PRIME MIKE TYSON VS PRIME LARRY HOLMES

[cultus]

As I said above I don't think he was out of his prime at the age of 24... but he didn't care for it anymore.. so there's nothin else to say. But would he have beaten Holmes when he was at his best .. YES he would have.. just like he would have had atleast a 50/50 chance with every other heavy in the history of boxing.

[bollox]

As I said above I don't think he was out of his prime at the age of 24... but he didn't care for it anymore.. so there's nothin else to say. But would he have beaten Holmes when he was at his best .. YES he would have.. just like he would have had atleast a 50/50 chance with every other heavy in the history of boxing.

No chance. Quite a few HW's would have boxed his head off and forced him to give it up one way or the other, before the fight's end. The Tyson of the Bonecrusher and Tucker fights for example would have been badly beaten

[Sweet Scientist]

No chance.

...sums it up completely...

[wlvrne]

again, people keep missing the point of this thread. "SS" and BoxBuzz keep referring to Holmes standing the "test of time". It's not about that. I believe it was about whether a "prime" Holmes could have beaten the fighter Tyson was BEFORE he fought Spinks. I refer to this period as Tyson's "prime" because after this fight, he no longer displayed the skills that brought him the championship belt. Nor did he seem to want to.
This isn't about Tyson's career 90-05. This isn't about Holmes' longevity in the ring. Let's pit the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Tyson against the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Holmes. Skills, "SS", not whether or not you "feel" your boy could have beaten Tyson. I keep bringing up Tyson's wide array of skills he HAD, while you keep bringing up what happened after 1990. and the Douglas fight AND the Holyfield debacles.
Tyson dould double pump his own jab coming in; he could slip the jab coming in; he could bang the body AFTER slipping the jab; he would wear down his opponents with his body shots, THEN go head hunting with combinations. How would a 24 yr old Holmes deal with that type of fighter. and, please, bring up something other than "well, Holmes had the best jab in the business" followed by "his right hand". If that's all Holmes could bring when he was 24 against a 24 yr old Tyson, then the skills factor would be in Tyson's favor.
p.s. I'm not a big fan of Tyson, either after 1990. But compare skill for skill at 24. stay on topic of this thread.

Hey, "SS", why don't you read this and respond in an intelligent fashion. I give you specifics, you give me platitudes.

[Sweet Scientist]

again, people keep missing the point of this thread. "SS" and BoxBuzz keep referring to Holmes standing the "test of time". It's not about that. I believe it was about whether a "prime" Holmes could have beaten the fighter Tyson was BEFORE he fought Spinks. I refer to this period as Tyson's "prime" because after this fight, he no longer displayed the skills that brought him the championship belt. Nor did he seem to want to.
This isn't about Tyson's career 90-05. This isn't about Holmes' longevity in the ring. Let's pit the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Tyson against the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Holmes. Skills, "SS", not whether or not you "feel" your boy could have beaten Tyson. I keep bringing up Tyson's wide array of skills he HAD, while you keep bringing up what happened after 1990. and the Douglas fight AND the Holyfield debacles.
Tyson dould double pump his own jab coming in; he could slip the jab coming in; he could bang the body AFTER slipping the jab; he would wear down his opponents with his body shots, THEN go head hunting with combinations. How would a 24 yr old Holmes deal with that type of fighter. and, please, bring up something other than "well, Holmes had the best jab in the business" followed by "his right hand". If that's all Holmes could bring when he was 24 against a 24 yr old Tyson, then the skills factor would be in Tyson's favor.
p.s. I'm not a big fan of Tyson, either after 1990. But compare skill for skill at 24. stay on topic of this thread.

Since Holmes had his first fight at 23...it wouldn't be quite fair to campare the 24 year old Holmes with the 24 year old Tyson...

...do you know much about Holmes' career?...I think not...Holmes started at 23, won the 1/2 the title from Norton at 28...

...maybe you better go study up on that...

...or do you just base your entire opinion on the Tyson highlight reels you mention watching???

