Prime Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson

I'm short on time, so I will give you that explanation another day. I'm not making excuses. If I forget, don't hesitate to remind me.

 

Well, I meant compared to some others like Ali or Roberto Duran or SRR or someone like that. Not saying Larry didn't know how to use the ring or predict his opponent's actions, I just wouldn't say he has one of the ATG IQs of boxing.

 

The thread was about a PRIME Holmes vs. Tyson. Larry was 4-5 years past his prime.

 

I liked the first half of your paragraph, I don't like the last part about Tyson and Holmes.

 

That fight often gets used against Machen just to make him look bad. No one ever uses it to make a valid point. Merely posting the video does not necessarily properly contextualize everything. I don't recall saying that Machen took a better single shot than Machen anyway, I must have mistyped, cuz I think Tyson takes a better single shot. I think Machen took a better beating/ accumulation of shots.

 

Personally, I do see the fight being close. Tyson is faster or more mobile than most of the guys Holmes faced. As I said to johnthomas1, I didn't meant Holmes was not a great technician, just not one of the most outstanding of all time. I think Holmes would try to outbox Tyson, maybe execute it for a few rounds, but get after a few rounds, probably even dropped once or twice, I think Holmes would weather a storm worse than any fight in his career. But Larry had a chin of steel, and I think he would get in the trenches with Tyson for some even slugging and finally win the fight with a good closing rally, due to better stamina. Whether this goes 12 or 15 is a factor. Tyson had good 12-round stamina. Like most of Larry's tough fights, I think he would win the early rounds by boxing Tyson, would get hurt bad, and then go to war. Larry usually turned into a brawler once hurt (Norton, Weaver I, Shavers II, Smith I).

 

Another thing that begs a good question is that Holyfield stopped Tyson, and was winning in the second fight when Tyson was DQ'd. I'm not trying to rank Holmes or Holyfield higher than the other, but Tyson and Holyfield, thought not prime, were on the same page of their careers, ultimately making no excuses for Tyson. If Holyfield stopped Tyson, why wouldn't Holmes beat him by decision? Afterall, Holmes and Holyfield really were very similar.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Holyfield was more of a darting in-and-out fighter, in a way like a WAY more successful (and way less goofy) version of the heavyweight Michael Spinks (with a better punch and far better chin, too). He was good at giving an opponent different views, thus being kind of hard to pinpoint at different times in a fight.

Larry Holmes was the classic boxer-puncher who relied mainly on his left jab (perhaps, as Merchant once opined, more than any heavyweight in history). For Holmes the jab at times could alternate as his version of a left hook, in that he seemed to have really good leverage to the point of being able to knock down other fighters with it. Check out his best jabs, he steps in with it and rotates with a serious whipping snap at the end of it. Holmes moved a lot more before the title, but that was during his Ali-emulating period, after the title he still moved quite effectively, but was more concerned with stepping into and sitting on his punches. You don't see a lot of darting in and out from Larry (though he did some with the much lesser version of Ali, probably because he could get away with it). You mostly saw the classic, basic-but-very- effective moving to his left.

Neither man was a one-shot knockout puncher, it was usually more cumulative. They shared that in common. They also had sensational Championship Hearts, and I think only Ali and Frazier could compare to them in that regard. They wouldn't quit.

But ultimately different. I could be wrong, of course.

 

So any talk about Kevin McBride is irrelevant, no?

Unless we're only talking a prime Holmes vs any version of Tyson. But that's not much of a sporting discussion.

 

You literally wrote exactly that.

If you can't remember what you wrote or double back on your statements when pushed to defend them then how much integrity does your argument have? Very little I'd say.

Maybe stop responding to any thread involving Tyson in such an emotional way and you might avoid these incidents in the future. Not everyone who argues in favour of Tyson is a rabid fanboy.

 

What? Lol

 

Oh come on. They both had two arms and two legs and boxed you know.

 

This is essentially how I see the fight playing out for Holmes if siding with him. Holmes's chin and recuperative abilities would be pushed to the very brink however, and everyone has their limits.

Holmes's heart didn't desert him in the Tyson fight. But he couldn't recover from the first knockdown, and he physically couldn't withstand Tyson's KO shots. A younger version might be able to stay on his feet for longer, but he'll still be taking the same sorts of shots, so it comes down to survival ability for me: how well Holmes can ride out the storm and recuperate to a point where he can turn the tide. And how often can he get away with it before the physical toll becomes too great to bear?

 

And both black men

 

Well when you put it that way, I fail to see any flaws in this logic!