Thread: prime larry holmes vs prime tyson

Good post, CC

I think his lack of discipline and ability to bounce back from adversity makes him VERY beatable whenever compared to other All-Time Greats: Ali, Marciano, Louis, Charles, Walcott, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, Bowe, etc all fought through adversity to win and all are unquestionably great

Tyson-Walcott would have been a great fight!!!

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Here is my longwinded thought on Tyson that I've posted before


man it seems like this is discussed weekly. I have very mixed feelings about Tyson's placement in history. Tyson's wins are against mostly average to decent fighters. Not that this is his fault and not that many fighters(marciano, Louis,holmes etc) don't have the same dilemma in regards to their legacy. I think quite often it wasn't who he beat but the electrifying way he did it. I often ask myself if Tyson was a defensive master who out pointed and embarrassed fighters would we feel the same way? If he was the pernell whitaker of the HW era would he have such a fan base? Tyson embodied what we as fans want in our champion. I think people quite often get wrapped up in the sheer entertainment value of Tyson. His wins over Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Ruddock, tubbs, thomas, biggs etc are impressive in that he cleaned out a division and in the manner he did them but the actual opposition is really just slightly better than average. Tyson has two great wins: the destruction of Spinks and Holmes. Although Holmes went on to several more decent wins I don't think anyone will argue that he was the same man who himself had cleaned out a division. And I don't think we will ever know why spinks gave such a sorry performance. The biggest problem with grading Tyson's career is that his "prime" was so short. He didn't face any truly good HW's in their prime until late in his career. Obviously Tyson's management decisions and personal demons had a lot to do with his decline as a fighter, but this is a part of who Tyson was as a fighter. He simply didn't have the dedication and focus of other great HW's. I look at him alot like Bowe. They both had all the skills to be ATG's but couldn't capitalize. I don't judge Tyson's career after the Lewis fighter b/c it was obvious he didn't care. That being said whether he came in poorly prepared or not he was beaten soundly by douglas, holy, and Lewis. Great fighters rise to the occasion and Tyson didn't. When he met fighters who weren't intimidated, were bigger, had a decent jab and could back him up and tie him up he was definately frustrated. Tyson is one of the greatest power punchers ever, and arguably the most exciting fighter ever. He will stand as an icon in boxing of what might of been, but in my personal oppinion not an all time great fighter and hugely overrated.

CC Mate

... but your point about opposition, which prime heavyweights of any note did Marciano Dempsey Louis or even Holmes beat?

As I have said many times before Tyson's era was no worse than all but 2 eras in heavyweight history

Originally Posted by Lyle

Tony Tucker and Mitch Green gave Tyson fits....Smith wasn't spectacular but he didn't make Mike look spectacular which was a step in the right direction. And that being said do you rate Holmes above Tucker I do, I think Tyson wouldn't beat Larry because Tyson had trouble with guys like that and Holmes had a great fight mentality too, which would have Tyson SCREWED from the get go

Lyle, please watch the Tucker and Green fights again, Green had a couple off spells of throwing a load of shots that were blocked, but was comprehensively beaten and did Tucker really give Tyson fits?? I don't think so, he had a couple of good spells but never looked anything like winning the fight

Originally Posted by BIG H

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Here is my longwinded thought on Tyson that I've posted before


man it seems like this is discussed weekly. I have very mixed feelings about Tyson's placement in history. Tyson's wins are against mostly average to decent fighters. Not that this is his fault and not that many fighters(marciano, Louis,holmes etc) don't have the same dilemma in regards to their legacy. I think quite often it wasn't who he beat but the electrifying way he did it. I often ask myself if Tyson was a defensive master who out pointed and embarrassed fighters would we feel the same way? If he was the pernell whitaker of the HW era would he have such a fan base? Tyson embodied what we as fans want in our champion. I think people quite often get wrapped up in the sheer entertainment value of Tyson. His wins over Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Ruddock, tubbs, thomas, biggs etc are impressive in that he cleaned out a division and in the manner he did them but the actual opposition is really just slightly better than average. Tyson has two great wins: the destruction of Spinks and Holmes. Although Holmes went on to several more decent wins I don't think anyone will argue that he was the same man who himself had cleaned out a division. And I don't think we will ever know why spinks gave such a sorry performance. The biggest problem with grading Tyson's career is that his "prime" was so short. He didn't face any truly good HW's in their prime until late in his career. Obviously Tyson's management decisions and personal demons had a lot to do with his decline as a fighter, but this is a part of who Tyson was as a fighter. He simply didn't have the dedication and focus of other great HW's. I look at him alot like Bowe. They both had all the skills to be ATG's but couldn't capitalize. I don't judge Tyson's career after the Lewis fighter b/c it was obvious he didn't care. That being said whether he came in poorly prepared or not he was beaten soundly by douglas, holy, and Lewis. Great fighters rise to the occasion and Tyson didn't. When he met fighters who weren't intimidated, were bigger, had a decent jab and could back him up and tie him up he was definately frustrated. Tyson is one of the greatest power punchers ever, and arguably the most exciting fighter ever. He will stand as an icon in boxing of what might of been, but in my personal oppinion not an all time great fighter and hugely overrated.

