I didn’t vote. Truthfully I’m not sure. While Holmes was clearly long past his prime in his actual meeting with Mike Tyson, he was still beaten rather easily. And while Tyson eventually lost to a much lesser fighter in Buster Douglas, there were some key circumstantial factors as well as stylistic differences which may have made that loss moot in any comparison. Then again Holmes was a master boxer with great stamina, heart, durability and one of the best left jabs of all time. But even at his pinnacle struggled mightily and was nearly beaten by Norton, Shavers, Weaver and Witherspoon. At the end of the day I’m just not sure
The Douglas fight did have some stipulations, but of the films I've seen of Douglas (Berbick, McCall, Page), he fought much like Larry. He was fast and powerful with a lot of movement. But you're right. Larry was WAY tougher, had much superior stamina, and so on. I just think Larry has a history of defeating prime tough fighters legitimately and coming back from difficulty. Several of Tyson's best wins are over over-the-hill ex-champs, some of whom could not take a shot, and Tyson seldom won fights where he was almost gone but came back. Let's face it, Larry was nearly pushed to oblivion by Norton, Weaver, Shavers, and Witherspoon. Who pushed Tyson to the edge and still lost?
swagdelfadeel, you're really too good. You're a great escape from all the insanity of the forum. I can't believe some of the psychos running wild.
Appreciate that buddy! You're not half bad yourself! You've quickly grown to be one of my favorite posters!
Yeah this is a tough one to make a pick on for sure. Larry is higher in my mind on a Top Heavyweights of all time list when you take everything in to account 7.5 years as Champ and 20 title defenses is legendary type stuff. I’ve been back and forth on this one over the years. I just think that peak of his powers Tyson (Berbick to Spinks) is a nightmare for almost anyone and many of his strengths are bad news for Holmes. I get the Douglas - Holmes comparison but I think Tyson while physically he should’ve still been in his prime he didn’t prepare for that fight properly (it’s pretty well documented) and he was Also mentally checking out at that point. Holmes would for sure trash Tokyo Tyson. I can’t fault either side of this argument Larry did prove that he could walk through fire and come back and Tyson hardly ever did, but that’s not Tyson’s fault, he was so good and so dominant at his Peak that most couldn’t test him. I just feel like Tyson’s entire style was predicated on beating Larry Holmes initially because they assumed he would be champion still. That’s why I lean ever so slightly towards Tyson, but we need that Spinks version of Tyson, the lesser Versions of Tyson will get his heart ripped out and take a beating at the hands of Holmes.
*someone hating on Tyson* swagdelfadeel : Damn this guy is a good poster. (this is a joke if you don't get it)
Funny isn't it, swagdelfadeel, only Tyson fans are the ones who are like "another person hating on Tyson". People hate Cleveland Williams all the time, did anybody call them haters? no, course not. How 'bout this post. NoNeck and some other people bashing ANYBODY that anyone thinks could beat Tyson. In reality, a Tyson hater is not someone who hates Tyson, it's a Tyson fan who hates people who see his flaws! lol
I'd add Pinklon Thomas to the mix. They all gave Tyson a lot to think about. Even Ribalta stood toe to toe and fought back. Jesse Ferguson didn't go down until Tyson connected with solid bombs in the 5th. All those fights, every one of em, proved Mike could get someone out after 5 rounds. Or win a decisive decision. A couple things the haters claim he couldn't do.
I've never seen this. Is it based on some measurable criteria or just opinion? How much timing is really required to land an uppercut while your left hand is clamped around your opponent's neck (as Earnie was doing against Ellis)? I thought the Holmes KD was Holmes' error more than anything else... he threw a lazy uppercut without jabbing and left himself wide open. Earnie was always a swinger whereas Tyson would never have got as far as he did with his style without precision timing (plus speed, balance etc). When those attributes diminished and he started looking for the one punch KOs he was never as effective.
This content is protected Shavers was a bad finisher. He just threw punches hoping that they would hit.