Does Tyson circa 86/87 beat prime Larry Holmes ??

I rate Larry higher than Tyson of course and the Easton Assassin is one of my favorite fighters...but I've always thought Tyson beats him.....

Larry was decked or troubled by some if we are honest... quite ordinary guys!! Renaldo Snipes nearly beat him..Shavers decked him and Weaver had him all over the show!!!!

Now Tyson was faster, had better footwork, head movement.. than all those guys...and carried a bang as Holmes found out in 1988.....

I am talking the Rooney-Tyson here....

Larry had a great jab but I'm not sure it was enough to keep Tyson at bay...Larry did get caught and I can see Mike piling in once he has Larry stunned.. and as Holmes wasn't a great puncher he'd have plenty of chance to stun him !!!...

Would want Larry to win but I just think Tyson was better than anything he faced and probably would've had his number!!..Not sure Larry takes Holyfield 89/90 either!!!

Genuine 50-50 I think - Larry dances around him and picks him off for the most part but Tyson has his moments. If he makes those moments count - then he wins by KO. If it goes the distance Holmes wins a Tightish UD,

I'm the same i can't pick a winner prime vs prime, great mix of styles by two great fighters, if only poor Larry didn't get his uppercut caught in the ropes before being flattened we could have seen him battered about for another couple of rounds, he did well to get up from the first right hand.

Interesting fight isn't it...Not sure Larry outscores Mike..Tyson was always very busy....and Larry liked to control the pace....

Tyson 86 wasn't the fighter Buster beat...

Holmes jab would really have to be at his best and he couldn't get tagged like he did via Snipes...

Great matchup..

Tyson by KO for me

Mike keeps in close to avoid the jab

Softens the body before the head shots come in

KO comes later than when they actually did fight though

If it goes past the fifth or sixth round, Tyson hasn't got a prayer in my eyes. Was never the same fighter after the first third / half of a fight, regardless of what year we're talking or who was training him. If Holmes keeps out of harm's way for long enough I'd expect him to take advantage of Tyson's lack of stamina - his head rarely moved in the same way after five or six rounds and Holmes' jab (and right cross) were too good not to cash in there.

It's in the early stages that this fight is really interesting. Holmes had unbelievable powers of recovery, but the worrying thing is that he needed to show them a little more often than he'd have liked. Holmes, as ever, would be circling to his left, trying to take the legs from under Tyson by making him do the chasing, but I see Tyson having success in the early rounds. If he hits Holmes with the right - which Larry would probably be moving in to - I think Holmes beats the count as ever, but can he buy himself time and spoil to survive? It's one thing doing it against Snipes and Shaves, quite another against Tyson.

I'd say this fight is 60:40 in Holmes' favour; sixty percent of the time, Holmes weathers a storm, establishes his jab to dishearten Tyson who is tired from chasing, and stops his man late. The other forty percent, Tyson gets to Holmes early and forces the referee to step in after Larry beats a count.

You have a point chris....The longer the fight goes the better Larry's chances....

Two things he has that others prior to Holy didn't.......A great heart and a great survival instinct..and of course the jab

But he didn't fight anyone as dangerous as Mike...

But good points made.....

Chris beat me to it and has pretty much said everything I was gonna say (damn you!!!).

If Larry does his homework, fights cagey early, uses the jab and his physical advantages to keep mike at bay up to about the 5th round he can then take over, start pumping the jab in more, opening up the right hand and I think he takes it.

You say tyson is better than anything larry faced but I'd say it works the other way too - '86/'87 tyson never faced anyone near the class of a prime Holmes (and who was tougher? I mean when did Tyson ever show the balls larry did in the latter stages of the Norton fight for example).

You make it sound so easy......Knowing Larry he did his homework on Shavers, Norton, Weaver, Snipes and Witherspoon..

If he gets hit he goes...Larry did have a habit of getting sloppy..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You make it sound so easy......Knowing Larry he did his homework on Shavers, Norton, Weaver, Snipes and Witherspoon..

