BoxRec

thunderfromdownunder wrote:

ringsider wrote: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

Buster Douglas did...

i did say "hardly" any one

And a 32 year old Larry Holmes would easily be one of those people.

Sweet Scientist wrote:

thunderfromdownunder wrote:

ringsider wrote: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

Buster Douglas did...

Douglas didn't have much of a storm to weather it was just a little rain and on that night he happened to have his umbrella.

Grimm wrote: Douglas didn't have much of a storm to weather it was just a little rain and on that night he happened to have his umbrella.

All time greats supply more than 'just a little rain'...and they completely trash 'umbrellas'...

Sweet Scientist wrote:

Grimm wrote: Douglas didn't have much of a storm to weather it was just a little rain and on that night he happened to have his umbrella.

All time greats supply more than 'just a little rain'...and they completely trash 'umbrellas'...

Yeah, the man was a drip at the end of the day. 8)

just to clear it all up for "SS". We've never said that Tyson was an "all-time great". Was he the youngest boxer to unify the heavy weight championship? Yes. The saying goes that the flame that burns brightest, burns shortest. That was Tyson until after the Spinks fight, when he quit being a dedicated boxer/puncher. Did he waste his talent & potential? Yes.
However, and still, a prime Tyson would have beat a prime Holmes.
Yes, Tyson's prime was short; refer to above adage.

wlvrne wrote:just to clear it all up for "SS". We've never said that Tyson was an "all-time great". Was he the youngest boxer to unify the heavy weight championship? Yes. The saying goes that the flame that burns brightest, burns shortest. That was Tyson until after the Spinks fight, when he quit being a dedicated boxer/puncher. Did he waste his talent & potential? Yes.
However, and still, a prime Tyson would have beat a prime Holmes.
Yes, Tyson's prime was short; refer to above adage.

you obviously don't read the threads you post on...(not surprising, by the way)...quite a few here think Tyson was an all time great...especially those who think he would beat other obvious all time greats...

...and as far as you clearing up anything for me...that's as unlikely as your gross, perverted PM's...fornicate off...how's that for you?...

Hey SS I know we've beat this subject into the ground much as Max would do to Lennoxn according to that one contributor. However I would like to get your take on the Sanchez/Tyson tangent that I posted. If you get a chance I hope you take a look and comment.

wlvrne wrote:just to clear it all up for "SS". We've never said that Tyson was an "all-time great". Was he the youngest boxer to unify the heavy weight championship? Yes. The saying goes that the flame that burns brightest, burns shortest. That was Tyson until after the Spinks fight, when he quit being a dedicated boxer/puncher. Did he waste his talent & potential? Yes.
However, and still, a prime Tyson would have beat a prime Holmes.
Yes, Tyson's prime was short; refer to above adage.

When did Tyson ever come close to beating someone as great as a PRIME Larry Holmes???>.... never!. You say yourself that Tyson wasn't an all time great and that is precisely why he would even at his peak never have beaten a prime Holmes. It would take a true all time great to beat Holmes at his best... a Jack Johnson, Ali, ....there are very few heavies in history who would have pulled it off and Tyson isn't one of them.

who did holmes beat that was as dangerous and powerful as tyson???

u might say earnie shavers but other than having power, he was not a great finisher and he had nowhere near the handspeed tyson had. holmes never fought a guy liek tyson.

sweet u say tyson was in his prime against douglas??? u say he was not at his peak bt was at his prime??/ BUT THEN when i saw the same thing about ali in his first fight against frazier, u disagree with me????

tyson was in his prime, but he was not the same fighter cause he didnt train hard and he didnt have kevin rooney anymore. watch him after he left rooney, against bruno he got hit a lot and didnt have his same head fakes and movement anymore. he became a headhunter. had kevin rooney bee with him against douglas, tyson would have slipped douglas jab with head movement and fakes.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who did holmes beat that was as dangerous and powerful as tyson???

Tyson wasn't as dangerous and powerful as you say...that's the whole point...he couldn't be counted on the bring his 'A' game...that's the whole point...

u might say earnie shavers but other than having power, he was not a great finisher and he had nowhere near the handspeed tyson had. holmes never fought a guy liek tyson.

I think of it as Tyson never fought a guy like Holmes (in his prime)...he sure as hell sucked against Douglas...

sweet u say tyson was in his prime against douglas??? u say he was not at his peak bt was at his prime??/ BUT THEN when i saw the same thing about ali in his first fight against frazier, u disagree with me????

Apples to oranges...Ali came off a 3 1/2 year layoff...Tyson had just won 37 in a row...and was a 40-1 favorite...TOTALLY different situation...and Ali won big fights after the layoff...Tyson never won a big fight after 1989...apples to oranges...

tyson was in his prime, but he was not the same fighter cause he didnt train hard and he didnt have kevin rooney anymore. watch him after he left rooney, against bruno he got hit a lot and didnt have his same head fakes and movement anymore. he became a headhunter. had kevin rooney bee with him against douglas, tyson would have slipped douglas jab with head movement and fakes.

...in the end...Tyson lost the fight...it's more HIS resposibility...not his fired trainer...he (Tyson) was the idiot that got rid of the good people around him...he picked his own path...a path to destruction...you can't say Tyson was not to blame for losing that fight...it was up to him, the defending champion, to be ready...

...it's like if you go rob a bank...and then try to say it's not YOUR fault...it's the rest of the world around you that caused you to do it...nonsense...

The context in which Holmes fought Tyson just seems to tilt the odds overwhelmingly in Tyson's favor. Tyson was undefeated and fighting against top oppossition whereas Holmes had not fought since 1986 and had not won a fight decisively since 1985. Holmes had not shown he could still compete against the best heavyweights in the world.

