Prime Holmes vs Tyson...

No he didn't land anything that remotely gave Tyson trouble but he did dance around like a drunk zombie.

Holmes by easy KO in his prime if he can go 4 rounds and dance for a minute against a peak Tyson while 38. If Holmes was in his prime Tyson would abandon his gameplan and simply become a punching bag soaking up punishment :nut

 

In fact Don King had snipers hidden in the rafters and every time Holmes was going to land something they shot him.

This sounds reasonable after listening to all of the other conspiracy theories. Such as Holmes was told on the way to the grocery store he had to fight Tyson that night, and the ropes mysteriously took on a life of their own and pulled his arm back causing him to lose.

 

Its pretty hard to pay attention to where the ropes are if you see a wide openning for a right uppercut, and your busy trying to block punches and throw the uppercut at the same time wouldn't you say? Look, I'm not saying Holmes would have won the fight on that night, but he could have lasted a good 2-3 rounds longer, giving boxing fans their money's worth. Then again, for most people (especialy in this thread) they did get their moneys worth. They love seeing great men getting beaten up. Its sad really. People make all the excuses in the world for Tyson in the Lewis fight, but when it comes to legit factors, they are shoved aside and called lies.:-( I will not post in this thread anymore, its just not worth it.

 

Yeah it is hard to pay attention to where the ropes are when your knocked out on the canvas. Also, what "wide opening" was there? I didn't see Tyson all of a sudden drop his guard.

 

Sounds like someone i know regarding a certain topic or two

:hey

 

Tyson couldn't take out Tillis inside the distance, and scored a single flash knockdown (This against cannon fodder who would sustain eleven stoppage defeats in his career). He couldn't drop Mitch Green, or take him out inside the distance. Tyson was not able to floor or halt nearly 34 year old Bonecrusher Smith within 12, like Holmes had previously done, and Smith had previously been decisioned by Marvis Frazier and Tony Tubbs, so no great achievement there. He wasn't able to stop or deck a barely mobile stork like Tucker inside of 12.

Considering Tyson's lack of lethality in these crucial matchups during his peak, who is supposed to wave the magic wand which suddenly makes him a deadly knockout artist against the 28 year old shutout specialist Holmes of Shavers I, or the 15 round shutout performer over Berbick and Cobb, or the boxing master of Cooney? (Especially with Futch and Arcel in his corner.)

Some presume a single mistake by Larry would cost him the contest. This about a technician who won 22 out of 23 rounds against the deadliest puncher in history.

Now let's see, what are Tyson's most impressive knockout wins? Well, he did take out Marvis Frazier in thirty seconds. That's only about thirty times as long as it took James Broad to land a knockout punch on Marvis in the amateurs.

Okay, who else? Well, he did take only two rounds to dispatch 32 year old Trevor Berbick. Of course it only took one round for Bernado Mercado to do it to the 24 year old version, and it only took Snipes a single round to send the 27 year old edition of Berbick to the mat (one match before Trevor dropped a decision to mediocre cruiserweight champion S.T. Gordon).

Next? Oh, he had a pretty decent TKO win over Pinky Thomas. (Of course Needles would be stopped four more times before his career was done.)

Sure, Tyson's win over psyched out stringbean Mike Spinks was impressive, but then he was physically dominated twice by former cruiserweight champion Holyfield, a brave warrior with a somewhat porous defense, who took everything Tyson could dish out with little difficulty. (Did Mike lose his punch while jailed?)

Had the 38 year old Holmes regressed that much during his nearly two month hiatus from training and competition before taking on a peak Tyson? Well, if you either turn on the closed captioning, or replay the broadcast of that match with the sound turned on, you will hear the commentators who had prior experience in announcing Larry's earlier bouts make repeated references to how noticably rusty and mistimed Holmes was over the three rounds prior to getting floored for the first time. (Of course it's easy to conveniently overlook the pronounced observations of these live eyewitnesses when viewing that footage with volumn turned off, and closed captioning not activated.)

This is not about how a peak Tyson would do against a 38 year old version of Holmes with nearly two years of ring rust, who was attempting to match Jersey Joe Walcott as the oldest one to hold the heavyweight championship, but how the peak version of Tyson who needed 45 seconds to finally finish Larry off, and had to go nearly four complete rounds to do it (at a time when he was supposedly one of the fastest starting heavyweights in history), would do against the peak Holmes of around a decade earlier.

Sure,Tyson looked great against some tomato cans, stale old Larry, a bit of intimidated and undersized opposition, set ups, knockoffs and stiffs (tank jobs, setups and fluffs like Buster Douglas, Danny Williams and Kevin McBride), but how would he do against a Holmes in his late 20s or early 30s, trained to a razor's edge, and at his own youthful best? Tyson was never the crusher that many like to imagine he was. He would never have been able to take out Roy Williams as Shavers did, or Abe Simon and Tony Galento as Louis did, or Jess Willard as Dempsey did in three. (That's right. I don't think Tyson could have dispatched Willard in Toledo, especially as well as Jess used his height to take the steam off his opponent's punches. And in a 45 rounder, the Willard of Havana would have outlasted Tyson just as he did Jack Johnson.)