[wlvrne]

Actually I've been watching Tyson fight since he was about 19. And since you bring up Holme's age, then one could stand to reason that since Tyson, at a younger age, had tougher fights than Larry did , then wouldn't that take more out of a fighter? People write about Fernando Vargas being "shot" already.
And I did watch Larry Holmes fight when I was younger. Obviously you like him better than I do.
However, you still don't bring anything to this discusion of how Holmes would deal with the skills I've ascribed to Tyson as written above.
As I said before, I give you specifics, you give me platitudes. You only seek to draw attention away from actually comparing the skills each had in their "prime" - as is the topic of this post. re-read above post. compare skills. I've posted Tyson's skills and defense. please post what larry would have done against this, and how.

[wlvrne]

again, people keep missing the point of this thread. "SS" and BoxBuzz keep referring to Holmes standing the "test of time". It's not about that. I believe it was about whether a "prime" Holmes could have beaten the fighter Tyson was BEFORE he fought Spinks. I refer to this period as Tyson's "prime" because after this fight, he no longer displayed the skills that brought him the championship belt. Nor did he seem to want to.
This isn't about Tyson's career 90-05. This isn't about Holmes' longevity in the ring. Let's pit the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Tyson against the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Holmes. Skills, "SS", not whether or not you "feel" your boy could have beaten Tyson. I keep bringing up Tyson's wide array of skills he HAD, while you keep bringing up what happened after 1990. and the Douglas fight AND the Holyfield debacles.
Tyson could double pump his own jab coming in; he could slip the jab coming in; he could bang the body AFTER slipping the jab; he would wear down his opponents with his body shots, THEN go head hunting with combinations. How would a 24 yr old Holmes deal with that type of fighter. and, please, bring up something other than "well, Holmes had the best jab in the business" followed by "his right hand". If that's all Holmes could bring when he was 24 against a 24 yr old Tyson, then the skills factor would be in Tyson's favor.
p.s. I'm not a big fan of Tyson, either after 1990. But compare skill for skill at 24. stay on topic of this thread.

Hey, "SS", why don't you read this and respond in an intelligent fashion. I give you specifics, you give me platitudes.

here, just in case you got lost and can't find it.

[wlvrne]

and speaking of facts; Holmes lost to Michael Spinks ( who was a small hvy wt ) 2 times in '85 & '86. Two years later in '88, Spinks got destroyed by Mike Tyson.
Had that same Mike Tyson fought Holmes in his prime he still would have beaten him. That's the Tyson I'm talking about.
And out of all Holme's fights, how many were fighters of note? Shavers, Evangelista, Weaver, Ali ( shot by then), Berbick.
Out of 72 fights Holmes beat only 5 fighters of any note. Only to lose to a much smaller Michael Spinks. If that Spinks could beat Holmes, who supposedly was still going strong, then the Tyson that beat Spinks would have beaten Holmes.

and speaking of opponents, tell me, "SS" compare opponents of Holmes and Tyson in their first 37 fights.

[wlvrne]

....and Mr. Holmes, starting at age 23, fought 26 times in 5 years before winning his first belt.
....and Mr. Tyson fought 27 fights in 20 MONTHS before winning his first belt.
The post here is about their "prime". Obviously Mike started younger, harder, faster, fought better opposition. This takes its toll on any fighter. So if you wonder why Mike had such a short "prime", here's one reason.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i agree on that wolverine, look at wildred benitez. he lost his Junior middleweight title to tommy hearns when he was 24, and was never the same again. he took a beating from mustafa hamshu and never competed as a top contender again.

i think it was because he burnt himself out. when he was JUST 17, he beat a hall of famer to win the title. just 17. he then beat palomino and gave ray leonard a good fight when he was 22 years old. he also beat roberto duran in a great preforamnce. it just goes to show u some of these guys who start young like benitez peak at the age of 20 and burn out and by the time bentiez was 28, he was a shell of his former self.