Tyson wasn't dangerous and powerful

you really know your stuff SS.

cultus wrote:

Tyson wasn't dangerous and powerful

you really know your stuff SS.

You're right...shall I give you a list of boxers who prove that statement...

Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield (twice), Lennox Lewis...well you get the picture...

cultus wrote:

Tyson wasn't dangerous and powerful

you really know your stuff SS.

Also...it's real easy to take quotes out of context and make them look like something else...

cultus the original quote was tyson wasnt as powerful and dangerous as you say... we all read it what are u trying to do?

was the tyson that fought tubbs, holmes, and spinks the same tyson who fought douglas?????

answer no, and u can tell in that fight that tyson is not doing the same head movements or bobbing weaving as he used to, and just isnt himself. its his fault he didnt have rooney and didnt train hard, but dont go saying the tyson that beat holmes or spinks would have lost to douglas.

Sweet Scientist wrote:

cultus wrote:

Tyson wasn't dangerous and powerful

you really know your stuff SS.

You're right...shall I give you a list of boxers who prove that statement...

Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield (twice), Lennox Lewis...well you get the picture...

You saying that Douglas,Holyfield and Lewis proved that Tyson wasn't dangerous would be like me saying ,Leon Spinks,Trevor Berbick and Larry Holmes proved that Ali wasn't dangerous.

hahaa .. well who cares... that's what he basically said .. I just highlighted it. ... as I said before SS I think you should watch Tyson's early fights before you sit on a judgement.

Grimm wrote:

Sweet Scientist wrote:

cultus wrote:

you really know your stuff SS.

You're right...shall I give you a list of boxers who prove that statement...

Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield (twice), Lennox Lewis...well you get the picture...

You saying that Douglas,Holyfield and Lewis proved that Tyson wasn't dangerous would be like me saying ,Leon Spinks,Trevor Berbick and Larry Holmes proved that Ali wasn't dangerous.

I second you on that Grimm .... I think that after the Spinks fight Tyson broke down mentally as he made various delusional desicions a la fire Rooney. To SS .. you talk about the Hollyfield fight like it was the same prime Tyson but he had been out of the ring for 4 years cose he was in jaile... no need for excuses there. And when you insist that it was his own fault then he got convicted but was he really guilty... im 100 percent sure he was not. THINK, 4 years in JAILE... what it does to your mentality... he was out of it, pluss.. he was out of his skills as well. How in the world can you say IT WAS THE SAME GOD DAMN GUY who borke jaws 7 years prior...

cultus wrote: And when you insist that it was his own fault then he got convicted but was he really guilty... im 100 percent sure he was not.

well...were you in the room with him and the girl?...or...were you on the jury?

...no to both??? then you don't really know a thing, do you?

...you're 100% sure of nothing...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:was the tyson that fought tubbs, holmes, and spinks the same tyson who fought douglas?????

answer no, and u can tell in that fight that tyson is not doing the same head movements or bobbing weaving as he used to, and just isnt himself. its his fault he didnt have rooney and didnt train hard, but dont go saying the tyson that beat holmes or spinks would have lost to douglas.

SAME GUY...check fingerprints if you don't believe it...lol...

...he just got beat...because of his own stupidity...

...I guess you think he would have 'smartened up' against Holmes...not likely...Holmes had heart...Tyson had a good time...big difference...BIG difference...Holmes ALWAYS came prepared...Tyson didn't...BIG difference...go watch the 'blueprint' again Douglas-Tyson...Holmes would do better than Douglas...MUCH better...lol...

Grimm wrote:

Sweet Scientist wrote:

cultus wrote:

you really know your stuff SS.

You're right...shall I give you a list of boxers who prove that statement...

Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield (twice), Lennox Lewis...well you get the picture...

You saying that Douglas,Holyfield and Lewis proved that Tyson wasn't dangerous would be like me saying ,Leon Spinks,Trevor Berbick and Larry Holmes proved that Ali wasn't dangerous.

Are you mentally challenged? Ali was an old man whern he fought those guys...Tyson was 24 years old when he got KTFO'd by Douglas...you can't see the difference there? He was 30 when he fought 34 year old Holyfield...and he was the big favorite...you're still usually 90% prime at age 30...Holyfield was closer to over the hill than Tyson...and he still kicked his ass...twice...big time...Lennox Lewis was older too...fighting these older guys should have been an 'equalizer'...not to Tyson...he folded like a bad poker hand every single time he couldn't intimidate his opponent...every single time...

...and you're going to say he'd intimidate Holmes...Bull Shit...

What I don't see being addressed by pro-Tyson posters is what Mike lacked... This whole "prime" concept is being used as a smokescreen with lots of posters looking to sway the definition to their way of thinking.

In his prime Tyson was very very fast, difficult to hit cleanly, and had a fantastic punch in either hand. He could jab, he could hit the body and he could finish as well as anyone ever... BUT in his prime he still had no heart and was still prone to making the wrong decisions in life and in the ring. The thing was we didn't know this then because he'd never been tested. An all time great would have come back from the Duglas defeat and re-imposed themsleves on the division. He failed to do this. When you think of Tyson's prime you have to remember to factor in his failings as well as his physical prowess.

This brings me back to a point I've made here before. Tyson could have won BUT we know that Holmes wouldn't have folded for him but would have done everything he could to win the fight no matter what Tyson was doing to him. We also know that if it were the other way round that Tyson wouldn't know how to respond and would look for a way out as quickly as possible.

Holmes would not be scared of Tyson