PRIME MIKE TYSON VS PRIME LARRY HOLMES

[cultus]

I agree with you Cultus but sadly empirically speaking it is the Same Mike Tyson. Just a Mike Tyson making bad choices and having bad outcomes. So you have to judge his whole body of work.

At their peak I think Tyson wins I have said that. But I would still rate Larry Higher because his body of work was better. And even if they would have been "timelime peers" Holmes would have dominated the era because of how short Tysons "prime" was.

Anyone follow my tangent here? Also I would rate Holmes Higher on the all time board.

Agreed

[wlvrne]

till the spinks fight he trained but after the spinks fight!!! the press had given him such a hard time accuseing him of this and that and he lost respect for the status of th Undisputed Heavywight Champion of the world. I absolutely understand why he stated after the spinks fight that he would retire... he lost the interest.. and didn't take boxing seriously again in his life. ... I understand that you and most Tyson haters do think that in that Douglas fight he was at his peak... but things couldn't be more wrong.. the peak Tyson was gone... no combos, no bodywork, no discipline... only oneshot waiting guy who only managed to land ONE clear shot in the entire fight. But still on .. if you compare that Tyson to the one who fought Hollyfield then the one who fought hollyfield was no Tyson at alll... if you'd watch and comapre these fight you'd understand...
peace... man

this is essentially what I said earlier in this post. I'm surprised "SS" didn't jump on you for this.

[Grimm]

till the spinks fight he trained but after the spinks fight!!! the press had given him such a hard time accuseing him of this and that and he lost respect for the status of th Undisputed Heavywight Champion of the world. I absolutely understand why he stated after the spinks fight that he would retire... he lost the interest.. and didn't take boxing seriously again in his life. ... I understand that you and most Tyson haters do think that in that Douglas fight he was at his peak... but things couldn't be more wrong.. the peak Tyson was gone... no combos, no bodywork, no discipline... only oneshot waiting guy who only managed to land ONE clear shot in the entire fight. But still on .. if you compare that Tyson to the one who fought Hollyfield then the one who fought hollyfield was no Tyson at alll... if you'd watch and comapre these fight you'd understand...
peace... man

this is essentially what I said earlier in this post. I'm surprised "SS" didn't jump on you for this.

Oh just wait.
LMAO.

[Seamus]

I think if Larry Holmes is highly motivated and prepared like he was for his 82 fight against Cooney, he fends off Iron Mike when he's the most dangerous in the first 3-4 rounds, then dominates the rest of the fight with his rapier like jab and crisp counters. Tony Tucker proved in 87 that even when Tyson was at his peak, if you nailed him with a big shot in the first round, you could make him cautious the rest of the fight, and although Tyson clearly won that encounter you could clearly see that the punch that hit him in the first round made him respect Tucker's power the rest of the fight. I could see Holmes doing something similar.

As insane as this may sound, Tyrell Biggs looked like he was employing the right strategy to beat Tyson in the very next title fight, BUT only in the first round when he jabbed and used his reach to keep Tyson at a safe distance. In the 2nd round Biggs foolishly abandoned the strategy and started going toe to toe with Tyson which in case was suicide.

[cultus]

I think if Larry Holmes is highly motivated and prepared like he was for his 82 fight against Cooney, he fends off Iron Mike when he's the most dangerous in the first 3-4 rounds, then dominates the rest of the fight with his rapier like jab and crisp counters. Tony Tucker proved in 87 that even when Tyson was at his peak, if you nailed him with a big shot in the first round, you could make him cautious the rest of the fight, and although Tyson clearly won that encounter you could clearly see that the punch that hit him in the first round made him respect Tucker's power the rest of the fight. I could see Holmes doing something similar.

As insane as this may sound, Tyrell Biggs looked like he was employing the right strategy to beat Tyson in the very next title fight, BUT only in the first round when he jabbed and used his reach to keep Tyson at a safe distance. In the 2nd round Biggs foolishly abandoned the strategy and started going toe to toe with Tyson which in case was suicide.

yeah but Larry had no power or atleast not much, couldn't hurt Mike. And the thing you just said that Mike get's cautious when hit big makes him all that harder to hit later. Tyrell abandoned his tactics cose he was getting cut down and it was not working

[wlvrne]

