PRIME MIKE TYSON VS PRIME LARRY HOLMES

[kingpawn]

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

By far the best post amongst all the arguing going on here. Yes, Tyson could have won. He had the punch and he had the skills. It only takes one big shot to turn a fight and Tyson definitely had that shot.

The rest of these guys are getting all hung up on who would win prime Tyson vs. prime Holmes considering that what's been asked is basically a one fight, winner-take-all question. Yes, I'd take Holmes to win. But I can't say definitively that Tyson couldn't have won. If Renaldo Snipes could put Holmes on the canvas, there's no reason why Mike Tyson couldn't have. I realize, though, that by picking Holmes I'm answering this question on retrospect. Had someone asked me the same question just prior to the Douglas fight, I'm sure I would have answered differently.

Even now, no one could really "guarantee" an answer to such a question. I agree on all counts that Holmes body of work is far more impressive than Tyson's. I agree on all counts that Holmes had way more heart than Tyson. I agree that Holmes was afraid of no one, whereas Tyson became afraid upon realizing he couldn't intimidate someone. Then he just went nuts! Wanted out!

Anyone recall comments Holmes made just prior to his fight with Tyson where he basically predicted Tyson's future. Something to the effect that he's all that he is now, but somewhere down the line he'll just destroy himself.

[wlvrne]

I've noticed that "SS" doesn't say what larry would bring to the fight except his jab and his "heart". You need more than that to win against the Tyson before the Spinks fight. That's where everybody keeps losing focus. They all stay on the Douglas, Holyfield etc.
Did I not say that in the first Holyfiled fight that Tyson went to the body 1 time only, and that was in the 6th round. At least I acknowledge Tyson's faults, whereas "SS" thinks his boy Larry can walk on water.
Larry would have jabbed and moved around until Tyson whacked him to the body a couple times, thereby slowing him down so he could work some combos on him. In the real Tyson/Holmes fight, how often did Tyson go to Larry's body? Before the Spinks fight, how much of a dedicated body puncher, combo-throwing, jabbing fighter was Tyson? Answer: he did all those things before, as I've said above, he forgot what brought him there.

[silkov]

I've noticed that "SS" doesn't say what larry would bring to the fight except his jab and his "heart". You need more than that to win against the Tyson before the Spinks fight. That's where everybody keeps losing focus. They all stay on the Douglas, Holyfield etc.
Did I not say that in the first Holyfiled fight that Tyson went to the body 1 time only, and that was in the 6th round. At least I acknowledge Tyson's faults, whereas "SS" thinks his boy Larry can walk on water.
Larry would have jabbed and moved around until Tyson whacked him to the body a couple times, thereby slowing him down so he could work some combos on him. In the real Tyson/Holmes fight, how often did Tyson go to Larry's body? Before the Spinks fight, how much of a dedicated body puncher, combo-throwing, jabbing fighter was Tyson? Answer: he did all those things before, as I've said above, he forgot what brought him there.

Before Tyson Fought Holifield he was knocking everyone over just as he did pre-douglas... he was only 30 and should have been in his prime. Holifield was 34, ringworn from loads of wars, yet still had enough to beat Tyson because of his heart and mentality. A prime Holifield of 88 or 89 would have had an even easier time with Tyson.

[Sweet Scientist]

I've noticed that "SS" doesn't say what larry would bring to the fight except his jab and his "heart". You need more than that to win against the Tyson before the Spinks fight. That's where everybody keeps losing focus. They all stay on the Douglas, Holyfield etc.

BECAUSE...those fights offer the 'blueprint' to beat Tyson, and all the Tyson lovers put blindfolds on when those fights are shown...they also show when Tyson couldn't intimidate his opponent...he gets beat...every time, all the time...

Tyson before the Spinks fight? That's all I hear from you...His career didn't end there...what happened later? 24 years old and shot as a quality fighter? And you call that an all time great? Your standards are quite low...what would Holmes bring to the fight? More than mental case Mike would...guaranteed...Holmes was 35 1st time he lost, and he lost close...How old was your hero Tyson again...24...? How many big fights did he win after that...none...? Case dismissed. Couldn't stand the test of time...a couple years doesn't make a career...go watch some more highlight reels of someone else now...and report back as to how great they were...lol...

[cultus]

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

I understand the weakness but with rooney, motivated and focus he had hart. Didn't Douglas fight show this and he didn't even have Rooney then?
Later he just didn't want it anymore.. that's were the lack of hart comes in. Also Iv been hearing that Tyson didn't work to get inside and just jumped in that Ali or Prime Holmes would have easily countered him .. but I don't see that happen. He was so fast and planted himselfe fast that he could have afford doing some things wrong.
Ofcourse I can be wrong
I think the scareing part is also a bit overhyped.. there were many oponents who were not affraid and fought back as they could just to find out how unique Tyson was and that might have scared them.

peace

[The Boxing Enthusiast]

Tyson would have been too much for Holmes at any stage in his career.