[Sweet Scientist]

again, people keep missing the point of this thread. "SS" and BoxBuzz keep referring to Holmes standing the "test of time". It's not about that. I believe it was about whether a "prime" Holmes could have beaten the fighter Tyson was BEFORE he fought Spinks. I refer to this period as Tyson's "prime" because after this fight, he no longer displayed the skills that brought him the championship belt. Nor did he seem to want to.
This isn't about Tyson's career 90-05. This isn't about Holmes' longevity in the ring. Let's pit the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Tyson against the skills displayed by a 24 yr old Holmes. Skills, "SS", not whether or not you "feel" your boy could have beaten Tyson. I keep bringing up Tyson's wide array of skills he HAD, while you keep bringing up what happened after 1990. and the Douglas fight AND the Holyfield debacles.
Tyson dould double pump his own jab coming in; he could slip the jab coming in; he could bang the body AFTER slipping the jab; he would wear down his opponents with his body shots, THEN go head hunting with combinations. How would a 24 yr old Holmes deal with that type of fighter. and, please, bring up something other than "well, Holmes had the best jab in the business" followed by "his right hand". If that's all Holmes could bring when he was 24 against a 24 yr old Tyson, then the skills factor would be in Tyson's favor.
p.s. I'm not a big fan of Tyson, either after 1990. But compare skill for skill at 24. stay on topic of this thread.

Hey, "SS", why don't you read this and respond in an intelligent fashion. I give you specifics, you give me platitudes.

here, just in case you got lost and can't find it.

...as I said, it would be unfair to compare a 24 year old Holmes to a 24 year old Tyson...as Holmes didn't start until he was 23...you can't figure that out, I take it...

...but feel free to repost the same damn ridiculosly illogical 24 to 24 post...you're not paying for the bandwidth, right?

[wlvrne]

....and Mr. Holmes, starting at age 23, fought 26 times in 5 years before winning his first belt.
....and Mr. Tyson fought 27 fights in 20 MONTHS before winning his first belt.
The post here is about their "prime". Obviously Mike started younger, harder, faster, fought better opposition. This takes its toll on any fighter. So if you wonder why Mike had such a short "prime", here's one reason.

like I said, you keep deliberately ignoring what I, and others write. Just to sow discord. I bring up Tyson's skils, you bring up his behavior. I say compare skills, you focus on the fact that I thought Holmes started younger. Now, how might you respond to the above quote. and again, you do not bring anything to this discussion that remotely resembles a game plan that larry might employ against the skills that Tyson would bring.

[wlvrne]

Tyson could double pump his own jab coming in; he could slip the jab coming in; he could bang the body AFTER slipping the jab; he would wear down his opponents with his body shots, THEN go head hunting with combinations. How would a "prime" Holmes deal with that type of fighter. and, please, bring up something other than "well, Holmes had the best jab in the business" followed by "his right hand". If that's all Holmes could bring against Tyson, then the skills factor would be in Tyson's favor.
p.s. I'm not a big fan of Tyson, either after 1990. But compare skill for skill in their "prime"; stay on topic of this thread.

this is pasted from an above post. please respond in an intelligent manner. I'm dying to know how you think larry would deal with Tyson's skills that he displayed in his EARLIER fights before Spinks.

[wlvrne]

and speaking of facts; Holmes lost to Michael Spinks ( who was a small hvy wt ) 2 times in '85 & '86. Two years later in '88, Spinks got destroyed by Mike Tyson.
Had that same Mike Tyson fought Holmes in his prime he still would have beaten him. That's the Tyson I'm talking about.
And out of all Holme's fights, how many were fighters of note? Shavers, Evangelista, Weaver, Ali ( shot by then), Berbick.
Out of 72 fights Holmes beat only 5 fighters of any note. Only to lose to a much smaller Michael Spinks. If that Spinks could beat Holmes, who supposedly was still going strong, then the Tyson that beat Spinks would have beaten Holmes.

and speaking of opponents, tell me, "SS" compare opponents of Holmes and Tyson in their first 37 fights.

here's another post you can miscontrue, ignore, or just plain give me another one of your platitudes.

[wlvrne]

....and Mr. Holmes, starting at age 23, fought 26 times in 5 years before winning his first belt.
....and Mr. Tyson fought 27 fights in 20 MONTHS before winning his first belt.
The post here is about their "prime". Obviously Mike started younger, harder, faster, fought better opposition. This takes its toll on any fighter. So if you wonder why Mike had such a short "prime", here's one reason.