CC Mate

... but your point about opposition, which prime heavyweights of any note did Marciano Dempsey Louis or even Holmes beat?

As I have said many times before Tyson's era was no worse than all but 2 eras in heavyweight history

I think you misunderstood me...I was saying like Tyson, Marciano/Dempsey/Louis/Holmes don't have the "name" fighters that weren't already washed up on their resumes. The fact that Tyson fought during one of the greatest HW periods in history but didn't beat any of its top fighters(Bowe,Lewis,Holy,Foreman) or Mercer/Morrison to me is a real detriment to his legacy. I give him credit for the win over Razor though. In fact I consider probably his best win as far as talent and prime factor.

Originally Posted by BIG H

Firstly Miles - you know what time it is!!

The point people make about Tyson's fights against Holyfileld and even as far back as Douglas don't really hold any merit in this argument as far as I am concerned. The questions is about Prime. Against Douglas, Tyson was a zombie, almost certainly on drugs and showed none of the attributes that made him what he was - he never did after that fight either.

People bring up Tucker causing him problems and Holmes causing problems, PLEASE wach those fights, Tucker caught Tyson with 1 decent punch and was pretty much outboxed for 12 rounds, Holmes came out dancing like Wayne Sleep in round 4 and landed a few jabs, but hardly something that was troubling Tyson. Fact is every great fighter even if their prime will be tested, but when did Tyson really look vunerable or anywhere remotely close to losing during those years?? I actually think Bonecrusher was his hardest fight during his prime and he still won that with ease!

I am not speaking as a fan cause I think the guys is a nob head, but if you really want to talk about primes you have to look at 1986-89, or else we should be looking at Larry Holmes v Butterbean and Muhammad Ali v Trevor Berwick.

BK you have said before that after the Spinks fight you had Tyson as number 2 on your all time list, you have also acknowledged that his prime ended in 89, so how can you now change your mind on a question based on primes, but paying credence to fights that happened when the guy was a zombie and after being incarcerrrated for 3 and a half years!!

It's all heresay that the trates he showed later in his career were already there, and if they were then the likes of Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and a very clever great jabber like Pinklon Thomas would have been the ones to expose them, not Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.
If anybody can watch a Tyson fight form Douglas onwards and see the same fighter, with the great jab, great defence, awesome combinations, side to side head movement, lateral waist movement then you watched different fight to me

Deep breath Lol

Yep, its was way past my bedtime last night anyways. I went out for a few jars and then came home and found myself straight onto this thread having a few more cool ones. Ive really no right to tell people to find a hobby so sorry about that Mr IceCold. Im more friendly in the light of day ....

I still maintain that prime Tyson is too much for Prime Holmes.

Prime Tyson is possibly too much for most of the greats in boxing history and would certainly cause fits for many...

Prime Tyson is the one that took out Spinks with ease...a fighter that seemed to give a slightly post prime Holmes heaps of difficulties....

Its difficult arguing these points in these threads because a number of us who have been here a long while argue our same points either for or against Tyson and we do tend to get stuck into the trenches with it all....

Perhaps its easier to agree to disagree sometimes...

My opinion on this may be a little biased based on the INTENSE dislike I've always had for Holmes, but........ I still think a prime Tyson finds a way to get inside Holmes' jabs and takes his racist head clean off.

I'd still go with the young, focused and %100 Tyson against anybody in history, well maybe not against Ali. But against the best of the rest i'm behind Mike all the way.

Originally Posted by BIG H

Because he was always in control during his prime

But Tyson never met a prime Larry Holmes in his prime.

If he had, he would not had the control he was used to, and when he failed to control a fight, Tyson lost

Originally Posted by Britkid

Originally Posted by BIG H

Because he was always in control during his prime

But Tyson never met a prime Larry Holmes in his prime.

