This is ridiculous. You're using a 38 years old washed up Holmes who hadn't fought in three years. You do that, you have to take a 38 year old version of Tyson as well. Are you willing to do that to? What's next, ⎌comparing Holmes as a kindergartener to a prime Tyson? atsch
Yeah, I think people are reading too much into Holyfield's performance against an over the hill Tyson. Prime Holmes has more of the attributes that give prime Tyson trouble.
WHAT does Holyfield do better than Holmes though? why should he be favored over prime tyson & not holmes?
physically stronger Much bett,er jaw ,harder puncher,stylistically Worse for Tyson,MuCh beTTR inside Fighter
Yeah, I didn't get that at all. Fight Advantages: Hand Speed-Holmes, Boxing Ability-Holmes, KO Power-No Advantage, Chin-Holmes (though I could see an argument either way), Size-No Advantage, Defense-No Advantage, Endurance-Holmes, Adaptability-No Advantage, Foot Speed- Holmes, Strength-Holmes (Holy was a blown up cruiserweight), Jab-Holmes, Cuts-No Advantage, Reach-Holy(78) and Holmes(80) No Advantage, Body Attack-Holyfield
[Mike Tyson 86/88 would have defeated Holmes and Spinks even if they'd tag teamed. Peak Holmes was still vunerable as Shavers, Snipes and Witherspoon all had him in serious trouble. I could see Larry a little quicker and sharper than the 88' version which may allow the bout to last a little longer than their eventual match up but not too many rounds. Tyson would have gotten him by knockout around the halfway mark. Tyson KO6 Holmes. Remember Larry defeated Mercer several years later and pushed Holyfield close so for me Tyson would have defeated him regardless
That has little to do with Holmes' condition vs tyson, he had a long layoff and wasn't in good shape compared to the versions that fought mccall holyfield and mercer.