Well surely we would compare him to other heavyweights. What heavyweights would you put forward as having better ring IQ than Holmes given Holmes ring IQ was not "real good"?
It's possible William was referring to the things shared by Holy and Holmes like resiliency and heart.
The other problem Holmes would have is when he was hurt his warrior instinct was to try to fight his way out of trouble. Look at the Weaver and Spoon fights. He was badly hurt and saved himself with a huge punch out of nowhere. It's possible he would do the same against Tyson, but I think that approach is more likely to doom him.
Shavers is known for being one of the hardest punchers in boxing history. He scored 68 knockout wins (23 in the first round) and holds a 91.8% knockout-to-win ratio https://www.boxingnewsonline.net/exclusive-larry-holmes-earnie-shavers-hit-harder-than-mike-tyson/ This content is protected James tillis ": “Tommy hit harder than Tyson, so he´s second behind Shavers by my experience”. Pinklon thomas “I couldn´t believe how all his punches hurt. I thought there was something suspicious about it, he hits way harder than Mike Tyson”. Ruddock "tommy did hit slightly harder than tyson" ·James "Quick" Tillis: "Shavers hit so hard he turned horse p*ss into gasoline! He hit me so hard he brought back tomorrow. When he hit me… I was seeing pink rats and cats and animals smoking cigarettes. I was in the land of make-believe." "No doubtThe baddest mf'er I fought was Earnie Shavers. That mf'er can make July into June and made me jump over the mf'n moon. He hit me so hard, I thought I was on the corner smoking cigarette and eating a spam sandwich. That's how hard that mf'er hit." You missed the point!You said he was faster,,more accurate....but it is not about who is better fighter but who is harder puncher and Ernie was according to all common fighter also Simms stated Shavers hit harder than Smith or Tyson!
True. You, Sangria, and Shahpoor are all good debaters with good points. I just don't care for some of your methods.
It's interesting: I think in 1986 Tillis said another opinion about Tyson's and Shavers' punching power. I don't trust in Tillis' opinion at all., just saying... Thomas is another pathetic Tyson victim he hates Mike T. , it's clear. Maybe the 20 years old Tyson was the only fighter who could knock down Thomas. The Morrison ko was just garbage. Otherwise this punching power thing isn't important. Maybe Tyson could punch like an average featherweight but still who was the only fighter who could destroy Holmes and this is a fact and not a shitty opinion.
You don't think Tyson KO4 Holmes was a big deal? Sports Illustrated, knowing that Holmes was 38 and hadn't fought in 18 months, thought it was a big deal. I'll find my copy and give you some quotes. I think everyone knows Holmes was past his best but his legacy was far from being over. Had he beaten McCall in 1995 we most likely would've seen Tyson-Holmes II.
Tyson vs Holmes made the cover of SI's Feb '88 issue, I believe. Young, emerging great vs. old, former great makes good copy - no matter the sport, I'd imagine. But sporting significance, from the perspective of it having been an 'event' (and, for Holmes, a lucrative one), is different from it being used as the yardstick for how Tyson would have done against a prime Holmes.
I completely agree that Larry redeemed his loss to Mike by becoming unquestionably a top contender in the 90s (and, if Mercer hadn't dumped his WBO title) basically champion again off-paper...but I still don't give Mike a whole lot of credit for that ko or victory. To me any fighter past the age of 38 gets at least somewhat of a free pass. We all know that, in spite of George and Larry's later-era wins, 38 is old for most fighters. And though Larry came back and fought regularly in the 90s, this Tyson fight was after a year and a half of ring rust. You and I both know ring rustiness of that caliber is no joke when factoring a fighter's mindset and overall conditioning, especially against a very young, completely prime terror like Iron Mike indubitably was at the time. Larry was also coming off two losses, the second being a robbery. Anyone who watched that second fight saw how Holmes wasn't hurt even once, yet Spinks was staggered several times. Holmes couldn't possibly have NOT had that on his mind, that he might lose even if he won. (As a sidebar, I should mention that Sports Illustrated also picked Gerry Cooney to knock out Larry in 3, far from an unimpeachable source.) Finally, Larry's prime was nearly six years behind him. He started slipping in the Cooney fight (though it could be argued when he fought Snipes), where in the 2nd round he made a tactical error he wouldn't have made the year before: he let Cooney off the hook. Against Snipes he got caught by a punch he knew damn well was his Achilles' heel, and for some reason STILL left his guard down on...plus, it was nowhere near the shots Weaver and Shavers put him down with. A not so great win that time against a not so great fighter. So we could argue it was actually six years past his prime when he fought Mike. But Sangria, I'll concede to your very good assertion and say NO EXCUSES (and this is not meant in a disrespectful way at all). Though Mike himself said that the Holmes he beat was not the Legendary Fighter Larry Holmes, who would have beaten him. Let's say Mike beat the 29 year old Holmes, undefeated, considered to have probably the greatest jab in the division's history, heart of a lion, was more than ready to fght Mike that day due to regular fights leading up to (including fights against contenders....). That this was the Larry Holmes who boxed Trevor Berbick's ears off, slapped the crap out of Neon Leon, peeled himself off the canvas and knocked the stuffing out of Shavers. No. This wasn't even the Larry Holmes who, three fights into his decline, edged Tim Witherspoon and who, in round 9 of that fight, put on one of the most obvious displays of Championship Heart in ring history. In fact, it was even the Holmes who beat the tar out of Bonecrusher Smith, when Mike was taken to a lame decision by the same man. But I have to apologetically qualify my assertions above: my favorite fighter is Larry Holmes, so please understand that, even if a single point above has even a smidgen of truth to it, I am hopelessly biased out of love for that fighter. So, I completely respect your regard for Mike (and have sympathies for them in the sense that I'm a fan of prime Mike, too). I am just defending what I love, and might even be wrong on all counts. Love can be blind.
RulesMakeItInteresting Do you have a local library close by your home? If so then like I said before, go and borrow Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth. It will probably change your perspective on Tyson a bit and it's also a great read.
Honestly, how much faith you can have in the opinions of someone who declares: "Tyson hit like a homosexual"? He sounds punchy as well.