[wlvrne]

Actually I've been watching Tyson fight since he was about 19. And since you bring up Holme's age, then one could stand to reason that since Tyson, at a younger age, had tougher fights than Larry did , then wouldn't that take more out of a fighter? People write about Fernando Vargas being "shot" already.
And I did watch Larry Holmes fight when I was younger. Obviously you like him better than I do.
However, you still don't bring anything to this discusion of how Holmes would deal with the skills I've ascribed to Tyson as written above.
As I said before, I give you specifics, you give me platitudes. You only seek to draw attention away from actually comparing the skills each had in their "prime" - as is the topic of this post. re-read above post. compare skills. I've posted Tyson's skills and defense. please post what larry would have done against this, and how.

[bollox]

Actually I've been watching Tyson fight since he was about 19. And since you bring up Holme's age, then one could stand to reason that since Tyson, at a younger age, had tougher fights than Larry did , then wouldn't that take more out of a fighter? People write about Fernando Vargas being "shot" already.
And I did watch Larry Holmes fight when I was younger. Obviously you like him better than I do.
However, you still don't bring anything to this discusion of how Holmes would deal with the skills I've ascribed to Tyson as written above.
As I said before, I give you specifics, you give me platitudes. You only seek to draw attention away from actually comparing the skills each had in their "prime" - as is the topic of this post. re-read above post. compare skills. I've posted Tyson's skills and defense. please post what larry would have done against this, and how.

Tyson had tougher fights? Against who? Tillis was probably his toughest fight pre-title. He barely got hit before winning the title so there were no tough fights for him

Holmes beats Tyson with mental toughness, skill and determination. That's something that Tyson showed an abundant lack of, when the going got tough (mental toughness, therein lies one major component of greatness - Tyson never had it)

Holmes simply has to be himself and the rest takes care of itself. It's Tyson that would have needed to worry about what to do when Holmes reacts positively and weathers Tyson's attacks (Holmes showed oodles of ability to handle this type of situation, what's Tyson's history in this regard?)

p.s. why don't you stop PMing posters telling them to "go ahead and f*ck yourself"

[BoxBuzz]

Pretty powerful opinions. The 24 to 24 example is not unfair but you are probably setting a scenario where Tyson probably wins. (Since this is imagination I don't think you factor in a "fairness" aspect. So if you want Tyson to win set up your scenario thusly. For the Holmes folks you have a far greater scenario choice. So somebody just pick one of those scenarios and drive wlvrne zany with it.

I can already see another symantics issue. What is "Prime" Prime of life and prime of a boxing career will change for each fighter. Personally I am in my Prime now....I'm 52. However that doesnt quite work for Boxers. So this thread seems to want to go all over the map. Which has never been a problem for me but it does drive some of the more "black and white" thinkers up a tree.

Here is an example, How old is Tyson now?.....How good was Larry at that age? Who might win that particular scenario?

Or someone might set up an age to age comparison chart with the winner shown for the equivalent age. Then add them all up and ouila! A brand new tangent is born! But be very careful baby Tangents are fragile.

such as.

18----Tyson
19----Tyson
X
X
X
X
35----Holmes
36----Holmes

[kingpawn]

Tyson certainly is unique in terms of what we've all seen him do vs. what his overall body of work looks like in the end. To posters like Brockton and wlvrne, it's hard to argue that the pre-Douglas version of Tyson was certainly a mountain for any fighter to climb. As I stated earlier, there was a time (however brief) when I think Tyson was capable of beating any HW who ever laced on a pair of gloves.

This was the Tyson before his separation from everyone who ever participated in his climb to the top -- D'Amato, Rooney, Cayton, Jacobs, etc. He was a well-oiled, well-handled, fighting machine at that time, and I believe that version of Tyson was as near to unbeatable as anyone who ever wore that tag before him.

By the time of the Douglas fight, Tyson (if memory serves correctly) had gotten rid of all of these people. That's when a lot of things he used to do started disappearing from his repertoire -- the bobbing and weaving, the double jabbing, the working the body, etc. -- and Tyson became less and less multi-dimensional as a fighter. He was surrounded by a bunch of dummies by that time. We all saw it in Tokeo that night. Random useless advice coming from everywhere in his corner. The balloon filled with tap water to stop the swelling. Pretty bad.

