out early, mid or late, he'd dominate over the distance with clear unanimous decision victories.

Larry Holmes is an All Time Great but Mike Tyson would always have his number.

 

I go along with you on the above quotes. I have always ranked Larry higher than Mike as regards "Heavyweight Champion", but as you say, a Tyson would always beat a Holmes. If Larry had been 10 years younger on the night he fought Mike, he would have probably got KOed earlier.

 

Like a 'Tyson' would always beat a 'Douglas'.

 

I am sorry but this is complete nonsense.

 

Tyson had a destructive run in the latter half of the eighties. However, I don’t think it would be unfair to claim that this period was where he faced his least challenging opposition; a past prime and inactive Holmes being his best win (and still a very good win, mind). So, it’s only a short step to wondering whether Tyson could have been tempered by a peak Holmes (or a peak Lewis; or a peak Holyfield and even a peak Bowe, who actually decided to turn up).

His fans would have you believe that Tyson peaked prior to 1990. Even if that is the case, this would mean Tyson's prime took place in a period when he perhaps faced his least challenging opposition. So, how can it be claimed with assuredness that he would have beaten a peak Holmes? I don't think it can.

 

His opposition before prison was VERY good, some of them went on to give the other greats all they could handle while well past their own primes.
His opposition was never better after that, Holyfield and Lewis were past their best as well but they simply aged and adjusted their styles to age much better than Tyson who was not the same fighter after sitting in Prison for 3 years and losing his youth and his love for the sport.
Douglas had a very good night and tyson was very badly prepared and had a bad night. Go watch the Tucker fight and then the Douglas fight, completely different Tyson. His problem was he thought he could just dominate the division on pure aggression and punching power so he trained differently after Rooney and showed up with no footwork without his Jab among other things until he lost to Douglas.