Prime Holmes v Prime Tyson

Not perhaps, but definitley.

 

Jabs and movement was Tyson's nightmare and i pointed it out in that video. He was being hit by consistant jabs and was being completely controlled by Biggs when Biggs would not trade with Tyson. It was Biggs fight to lose. Biggs was a very skilled boxer, yes. Although he was never a major in the division and became nothing more than a stepping stone after the fight. His claim to fame is winning the gold medal and having great amatuer success and thats it. If you tell me( like the other Tyson huggers) that Tyson broke Biggs, then i will seriously laugh at you(like i have been doing with your love of Tyson and pathetic logics)

 

lol at this guy. He doesn't even respond to my post but is so quick to jump on somone's balls when they disagree with me What a tool

 

Yes, Holmes was past his prime, I admitted that in the last post, if you knew how to read beyond 3rd grade level you'd have seen that. My point was, how was the Mercer who a much older Holmes beat better than the younger Holmes Tyson beat? That makes no sense at all.

As for prime vs prime, I've stated it's maybe 50/50, and as for that last statement, that is complete and total bull****. You really are quite ridiculous.

How often must you prove your stupidity? He was robbed in the rematch, he lost the first fight, fair and square.

According to my logic? When did I say that? You just made up something right now and passed it off as my logic.

So the 43 year old who beat Mercer was better than the version 4 years prior that Tyson beat? Watch the film and tell me that.

 

Stop ****ing posting! I agree with Legend, you may in fact be legally ******ed unless you're trolling.

 

Legally ******ed? Yeah, people that are legally retarted gets straight A's and is on their way to college. Not to brag or anything.

 

Wow, for someone who gets straight A's and is on their way to college, your spelling and grammar sure do suck.

 

Well son, if you would read my post then you would have seen how i said that Holmes didn't have any tune ups. He was ring rusty and past his prime at the same time. If you really believe that Tyson beating a man who is in his 40 and had been out for 2 years is inpressive, then there is something seriously wrong with you and is just desperately trying to make Tyson's resume seem credible(which is not working and why i am still laughing histerically)

How is that ridiclous when Tyson himself stated that he would have lost? He is simply stating the truth and no, this is not a 50/50 fight by no means. Holmes delt with guys that were more dangerous than Tyson had a ot more heart and punching power.

Its debatable. The first fight was iffy and i thought that he won that too, but you can make a case for Spinks winning that one.

No, you said that Mercer lost to an older Holmes and Holmes lost to Spinks, as if to say Tyson beat Spinks easily and Holmes beat him. I said that styles makes fights and according to that pathetic logic, Bowe punches harder than Tyson and is a better fighter than Tyson because he stopped Jesse Fuergeson easily in 2 rounds and beat PEAK Holyfeild, something that Tyson didn't do and lost to an even older and past his prime version of Evander.

Or you even listening to what i am saying or you just going by what you want to? Let me write this big so you can see it. Holmes was active for Mercer and had tune ups. The Holmes that fought Tyson didn't have any tune ups and was out for 2 years.Now do you understand?

 

I miss spell one word over the internet and my grammar sucks now? lol, this is the internet son. I don't need to be a perfectionist like you are, or at least attempting to be.

 

He was 39, so how are you going to say Mercer was better than that version of Holmes when he was 4 years older? I understand tune ups can make a difference, but that doesn't mean a 43 year old is better than a 39 version of the same fighter, regardless of tune ups. I thought Holmes looked quite good early on vs Tyson, he just couldn't last. How would Mercer have beaten that version?

When did Tyson state this first of all? Second of all, even if he did, it doesn't mean a goddamn thing, he was flattering an old, faded fighter, as many do. And again, when did he say this.

Also, name the fighters.

You're the one who said it, not me. You made up an irrelevant point to try to prove something, and it didn't work out at all, because it simply wasn't true. This all leads back to you claiming Mercer was better than anyone Tyson had faced, which is ridiculous.

He was still 4 years older, and even if(though it's a bull**** "if") that version of Holmes was better than the one who faced Tyson, the Mercer he beat was still not better. Mercer had absolutely nothing to give Tyson any trouble. Nor Holmes.

 

:rofl

 

Its good to see that JohnThomas has been posting. You know, i like how the ignore list works on this site. When the person that you added to ignore is posting, you can barely even see that they posted because their name is so small. Its like they don't even exist. Great:rofl

 

I could never ignore ya Swicky, whenever i am lacking for humour i simply find one of your atrocities and near **** myself.

Biggs fight to win or lose

nutnutnut

 

In their real match up Tyson had some trubble with Holmes and his jab, but when he was able to get past it he was able to stop Holmes in quick fashion. I think if they meet prime for prime the fight would last longer but the result would be the same. Tyson ko 9.