Don't get me wrong, reunifying the heavyweight championship is an achievement worthy of very high praise indeed, and Tyson was far more impressive as the undisputed titlist than he predecessor who enjoyed that formal distinction, Leon Spinks. But against the ATG HWs at their very best, he just was not as formidable as all that. (Foreman would have eaten him alive, and Tyson knew it. In fact, George may do it yet, if Tyson becomes desperate enough for the payoff such an arrangement might provide.)

 

Duodenum,

You're being a little short sighted,

Tyson wasnt just speed and power, he was a technically competant fighter beating the division's best. Unlike the champions that came after him Tyson became undisputed the hard way by going after each individual champion. That counts for something.

Tyson was green when he faced Tillis. He was good but he wasnt quite there yet. Smith, Green and Tucker did very little to make a fight of it and Mike Tyson won a one sided decision.

Larry Holmes on the other hand wouldnt settle. He'd put up a fight and not just try and survive as a result he may open up more than Green, Tucker and Smith.

 

Peak vs Green and Tillis? Tyson had been a pro a mere 14 months when he fought these two. A rare hiccup is nothing to write home about. Holmes at this comparative stage was fighting some stiff called Bob Mashburn, 7-6-2. Tyson fought these 2 a mere 17 daysd apart :yikes. It's well known that Crusher fought to survive and Tucker was actually 35-0, never beaten. If we pick out performances like these we have to also look at Holmes getting dropped by a Snipes not as good as Tucker, life and death with Weaver and Witherspoon, getting heavily dropped by Earnie Shavers who had nothing but power etc.

You're picking out Tysons weak bouts and putting them against Holmes best! What about the boxing master dropped by the novice Snipes, life and death against the novice Witherspoon, same with the thought of as a clubfighter at the time Weaver etc etc. Then we have Tyson hammering a Thomas Holmes wouldn't fight, poleaxing a Berbick Holmes didn't look like stopping, a guy that all that shutout a Crusher that gave Holmes a rough time etc.

Shavers the deadliest puncher in history? You simply have to be jesting. That is an incredible statement.

The same Berbick that easily went 15 with Larry. Mercado was an abomination and the Snipes fight ended reasonably close. Remember, this Snipes sat Holmes heavily on his ass. After Snipes and Gordon Berbick went 9 fights undefeated including a title win over Thomas and a TKO of Bey.

The same Needles Holmes avoided as if he had AIDS and the plague all rolled into one.

Can't be denied, and the stringbean beat Larry at the tail of his reign. It was telling that such an experienced warrior was psyched out even before he got into the ring. It's a plus for Tyson, not a minus.

This "then" just happens to be 8 years after the Spinks fight, which was peak Tyson. I think you're selling Holyfield well short. A great win for Holyfield over a still very dangerous Tyson.

Yeah, there's no doubt at all their actual contest has bugger all bearing on a peak matchup.

Tyson can't be faulted here, Holmes was a crafty old warrior with a still great chin who didn't exactly stand and deliver here.

A shockingly shallow view, especially considering the stiffs Holmes beat and wouldn't fight.

No, that was his twin brother stiffing Thomas, Spinks, Bruno, Williams, Tubbs, Biggs, Berbick et al.

He was a lot better than Holmes too, he took on all comers and unified the damn thing, not to mention his opposition was better to boot. What he didn't have was Larry's stability and longevity. He burned briefly, but far brighter.

Utter speculation that a 40 + Foreman beats Tyson. One wonders if the whole thing has been blown out to mythical status by gullible fans.

Incidently i narrowly favour Holmes over Tyson myself at their peaks tho i certainly take on board the opposite view. It's a toughie. Just tought i'd add some unbiased balance to a totally one sided summation.

 

I nominate this for worst post of the year. Anybody want to second it?

 

When it comes to quality of opposition, Tyson beats Holmes by a long shot. Tyson's wins over Spinks, Thomas, Tucker and Ruddock are arguably better than any Holmes ever had.

 

Beating a reluctant Tucker and an aged Thomas isn't as good as beating an inspired Norton. Probably isn't as good as beating a motivated Weaver either.

 

he learned to move out of the way of dangerous punchers with his expierences with nick wells the only other man to knock out holmes besides tyson.and wells he did it twice.i think holmes recognizes this and avoids tyson the whole fight by dictating the pace of the fight and taking the decision in 15.dont throw the that was the amateurs bull**** out there.i think larry getting his ass handed to him by wells made him a better fighter in ways.

 

You mean an old Norton?:deal

 

You have a good point. Although I don't think Thomas was aged that much, and Tucker was a reasonably tuff customer. Norton was good, but would fall off the face of the earth fairly quickley following the Holmes fight, and Weaver's career was only begining to take off when he fought Larry. Prior to the Holmes fight, Hercules was pretty much a nobody.