To back-up Cultus, we are ceding the fact that Larry Holme did have a really good jab. Couple that with is right hand, he was able to dominate a lot of other fighters. However, Tyson, before the Spinks fight, was not just "another fighter". He was a figher who could slip the jab - any jab - and bang that body, move out, and start all over again.
Yes Biggs, Tucker jabbed and moved. The turning point proved when Tyson banged their body. They slowed down. Why? - Tyson knocked the wind out of them, took their legs from them. Just watch his earlier fights before Spinks - Tyson worked the body, and he worked just to get inside, but he managed to do this time & again against fighters with longer reach. People also forget that Tyson could double-pump his own jab coming in.
Everyone focuses on the Douglas fight. The Tyson we're talking about was the one who didn't party for 3 days before losing to a 28-1 underdog.
The Tyson we're talking about was the one who slipped the jab coming in; was committed to body-work round after round. What we're saying is: watch his fights from early-on to the Spinks fight. He became a "head-hunter" after that because someone convinced him ( maybe himself ) that he could knock anyone out by hitting them in the head. He forgot what brought him there. Dedicated body work that broke down his opponents, therby giving him opportunity to knock them out.
p.s. sorry for so long

[HeavyHitters]

Tyson did beat Holmes... KO4

[Tantum]

Yeah, and Marciano beat Louis.

Neither fight means a damn thing.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

tantum not necessarily, both marciano and tyson get credit for beating a top contender because even an old louis was still on of the top contenders and the same goes for larry holmes. tyson also knocked out a 42 year old holmes who would later on go to show he could still fight when he gave holyfield a tough fight and nearly beat oliver mccail an beat ray mercer.

its also good because u can see how the peak marciano and tyson use their stradegy against the old legend so when u compare prime for prime, it makes things easier.

but bottom line is rocky marciano gets credit for beating a top contender who is still tough even though pas his prime and tyson gets credit for beating a past his prime great who was prob still one of the top heavyweghts out there,

holmes never took such a beating he took that night against tyson, even an older holmes could give holyfield trouble and beat ray mercer. agianst tyson he had no chance.

i still think tyson in his prime would have KOed larry holmes because i think larry was made for him.

[Sweet Scientist]

i still think tyson in his prime would have KOed larry holmes because i think larry was made for him.

I guess that Buster Douglas, who Tyson fought at age 24, with a record of 37-0-0...wasn't made for him then, right? How many people do you really think would rate Douglas over Holmes? And I don't want to hear more excuses...If he couldn't beat Douglas...and he couldn't ever again win a big fight (after 1989)...then he isn't going to beat Holmes...period. Tyson's 'prime' lasted about 15 seconds...

Tyson was mentally weak and had no 'heart'...how the hell is someone like that going to compare favorably to a legend? The first time somebody kept sticking a jab in his face (Douglas), he folded like a bad poker hand...what the hell do you think Holmes in his prime would do? Just stand there in front of him and say, 'hit me'?

Holmes' 'body of work' in his long career exceeds what Tyson did by a mile...an old shot Holmes was still winning in his 40's, might not have been pretty, but he was winning...what did Tyson do in his last few fights? Tyson lovers watch too many highlight reels...the late '80's didn't define Tyson's career...it's what came after that that defined his career...and what came after that was not championship material...and in his biggest fights (Holyfield, Lewis), he lost to guys older that he was...not a pretty picture for someone you claim is so great...

What other heavyweight won in his early 20's and then self destructed, and is still considered an all time great? Nobody. So why the exception for Tyson?

OK...now start with the 1000 excuses and explainations as to why he was so great...just don't expect most people to believe it...we all saw the 'real' Tyson...not the one that KO's everybody in the highlight reels...the one who lost all the big fights after the '80's...the one who bites ears...the one who prefered intensive partying to intensive training...the one who was ridiculously immature, both in and out of the ring...the one who couldn't control his rage...

Hey...I liked watching Tyson in the '80's too...but what happened in the '90's can't be overlooked...except by Tyson lovers...

[touchemup]

A prime Mike Tyson I think would destroy most if not all the all time greats, Holmes included. What people forget it wasn't just the power it was the swiftness in his punches and the killer combo punches.
Its easy for people now to say he was overrated, he didn't fight anybody,etc; but these are the same people who marveled at the way he had guys beat mentally before fight time. Holmes did have a potent jab so I think he would give tyson problems, but he also got decked by some average fighters. Mike probably takes him out in 6 or 7 rounds or a late stoppage by the ref.

[Sweet Scientist]

A prime Mike Tyson I think would destroy most if not all the all time greats, Holmes included. What people forget it wasn't just the power it was the swiftness in his punches and the killer combo punches.
Its easy for people now to say he was overrated, he didn't fight anybody,etc; but these are the same people who marveled at the way he had guys beat mentally before fight time. Holmes did have a potent jab so I think he would give tyson problems, but he also got decked by some average fighters. Mike probably takes him out in 6 or 7 rounds or a late stoppage by the ref.