IMO,
TBE

[Sweet Scientist]

Tyson would have been too much for Holmes at any stage in his career.

IMO,
TBE

"at any stage in his career"...

how about the 'stage of his career' when he fought Douglas? Is he going to beat Holmes then, too? What about the 'stage of his career when he lost to Holyfield ...twice in a row...? Is he going to beat Holmes then, too...? How about the 'stage of his career' when he got clubbed out by Lewis?

After he lost to Douglas...he was done...period...never came back...

"at any stage of his career"...he was vulnerable to defeat...he proved that over the past 15 years...

[silkov]

Really to read all the pro Tyson apologists you'd think Tyson was some mythical warrior struck down by some evil people who cut his hair, stole his speed :( and power and heart and then drew a tattoo all over his face.. . the poor guy doesn't seem to have anything but bad luck but he's still great!.. .. its just everyone elses fault he kept getting beat up by inferior mortals!.... 8) :x

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

ok just to be plain and simple, larry holmes got tagged a number of times in his prime and escaped a couple near knockouts, do you think holmes would be able to deal with tysons shots or escape if tyson hurts him???

[silkov]

If Holmes could take that shot from Shavers (in fact several shots) and survive then I'm sure he could do it with Tyson who did not have the power of Shavers. Holmes would be moving and using the jab... Tyson would not be able to get past the jab long enough to take control of the fight. Holmes had a very underrated right hand which carried a decent punch. After about 7 or 8 rounds Tyson would be frustrated and confused and would as he did in all the fights that went against him slowly buckle and probably be stopped in about 10 or 11 rounds.
The main thing against Tyson is that he was a frontrunner... once he found he couldn't dominate a fight or was hurt he would collapse inwardly.
Joe Frazier would have a much better chance against Holmes because he wasn't afraid of fighting through the pain, he could come back from being behind to win. Tyson probably had more natural talent than Frazier but Joe was the greater fighter by far because he got the most out of his talent and he had the mental strength and heart to go with his physical abilities.

[Grimm]

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...

You seem to be the mentally challenged one.

You think because Tyson was younger than Holyfield means that he was closer to his prime.

People age differently, Archie Moore was still a great fighter at age 40, most boxers slow down by age 34 to 35.

A boxer being young and a boxer being in his prime do not always go hand and hand.

Tyson didn't always have to intimidate his opponents. I doubt that the old version of Larry Holmes was scared.

And by what your saying you think that Buster Douglas was better than James Smith,Tony Tucker and Michael Spinks.

Sounds mentally challenged to me.

And I'm not saying at all that it's ridiculous to pick Holmes to beat Tyson, but I do think that it's ridiculous to make your pick based on the Tyson that was beat by Douglas.

[Sweet Scientist]

People age differently, Archie Moore was still a great fighter at age 40, most boxers slow down by age 34 to 35.

...and how many of them slow down at age 24...?

...I can only think of one...

[BoxBuzz]

Are you saying that after 24 Mike wasn't all he ought to have been?

[Grimm]

Are you saying that after 24 Mike wasn't all he ought to have been?

Yes but, I am not saying because he got old that he wasn't "all he ought to have been" but at 24 he wasn't for other reasons, like not training, wacky tabackylol etc.

[cultus]

at 24 Mike had allready done 39 fights... that sounds like an whole career to me.. to move past your prime. But im sure Mike was not past his prime at that point but just that the game changed for him .. he was put in jaile and then he HAD to fight on to pay for the debt ?.. and suddenly prove to everybody once more that he was the best .. though he had allready walked miles to get there and suddenly it was all gone and then he had to do it all over again? ... I mean fornicate that.. why should he bother .. to prove you haters something you refuse to see... he just had no way out.. had to do the fight thing.. but it's like working in a factory feeding the line with no emotion and dreamin about somethin else...

[BoxBuzz]

Ok good point I gotta run, just read about a factory job and they're hiring. I'm assuming it pays the millions that Tyson made recently. I know it's a lot more work than Tyson has put in, but I need the dough. I have to raise some money on a sure thing that Pringle has guaranteed.

[Sweet Scientist]

at 24 Mike had allready done 39 fights... that sounds like an whole career to me.. to move past your prime.

...not at age 24...not at age 24...if it was a 'whole career'...he would have retired...

...it only sounds 'like a whole career' to those who blindly defend him...and totally refuse to acknowledge 1990 through 2005....

[Sweet Scientist]

.. though he had allready walked miles to get there and suddenly it was all gone and then he had to do it all over again? ... I mean fornicate that.. why should he bother

...others did it...Muhammad Ali...George Foreman...of course, they were great champions...