If he gets hit he goes...Larry did have a habit of getting sloppy..

Thats what I think. Truss we agree on something

Tyson was an animal back then Steffy...Holmes and a few others in history would have a chance of taming him but no one else...

Ali for sure...maybe George too but not sure anybody else could..Frazier too small for me..as was Joe..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: If he gets hit he goes...Larry did have a habit of getting sloppy..

If he gets hit he goes? When did he 'go' in his first 48 fights then? Tyson was an animal but doesn't mean he was unbeatable. Easy to look good destroying 90% tomato cans but he had faults that could be exploited, Larry was good enough to exploit them.

Larry UD/late stoppage IMO.

He went against Shavers where he somehow survived....and he went against Snipes where he survived on shaky legs..

If he gets hit he goes down and Tyson is on him like a rash....like in 88..

Dave why ????

Holmes powers of recovery where unbelievable,the punch Shavers hit him with I still don't know how Holmes got up let alone won the fight.
Holmes wasn't a one punch KO merchant, but he hit hard and often and his jab one of the best ever, outboxes Tyson, frustrates him then stops him late on IMO.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He went against Shavers where he somehow survived....and he went against Snipes where he survived on shaky legs..

If he gets hit he goes down and Tyson is on him like a rash....like in 88..

Exactly, survived against shavers, hardest hitting heavy ever, so he'd take tysons best - if tyson could get to him, not a gaurantee.

If Tyson '87 is a x10 better version than the one that lost to Buster, lets just say prime Larry is a x100 better version of Buster and has the tools (height & reach, solid jab and hard right cross, stamina, chin and heart) to take out tyson.

Tyson threw four punches by the time Shavers threw one....He took Tyson's bombs in 88 didn't he...

Leave it out..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He went against Shavers where he somehow survived....and he went against Snipes where he survived on shaky legs..

If he gets hit he goes down and Tyson is on him like a rash....like in 88..

Dave why ????

Thats quite a fair point - Shavers and Snipes rarely followed up close to anything like Tyson - who threw powerful punches with phenomenal precision.I still give Tyson only 50-50 chance. Fantastic finisher but against one of the wiliest in the game - something about Holmes first few rounds against Tyson. Just looked comfortable for a couple of rounds dancing and jabbing, gives a slight edge to him. Still as Truss says - he gets him in trouble and follows up - might well get beaten by TKO.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tyson threw four punches by the time Shavers threw one....He took Tyson's bombs in 88 didn't he...

Leave it out..

You know as well as I do he was past it then - or do you rate Holmes and Berbicks wins over Ali? Stop being a naughty boy.

Tyson = impressive but flawed.

Beat Ray Mercer and went the distance with Holy...so his chin couldn't have been that bad could it?????????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Beat Ray Mercer and went the distance with Holy...so his chin couldn't have been that bad could it?????????

Was still years past his best regardless, punch resistance may or may not have waned, but reflexes and mobility certainly had. Easier to go the distance with slower guys like mercer and holy at that age than a jack in the box like tyson.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He went against Shavers where he somehow survived....and he went against Snipes where he survived on shaky legs..

If he gets hit he goes down and Tyson is on him like a rash....like in 88..

Dave why ????

1 word, jab.

Yeah I understand that Dave but the jab didn't stop lesser fighters getting to him..much slower and less effective than Mike....

His jab only got him a split against Norton and Witherspoon....and saw him wobbled against Weaver, Snipes and ernie...

Still in fairness taking Mercer's and Holy's bombs show his chin got better after Tyson..

I agree with everything that Chris says, however I would have it a 60/40 to Tyson. Just think he gets caught early, though past it virtually the same round he was decked the second he opened up. For my money Holmes would open up earlier than what he did when he really fought Tyson and I could just see Tyson getting to him. However if it begins to go late I could see Tyson tiring and Holmes taking him out late with a few jab right crosses. Tough fight either way.