If he had, he would not had the control he was used to, and when he failed to control a fight, Tyson lost

But we cannot know for sure if prime Holmes would be able to truly control a prime Tyson. I say that Tyson would end up controlling a fight with Holmes, but at the end of the day this is just my opinion and it could be as right as it is wrong. All part of the fun of debate but frustrating for anyone wanting any absolutes in their boxing!

Originally Posted by miles

Originally Posted by BIG H

Firstly  Miles - you know what time it is!!

The point people make about Tyson's fights against Holyfileld and even as far back as Douglas don't really hold any merit in this argument as far as I am concerned. The questions is about Prime. Against Douglas, Tyson was a zombie, almost certainly on drugs and showed none of the attributes that made him what he was - he never did after that fight either.

People bring up Tucker causing him problems and Holmes causing problems, PLEASE wach those fights, Tucker caught Tyson with 1 decent punch and was pretty much outboxed for 12 rounds, Holmes came out dancing like Wayne Sleep in round 4 and landed a few jabs, but hardly something that was troubling Tyson. Fact is every great fighter even if their prime will be tested, but when did Tyson really look vunerable or anywhere remotely close to losing during those years?? I actually think Bonecrusher was his hardest fight during his prime and he still won that with ease!

I am not speaking as a fan cause I think the guys is a nob head, but if you really want to talk about primes you have to look at 1986-89, or else we should be looking at Larry Holmes v Butterbean and Muhammad Ali v Trevor Berwick.

BK you have said before that after the Spinks fight you had Tyson as number 2 on your all time list, you have also acknowledged that his prime ended in 89, so how can you now change your mind on a question based on primes, but paying credence to fights that happened when the guy was a zombie and after being incarcerrrated for 3 and a half years!!

It's all heresay that the trates he showed later in his career were already there, and if they were then the likes of Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and a very clever great jabber like Pinklon Thomas would have been the ones to expose them, not Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.
If anybody can watch a Tyson fight form Douglas onwards and see the same fighter, with the great jab, great defence, awesome combinations, side to side head movement, lateral waist movement then you watched different fight to me

Deep breath Lol 

Yep, its was way past my bedtime last night anyways.  I went out for a few jars and then came home and found myself straight onto this thread having a few more cool ones. Ive really no right to tell people to find a hobby so sorry about that Mr IceCold. Im more friendly in the light of day  ....

I still maintain that prime Tyson is too much for Prime Holmes.

Prime Tyson is possibly too much for most of the greats in boxing history and would certainly cause fits for many...

Prime Tyson is the one that took out Spinks with ease...a fighter that seemed to give a slightly post prime Holmes heaps of difficulties....

Its difficult arguing these points in these threads because a number of us who have been here a long while argue our same points either for or against Tyson and we do tend to get stuck into the trenches with it all....

Perhaps its easier to agree to disagree sometimes...

he wernt slighty past it he had been past it for long time yet he was 38 at time what makes me laugh that larry holmes was 38 heaviest he had been 2 weeks to train 2 year layoff and you say slighty past it but when tyson was 22 years of age undefeated and champion he was past it makes sense doesnt it

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Originally Posted by miles

Originally Posted by BIG H

Firstly Miles - you know what time it is!!

The point people make about Tyson's fights against Holyfileld and even as far back as Douglas don't really hold any merit in this argument as far as I am concerned. The questions is about Prime. Against Douglas, Tyson was a zombie, almost certainly on drugs and showed none of the attributes that made him what he was - he never did after that fight either.

People bring up Tucker causing him problems and Holmes causing problems, PLEASE wach those fights, Tucker caught Tyson with 1 decent punch and was pretty much outboxed for 12 rounds, Holmes came out dancing like Wayne Sleep in round 4 and landed a few jabs, but hardly something that was troubling Tyson. Fact is every great fighter even if their prime will be tested, but when did Tyson really look vunerable or anywhere remotely close to losing during those years?? I actually think Bonecrusher was his hardest fight during his prime and he still won that with ease!

I am not speaking as a fan cause I think the guys is a nob head, but if you really want to talk about primes you have to look at 1986-89, or else we should be looking at Larry Holmes v Butterbean and Muhammad Ali v Trevor Berwick.

BK you have said before that after the Spinks fight you had Tyson as number 2 on your all time list, you have also acknowledged that his prime ended in 89, so how can you now change your mind on a question based on primes, but paying credence to fights that happened when the guy was a zombie and after being incarcerrrated for 3 and a half years!!