Yeah...I guess Buster Douglas beats 'the all time greats' then too... seeing as he beat 24 year old Tyson...Tyson LOST in his prime...nobody is out of their prime at age 24...Tyson LOST in his prime...and that's not so bad, everybody loses once in a while...but you'll notice, he never came back from defeat to win another big fight...yeah, he'd beat 'the all time greats' alright...yeah, Joe Louis, Ali, Holmes and the rest would just cower in fear...cut me a break...

[Grimm]

A prime Mike Tyson I think would destroy most if not all the all time greats, Holmes included. What people forget it wasn't just the power it was the swiftness in his punches and the killer combo punches.
Its easy for people now to say he was overrated, he didn't fight anybody,etc; but these are the same people who marveled at the way he had guys beat mentally before fight time. Holmes did have a potent jab so I think he would give tyson problems, but he also got decked by some average fighters. Mike probably takes him out in 6 or 7 rounds or a late stoppage by the ref.

Yeah...I guess Buster Douglas beats 'the all time greats' then too... seeing as he beat 24 year old Tyson...Tyson LOST in his prime...nobody is out of their prime at age 24...Tyson LOST in his prime...and that's not so bad, everybody loses once in a while...but you'll notice, he never came back from defeat to win another big fight...yeah, he'd beat 'the all time greats' alright...yeah, Joe Louis, Ali, Holmes and the rest would just cower in fear...cut me a break...

Being in your prime means when you were at your best.

Tyson was not at his best against Douglas.

[Broncano]

Being in your prime means when you were at your best.

Tyson was not at his best against Douglas.

But you see, Mikey had been exposed long before that, namely vs. Tony Tucker, 1987... After staggering him in the first round, Tucker went into safety mode (He allegedly hurt his right hand in the second round), and although the judges gave Tyson a wide decision, Tucker made him look bad throughout the fight, showing that an opponent with good lateral movement and a crisp jab would give him fits. Buster Douglas only confirmed this in Tokyo 3 years later.

[Grimm]

Being in your prime means when you were at your best.

Tyson was not at his best against Douglas.

But you see, Mikey had been exposed long before that, namely vs. Tony Tucker, 1987... After staggering him in the first round, Tucker went into safety mode (He allegedly hurt his right hand in the second round), and although the judges gave Tyson a wide decision, Tucker made him look bad throughout the fight, showing that an opponent with good lateral movement and a crisp jab would give him fits. Buster Douglas only confirmed this in Tokyo 3 years later.

I thought he did pretty good for his "safety mode".

[silkov]

Being in your prime means when you were at your best.

Tyson was not at his best against Douglas.

But you see, Mikey had been exposed long before that, namely vs. Tony Tucker, 1987... After staggering him in the first round, Tucker went into safety mode (He allegedly hurt his right hand in the second round), and although the judges gave Tyson a wide decision, Tucker made him look bad throughout the fight, showing that an opponent with good lateral movement and a crisp jab would give him fits. Buster Douglas only confirmed this in Tokyo 3 years later.

You can also see the same flaws in Tyson in the Mitch Green and Ribalta fights... how Tyson would get frustrated by someone who didn't go down once he was hit. Again in the Bonecrusher fight Tysons flaws were exposed.... he was made for someone who had a decent chin, decent Jab and heart. A peak Holmes would have schooled Tyson... Holmes took the fight vs Tyson at about 8 weeks notice after having spent over two years out drinking beer and at his office desk. The 40+ Holmes who fought Holifield may well have been able to beat a 'peak' Tyson imo.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

silkov come on think rationally. no way the 40 + holmes beats tyson. the holmes in early nineties was no better than the holmes who faced tyson. tyson wa just at his peak and holmes couldnt deal with tysons power.

u think green and ribalta and bonecrsuher frustrated tyson???? yeah they did but for a different reason. they frustrated tyson because they wouldnt fight him and would either run away and be cautious the whole fight like green or hold him the entrie fight because he was scared to death like bonecrusher.


tyson in his prime also proved he could go the distance and punch the other guy the whole 12 rounds like he did tucker and bonecrusher.

[Sweet Scientist]

Being in your prime means when you were at your best.

Tyson was not at his best against Douglas.

I don't see it that way at all...

There were many fighters 'in their prime' through history that lost...if they lost, they were not at their peak...but they were still in their prime. Fighters can lose in their prime...it's what they do after the loss that tends to define how good they are...the great ones come back...Tyson didn't

Nobody is out of their prime at age 24...they haven't naturally lost speed or refexes at age 24...if they lose for some other reason (like poor training, doing drugs, poor motivation, poor strategy, taking their opponent too lightly, losing weight too fast, etc.), then...THEY LOST IN THEIR PRIME...you're not always at your peak in your prime...unless you are dedicated to being at your peak...if you don't train properly, then that's YOUR resposibility...YOU LOST IN YOUR PRIME...your 'prime' is more a period in time when you have the matured physical ability and experience...not just 'when you were at your peak'...PRIME IS A TIME...take advantage of it while you can...Tyson didn't...