But I still can't seem to bring myself off the point that his run was so short-lived. I'm also stuck on the fact that he could lose the skills he had so quickly, even if he was partying and wasn't in the best of shape the night of the Douglas fight. Like SS keeps saying, he was ONLY 24 years old. It's not like he was suddenly 10-15 pounds heavier than he'd ever been before. And he wasn't THAT far removed from those who had been with him during his rise.

Dude was like a wolf without his pack, which is really just a big dog. And if the skills that got him there were that easy to lose, then one has to wonder what a prime Larry Holmes, who was certainly better than anyone he ever faced on his way up, might've done to his psyche. Could Rooney have kept him together if, as in the Douglas fight, Tyson would've been running into a face full of Holmes jab all night?

Like BoxBuzz said, you guys are driving each other wild with your "black and white" on how this fight would go. I still favor Holmes, but, if the clock could somehow be arranged so that these two could have met, I'm at least open-minded enough to recognize mine is just a prediction. I pick a lot of winners in my football pool, too, but I don't get 'em all.

[wlvrne]

p.s. why don't you stop PMing posters telling them to "go ahead and f*ck yourself<

The above is from Bollox who in a PM asked me "...what, Tyson wasn't in his prime when he fought Smith & Tucker? Well fornicate me, I thought he was". whereupon, i did reply that I informed the readers that I did say Tyson was in his prime when he fought Tucker & Bone"hugger" Smith and by all means, go fornicate yourself." I said that only because he brought up the invective first. He did say "Well, fornicate me". I replied "by all means, go fornicate yourself". I certainly wasn't going to fornicate Bollox.

[wlvrne]

Well, I see readers didn't repond to the fight comparison numbers before each won their respective belts.
Nor do I see any readers coming up with any game plan that Holmes might have had against the Tyson that did double-jab, that did slip the jab, that was dedicated to body work over the course of the fight, that could cut off the ring, that did throw lethal combinations once he got to his opponent .
All I'm asking your readers is what you're bringing to this discussion. You mention Larry's "heart". Well, fine, but what's he going to do in the ring? Intentions and character won't stop punches.
At least BoxBuzz brings a decent, informed argument to this discussion, whereas most of the other posters are either ALL Tyson or ALL Holmes.
I did like Tyson when he was younger. I feel he didn't LOSE the skills he had, he just felt like he didn't need them anymore. He bacame a head-hunter.
See?.... viable,succint points made by me. I'd like to see "SS" and Bollox respond in kind. Give me what Larry would do. Bring something to this discussion, like BoxBuzz does. We are talking "prime" skills here.

[Ezzard]

Okay, here goes, i'll do my best...

Tyson was great at slipping the jab but this isn't just any jab. It's possibly the greatest jab in boxing ever. Tyson is going to have to pay to get inside and at first this won't matter to him but by the time he gets to round 5 (okay, if) he's going to be feeling it and he's going to be thinking "my face doesn't usually hurt this much" I think Larry is going to have to be very careful with his right because it has further to travel and gives Mike more opportunity to come under it. Holmes knows more about boxing than I ever will so I'm sure he'd be very cautious early on and will fight perfectly.

I think Holmes commits to defence for the first 5 rounds. He wants to score with the jab and simply not take any risks. He's going to take some punishment to the body but he's one of the best conditioned HW champs, look at how he shook off the KD's by Shavers and Snipes. He'll be moving his feet to create the right angles for his counters and keep Tyson off balance. Holmes was a great matador.

I honestly believe that once Holmes gets to the mid-point in the fight he really can't lose. Tyson will become discouraged and the fight starts to swing Holmes' way. He's still be cautious but there's now an opportunity for him to throw the right more regularly. Tyson's would still bring about a few scary moments but each time he did Larry would come back meaner and stronger. I can see Mike with shiny swollen eyes and cheek bones finally succumbing sometime after the 13th.

[The Great John L]

I think Holmes commits to defence for the first 5 rounds. He wants to score with the jab and simply not take any risks. He's going to take some punishment to the body but he's one of the best conditioned HW champs, look at how he shook off the KD's by Shavers and Snipes. He'll be moving his feet to create the right angles for his counters and keep Tyson off balance. Holmes was a great matador.