...why should he bother...???????

....how about to prove something...that he could come back, utilize his talent (which you seem to think was so incredible)...and win the championship back...he was the favorite against Douglas and Holyfield...

...of course...he did manage to prove something...

...review his record from 1990 - 2005 and you'll see what he proved...

[BoxBuzz]

I think because he rose so fast and fell so fast he has to be losing credibility in the long term scheme of things. The more his light starts to fade and we look at just what he did, it can not be enhancing his overall status. He just had so much momentem that when he lost it, the hype just kept going. Without him.

My opinion has honestly changed during the course of this thread, I have gone back reviewed some tapes looked at the actual timelines, reviewed the records of everyone involved and it can strike you that "momentum" was a great part of his "aura". I have seen few "Mike Haters" here but I have seen some folks who may be thinking too highly of him. Not using good arguments to back up their rationale.

Perception is such a part of this. Holmes stood the test of time Mike did not. Think about this, Would Mike beat George or Larry on this very day? I can not say he honestly would. Sort of sobering when you think about it. How would Mike do against Butterbean...today? He might win, but he just might not.

These are questions that should make us all laugh but I bet a lot of us would have to really think about it. Especially if someone forced you to bet your house on it.

[kingpawn]

I think because he rose so fast and fell so fast he has to be losing credibility in the long term scheme of things. The more his light starts to fade and we look at just what he did, it can not be enhancing his overall status. He just had so much momentem that when he lost it, the hype just kept going. Without him.

My opinion has honestly changed during the course of this thread, I have gone back reviewed some tapes looked at the actual timelines, reviewed the records of everyone involved and it can strike you that "momentum" was a great part of his "aura"...

Spot on, I think. There was that brief time when Mike looked like he had it all. But it was just that -- brief -- and then he lost it, leaving one to ponder how much of it did he really ever have. Or was his best THAT dependent on all those who helped get him there? -- i.e. Cus D'amato, Kevin Rooney, etc.

It's the fighter who has to get in the ring and fight the fight. It's the fighter who has to have enough discipline to live right and stay in shape and keep himself out of trouble outside the ring, too. Like you say, Larry Holmes stood the test of time. Mike Tyson didn't. I still say there was a fleeting moment when Mike might have beaten any HW who ever laced on a pair of gloves, but I myself can't pick him over a great fighter like Holmes, who maintained his greatness over so much longer a period of time, on the basis of what could have been.

And Holmes did have exactly the kind of style that best fit the recipe to beat Tyson just the way Douglass did it.

[Grimm]

.. though he had allready walked miles to get there and suddenly it was all gone and then he had to do it all over again? ... I mean fornicate that.. why should he bother

...others did it...Muhammad Ali...George Foreman...of course, they were great champions...

...why should he bother...???????

....how about to prove something...that he could come back, utilize his talent (which you seem to think was so incredible)...and win the championship back...he was the favorite against Douglas and Holyfield...

...of course...he did manage to prove something...

...review his record from 1990 - 2005 and you'll see what he proved...

Maybe you should review his record from 1990 - 2005 he still wrecked alot of people and won 2 titles while doing this and this was the past prime Tyson.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

yeah well when u compare fighters u make ur prediction based on styles. you cant say " id go with holmes over tyson cause he proved his greatness over a longer period of time". u can say id rate holmes higher on the all time list for that reason.

if ur gonna pick holmes over tyson its because u think tyson doesnt have a style to beat holmes. i personally think tyson has the perfect style to beat holmes and that is why i think he would beat holmes. not to mention the other intangebles such as tysons gifted handspeed and amazing power and holmes vuneralbilty to being tagged.

[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.

[BoxBuzz]

I hear this, I am navigating some narrow straights here, I have not lost the belief that a Mike Tyson at full throttle and in his prime outguns Holmes. However his remarkably short "prime" is rather unique and puts him in an unusual catagory.

His place in history as an "all time great" would have to be limited to such a small portion of his career that it is worth noting.

But as I watched him dominate the division I think I got a skewed perspective of what it was I was witnessing at the time. That is not the case for Holmes who I think time has increased his stock. Ali as well. But the case for Tyson diminshes.

Your point is not lost though and I happen to still agree with best moments vs best moments. But I have a new appreciation for how short those moments were for Mike.

[wlvrne]

For all you nay-sayers about Tyson's short prime. What about King Solomon who fought from '88-'92. He was 5-1-3 when he dealt Arturo Gatti 6-0 his first loss. Granted Arturo was young and King was flashy, but what happened to him after the Gatti fight? Did he die? I don't know. If he didn't, then 4 years is a pretty short boxing career.