With the God given talent and physical skills Tyson had at the end of 1989, there is no excuse on earth to justify why Tyson couldn't win the big fights after 1989. You act like he aged 15 years for Douglas. TYSON WAS IN HIS PRIME FOR DOUGLAS. Tyson was closer to his prime for Holyfield than Holyfield was...he was only 30, Holyfield 34...most great fighters are still at least 95% 'prime' at 30... Tyson was younger than Lennox Lewis, also...

Tyson...with 5 years or more of 'theoretical prime' left...decided to throw it in the garbage by his actions in and out of the ring...So when somebody says Tyson would beat Holmes...or Ali...or Foreman...or Joe Louis...or any of the 'all time greats'...they better think about that Douglas fight...and what happened the next 15 years following it...

[BoxBuzz]

This is a game that when the best are in the ring with each other anything can happen. Douglas on that night was not bad at all. The only think that Tyson did not have that night was focus. That shows you how little difference there is between the best and the rest.

You Know SS I keep comin back to this and I get less and less sure of my call. But Tyson without focus is a bumbler. Tyson with focus can at least stand up to anyone from any era. How much of Tyson was his focus?

Much.

[silkov]

This is a game that when the best are in the ring with each other anything can happen. Douglas on that night was not bad at all. The only think that Tyson did not have that night was focus. That shows you how little difference there is between the best and the rest.

You Know SS I keep comin back to this and I get less and less sure of my call. But Tyson without focus is a bumbler. Tyson with focus can at least stand up to anyone from any era. How much of Tyson was his focus?

Much.

But when you get down to it Tyson was flawed all through his career... he did not have the mental strength to take him up to the next level where he would have been an all time great. His best wins were over faded or mediocre opposition and as soon as he faced a talented fighter who wasn't past his best and who wasn't intimidated by him he lost.
Had Tyson emerged during the 70s or 60s or even a few years earlier in the 80s its unlikely he would have won the title at all.

[BoxBuzz]

I hear what your saying....
I'm just not sure Cus was that wrong about him. I'm still hangin on to my call here. I'm just not gaining in confidence.

[silkov]

I hear what your saying....
I'm just not sure Cus was that wrong about him. I'm still hangin on to my call here. I'm just not gaining in confidence.

Basically he had a bullies mentality... he couldn't overcome the background that he grew up in. There was a point when he won the title where if he had developed and grown technically and as a person he could well have become an all timer but the mental strength wasn't there and he fell apart.
A lot of Heavyweights could have been great, Max Baer, Mike Dokes, Greg Page, Riddick Bowe all had the physical tools needed but not the mentality. Ali wasn't the greatest just becuase of his physical talents he was the greatest because of his strength of mind which saw him gain his greatest victories when he was physically past his best.

[BoxBuzz]

I agree with that. However some peoples "prime" may be 15 minutes long. But when they peak they peak with a vengeance at a very high plateau. These are the fundamentals for my call.

I think I said if Holmes and Tyson were of the same exact era, Holmes would dominate the era but perhaps lose one to Tyson.
Taken at their prime and prime only I give Tyson a better average.

These theoreticals can be complex. It's hard work granted but someone has to do it.

[Sweet Scientist]

As I said earlier...I liked watching Tyson in the late '80's...how could you not, if you were a boxing fan...but he didn't 'pan out' the way he should have...and a couple years doesn't make an all time great...he failed too many tests...he squandered his enormous talent...you have to prove greatness...Tyson lovers just want to hand it to him...even though he lost every major fight after 1989...he didn't do enough over the last 15 years to impress me...sorry...no other all time great gets it just 'handed to him'...they earned it...Tyson self destructed...and as others have said, it was probably just a matter of time for the weak minded Mike...

You need more than just physical strength...everything in this world is at least 75% mental...maybe more...

If everyone was like Tyson...we'd still be in the stone age...(no pun intended...lol)

[thunderfromdownunder]

Larry Holmes of 1979-81, beats Tyson every time. Larry was not a tomato, and Tyson wouldn't hit Larry, and if he did Larry would weather the storm. Just weathering the storm would have taken the fight out of Tyson. Tyson always had trouble with tall boxers. Larry was a cut above most "boxers". The Easton Assasin TKO 10.

dude, hardly anyone could "weather the storm" of a prime tyson