Tyson(2002) vs Holmes(1989)

gambler49 · Post by **gambler49** » 29 Mar 2010, 22:57

I think Holmes UD

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 29 Mar 2010, 23:02

As do I, but Holmes was not as good here as he was when he fought Holyfield & Mercer. Thing is, too, even if this fight takes place using the January version of Holmes, that's still a 12-month minimum period since he was last in the ring --- & that, a devastating defeat like no other.

Actually, thinking about it, maybe I'd go with Tyson to land the big shot, & have just enough left over to cripple an inactive Holmes early on. Tyson was badly shot at that point, though. Both of them had physiques (in 89 & 02 respectively) which made you think they hadn't seen the inside of a gym in years. I'm gonna call this 50-50 & wash my hands of a surely-hideous affair.

gambler49 · Post by **gambler49** » 29 Mar 2010, 23:13

Goodnight, Irene wrote:As do I, but Holmes was not as good here as he was when he fought Holyfield & Mercer. Thing is, too, even if this fight takes place using the January version of Holmes, that's still a 12-month minimum period since he was last in the ring --- & that, a devastating defeat like no other.

Actually, thinking about it, maybe I'd go with Tyson to land the big shot, & have just enough left over to cripple an inactive Holmes early on. Tyson was badly shot at that point, though. Both of them had physiques (in 89 & 02 respectively) which made you think they hadn't seen the inside of a gym in years. I'm gonna call this 50-50 & wash my hands of a surely-hideous affair.

Please think again....... Tyson of 2002 was no were near as good as he was in Jan 1989
Holmes would of toyed with him... He just didn't hav Lewis power to stop Tyson.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 29 Mar 2010, 23:16

Short of doing some exhibitions Holmes was not ready in 1989 for
this sort of fight.

He would need the tune ups and the likes that he had in 1991,
to be ready like he was in say 1992 against Mercer of Holy.

Tyson though shot was still more active, and was in the training
for a fight cycle. Unlike Holmes who was running real estate,
eating, singing with Marmalade and boxing exhibitions as he er..
sang.

I would pick Tyson for this one. BUT who knows. Though i think
Tyson would have a better in the ring feel and timing than Holmes.

I am a Holmes fan and I find it unlikely that Holmes of 1989 who
was very inactive would have 'Toyed' with that version of Tyson..
who I agree was past it, but was still dangerous.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 29 Mar 2010, 23:28

gambler49 wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:As do I, but Holmes was not as good here as he was when he fought Holyfield & Mercer. Thing is, too, even if this fight takes place using the January version of Holmes, that's still a 12-month minimum period since he was last in the ring --- & that, a devastating defeat like no other.

Actually, thinking about it, maybe I'd go with Tyson to land the big shot, & have just enough left over to cripple an inactive Holmes early on. Tyson was badly shot at that point, though. Both of them had physiques (in 89 & 02 respectively) which made you think they hadn't seen the inside of a gym in years. I'm gonna call this 50-50 & wash my hands of a surely-hideous affair.
Please think again....... Tyson of 2002 was no were near as good as he was in Jan 1989
Holmes would of toyed with him... He just didn't hav Lewis power to stop Tyson.

Please read again...I was talking about Holmes in 89, not Tyson.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 29 Mar 2010, 23:47

Seems kind of odd to place the 1989 Holmes here . .

In any case, I'll pick the 2002 Holmes to beat the 2002 Tyson, let alone the younger one. Tyson in 2002 was CRAP . . .he looked crap vs Nielson and even crappier vs Lennox. His lone shot would be landing some sort of Botha-style fight saver sometime before the 6th.

gregor · Post by **gregor** » 30 Mar 2010, 05:58

dempseyfire wrote:he looked crap vs Nielson and even crappier vs Lennox.

Nielsen had good chin and was interested only in surviving the fight, which made it difficult to look good against him (even if Tyson won every single round AFAIR). I think Holmes was more past prime in 1989 than Lewis in 2002, and anyway he is nowhere close to have his punching power, which was important in this fight.

As long as Tyson have enough stamina to be busy he can keep winning rounds on activity, even if he is no longer sharp enough to really damage Holmes. The only question is how long his stamina lasts, and this would be probably the reason he losses. If this turns out to be only two-three rounds, Holmes wins every round after that and gets clear UD. But if Mike somehow manages to collect at least 5-6 clear rounds and possibly a couple of not so clear or even rounds once he finally gets tired and starts "wrestling" things can go either way around (although, judging by other fights, I do not think it is most probable option).

So I would favour Tyson... but only in 4 or 6 rounder.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 30 Mar 2010, 10:36

Tyson is the only man to score a TKO over Holmes! I think that speaks volumes about the kind of fighter Tyson once was!

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 30 Mar 2010, 11:14

gregor wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:he looked crap vs Nielson and even crappier vs Lennox.
Nielsen had good chin and was interested only in surviving the fight, which made it difficult to look good against him (even if Tyson won every single round AFAIR). I think Holmes was more past prime in 1989 than Lewis in 2002, and anyway he is nowhere close to have his punching power, which was important in this fight.

As long as Tyson have enough stamina to be busy he can keep winning rounds on activity, even if he is no longer sharp enough to really damage Holmes. The only question is how long his stamina lasts, and this would be probably the reason he losses. If this turns out to be only two-three rounds, Holmes wins every round after that and gets clear UD. But if Mike somehow manages to collect at least 5-6 clear rounds and possibly a couple of not so clear or even rounds once he finally gets tired and starts "wrestling" things can go either way around (although, judging by other fights, I do not think it is most probable option).

So I would favour Tyson... but only in 4 or 6 rounder.

I agree, but stamina in 2002 was a major weakness for Iron Mike. After 3 rounds he became a plodding, one shot at a time (and not even good shots) slug.