It's all heresay that the trates he showed later in his career were already there, and if they were then the likes of Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and a very clever great jabber like Pinklon Thomas would have been the ones to expose them, not Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.
If anybody can watch a Tyson fight form Douglas onwards and see the same fighter, with the great jab, great defence, awesome combinations, side to side head movement, lateral waist movement then you watched different fight to me

Deep breath Lol

Yep, its was way past my bedtime last night anyways. I went out for a few jars and then came home and found myself straight onto this thread having a few more cool ones. Ive really no right to tell people to find a hobby so sorry about that Mr IceCold. Im more friendly in the light of day ....

I still maintain that prime Tyson is too much for Prime Holmes.

Prime Tyson is possibly too much for most of the greats in boxing history and would certainly cause fits for many...

Prime Tyson is the one that took out Spinks with ease...a fighter that seemed to give a slightly post prime Holmes heaps of difficulties....

Its difficult arguing these points in these threads because a number of us who have been here a long while argue our same points either for or against Tyson and we do tend to get stuck into the trenches with it all....

Perhaps its easier to agree to disagree sometimes...

he wernt slighty past it he had been past it for long time yet he was 38 at time what makes me laugh that larry holmes was 38 heaviest he had been 2 weeks to train 2 year layoff and you say slighty past it but when tyson was 22 years of age undefeated and champion he was past it makes sense doesnt it

You obviously admire Holmes and fair play to you for that. We all have our favourite fighters.

Otherwise, you arent really making much sense to me with what you are saying. Different fighters peak and at different ages because of any variety of influences and factors. Lewis was arguably at his best as he matured into his 30's. Tyson was undoubtably at his best in his early 20's.

yes i have to admit it miles i do like holmes im just saying i think people are going bit far when they say hes prime ended at 22

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

yes i have to admit it miles i do like holmes im just saying i think people are going bit far when they say hes prime ended at 22

For me Tyson was at his best around the time he beat Spinks, but he was still an exceptional fighter up until he got put away for rape IMO. The Douglas fight was an aberation. I think if Tyson had of fought Douglas again, he would have stopped him in 4. Even though his technique was ragged against Ruddock Tyson was still banging away and only a fool would stay and trade with that....

Jail destroyed his prime IMO and he came back as a very different fighter. The Holyfield fights showed us this. Ali too lost his prime because of a long absence, but was able to evolve his game to continue to compete at the top. Tyson became a limited head hunter. No way was he the same Tyson. Now he was back down and in a more even playing field. After being banned for the ear biting for a further 18 months, Tyson had declined even more. We were watching a man who no longer even wanted to be in the ring. The Tyson that Lewis beat was a ghost. He looked like Tyson, but the fight had all gone out of him. He was a long way from that hungry, young man that tore apart Spinks with thoroughly bad intentions.

I pay little creedence to Lewis beating Tyson at the time he did. This is in much the same way that I pay little significance to Tyson beating an old and inactive Holmes....

yes same here miles i dont take lewis victory either

Originally Posted by BIG H

Lyle, please watch the Tucker and Green fights again, Green had a couple off spells of throwing a load of shots that were blocked, but was comprehensively beaten and did Tucker really give Tyson fits?? I don't think so, he had a couple of good spells but never looked anything like winning the fight

Compared to oooohhh I don't know Tyson's fights vs Berbick and Spinks I would say they did bother him A LOT. And when you compare Tucker and Green to Holmes, they come up well short of his greatness so you HAVE to figure Holmes would not only have an easy time taking Tyson the distance but he'd frustrate him too. Here are some things to think about...

1) The farther you take Tyson int he fight the better shot you have at beating him. It's like a Crocodile dragging a Zebra into deep water, the Zebra eventually realizes he's fucked and gets drowned.

2) The longer Holmes went in fights the better, he could outpoint pretty much anyone BUT he could also KO people too. The DILLUSIONAL Tyson fans (not all of them) fancy a Prime Tyson as "a defensive guru" and "a slick boxer who was more than just power punching"....not quite true if you ask me watch Tyson take uppercut after uppercut after uppercut...it doesn't matter if it's 1986 or 1996 or 2006 he's just a sucker for an uppercut as well as jabs and right hands....people made the mistake of trying to out hook Tyson...not a goood idea.

3) Tyson's style was picture perfect for tall boxers with good jabs. He can have all the head movement in the world but if you're accurate with the jab you're accurate I mean just because someone's head is moving doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS miss, it's something called TIMING and Holmes had one of the best jabs of all time.

4) Tyson = Bully and Holmes was from the Ali school of psychological training. Let him drop kick Tyson the way he drop kicked Berbick and Tyson would be done RIGHT THERE...Tyson would back down and just get walked over.