I honestly believe that once Holmes gets to the mid-point in the fight he really can't lose. Tyson will become discouraged and the fight starts to swing Holmes' way. He's still be cautious but there's now an opportunity for him to throw the right more regularly. Tyson's would still bring about a few scary moments but each time he did Larry would come back meaner and stronger. I can see Mike with shiny swollen eyes and cheek bones finally succumbing sometime after the 13th.

This sounds just about right. I would guess that there would have been quite a bit of holding in the first half of the fight as Larry tried to smother Mike's attack. This would have lead to Mike getting frustrated and angry which would have caused him to tire quicker. I'd go with Holmes by UD, or perhaps a late KO, especially if the fight was over 15 rounds. Tyson did have great great skills, but even early in his career he could be controlled by movement and clinching. While Tillis, Smith and Tucker didn't win, they also weren't in the same class as a prime Holmes. And Tucker actually kept the fight pretty much even during the first half of the fight before he just couldn't handle the pressure anymore. Of course, I think we all know that Holmes was quite good at handling pressure and adveristy. Certainly better than Tucker, Smith and Tillis.

[wlvrne]

Okay, here goes, i'll do my best...

Tyson was great at slipping the jab but this isn't just any jab. It's possibly the greatest jab in boxing ever. Tyson is going to have to pay to get inside and at first this won't matter to him but by the time he gets to round 5 (okay, if) he's going to be feeling it and he's going to be thinking "my face doesn't usually hurt this much" I think Larry is going to have to be very careful with his right because it has further to travel and gives Mike more opportunity to come under it. Holmes knows more about boxing than I ever will so I'm sure he'd be very cautious early on and will fight perfectly.

I think Holmes commits to defence for the first 5 rounds. He wants to score with the jab and simply not take any risks. He's going to take some punishment to the body but he's one of the best conditioned HW champs, look at how he shook off the KD's by Shavers and Snipes. He'll be moving his feet to create the right angles for his counters and keep Tyson off balance. Holmes was a great matador.

I honestly believe that once Holmes gets to the mid-point in the fight he really can't lose. Tyson will become discouraged and the fight starts to swing Holmes' way. He's still be cautious but there's now an opportunity for him to throw the right more regularly. Tyson's would still bring about a few scary moments but each time he did Larry would come back meaner and stronger. I can see Mike with shiny swollen eyes and cheek bones finally succumbing sometime after the 13th.

Great post Ezzard. This is exactly the type of discussion I was seeking. Well thought out and well delivered. I could actually see it happening in this manner, though I'd say a UD would be in order, not a KO.
Tyson would definitely have to be commited to a long-haul fight and work like hell to get inside. I feel he could have cut the ring off though, and worked on Larry's body alot more than Larry's opponents have. That's where I'd give Tyson the edge. The body work, his own jab coming in, and power-combos. Tyson would have to fight his best fight of his life though, I do agree on that.

[Grimm]

Okay, here goes, i'll do my best...

Tyson was great at slipping the jab but this isn't just any jab. It's possibly the greatest jab in boxing ever. Tyson is going to have to pay to get inside and at first this won't matter to him but by the time he gets to round 5 (okay, if) he's going to be feeling it and he's going to be thinking "my face doesn't usually hurt this much" I think Larry is going to have to be very careful with his right because it has further to travel and gives Mike more opportunity to come under it. Holmes knows more about boxing than I ever will so I'm sure he'd be very cautious early on and will fight perfectly.

I think Holmes commits to defence for the first 5 rounds. He wants to score with the jab and simply not take any risks. He's going to take some punishment to the body but he's one of the best conditioned HW champs, look at how he shook off the KD's by Shavers and Snipes. He'll be moving his feet to create the right angles for his counters and keep Tyson off balance. Holmes was a great matador.

I honestly believe that once Holmes gets to the mid-point in the fight he really can't lose. Tyson will become discouraged and the fight starts to swing Holmes' way. He's still be cautious but there's now an opportunity for him to throw the right more regularly. Tyson's would still bring about a few scary moments but each time he did Larry would come back meaner and stronger. I can see Mike with shiny swollen eyes and cheek bones finally succumbing sometime after the 13th.

Makes sense to me.