A true 50/50 fight. Larry was a slow starter and Tyson always came out of the blocks like Usain Bolt.

As with any Tyson fight the first few rounds are key; if Larry negoiates those without shipping too much punishment then he would win every time.

For me one critical element in a fight like this would be down to who is refereeing the contest. For years any infringment by 'Iron' Mike went unpunished and if a fighter tied him up once in a round referees were looking to deduct points or have the guy thrown out.

There is no way Larry would be able to just jab and move in the early rounds as he was always a slow starter so he would need to be able to add some spoiling tactics in there to slow any momentum Tyson may start.

If Larry can do that without being thrown out for the first few rounds then he wins on decision over 12, but wins by late stoppage in 13/14 rounds.

No, Larry Holmes was a class above Tyson and had every tool in the bag to dismantle him. Larry would have jabbed his head off while bringing the underated power of his right hand in behind it. I think Tyson get stopped somewhere around the 9th after taking a bit of a hiding. There's not a single name in Tyson's win column that suggest he could mix it with all time great like Holmes.

He had every tool????

He didn't punch that hard or have a great chin...

People are forgetting as much as I love Larry that he got splits against Witherspoon (he didn't deserve!)....Norton and Williams..

Seperate the fighter from the myth....Holmes was great but he never beat anyone in Tyson's league..

Ali isn't in Tyson's league?

Don't be silly...

Scottrf wrote:Ali isn't in Tyson's league?

You're right Ali's a league above.

Exactly. And TRUSS wont even give him credit for that.

Was Ali in Tyson's league when he fought holmes?????

You're being pedantic as you know I have Ali no1 p4p..

Like I said don't be silly..

For me it's Larry's lack of punching power that's the biggest issue for him, I just can't see him discouraging Tyson enough. Whilst Larry certainly had the ring smarts to survive against Tyson, I'm not convinced that he can win enough rounds at the same time. If it's over tweleve then I'd pick Tyson on a close decision, over fifteen then it swings towards larry, as Tyson tires from the mid point onwards, and once the workrate slows Holmes picks him off with the jab. Great match up though.

Always thought that holmes did pretty well (if you can do well in a 4 round ko loss) when they did fight. well enough for it to be a blueprint of how to beat tyson and for me to think that a younger holmes would have been able to carry it through. That's how i saw it at the time.

However i give tyson chances against anyone in the first 5 rounds of a fight, and truss is right that holmes could get sloppy. Certainly a tough fight to call with any confidence,bit of a pick em really

Gotta agree with Chris, If Tyson doesn't get to Larry early he begins to lose interest and runs out of ideas, Tyson never came back from adversity in a fight and after a few scary rounds Larry possibly even hitting the canvas, Holmes hammers Mike down the stretch, Larry hit harder than perceived and I'm going for a late Holmes stoppage.

Prime Tyson imo would easily bob and weave his way under holmes jab (who isn't a quick starter himself) and if he does he will explode on larry and i think he can take him out early. After 5 rounds, larry would start controlling mike but i just can't see him getting to that far

to quote Hugh McIlvanney, a Holmes left jab was like "opening a letter bomb". So Tyson would have to indeed get inside this. Holmes' roll call (first time around) at the fag end of the golden era was Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Witherspoon, Cooney, Snipes, Cobb, Spinks, Spinks, Williams, Smith. Equivalent call for Tyson: Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Biggs, Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Williams. So if you think there is a bit more gravitas about the Holmes list (and disregard Evangelista, Zanon, Ledoux, Rodriguez, etc.) you have to go with Holmes because he would have found a way....

I dont buy the theory that Tyson runs out of ideas if he doesn't take you out early.He was a highly skilled, aggressive fighter. He couldn't exacly jab and move due to his size. He attacked. All he had was plan A. And boy what a plan. But Holmes' plan A would be too much for any version of Tyson. Holmes by 3-4 rounds after a few shaky moments.

Much like the Foreman/Lewis match this one is a beautiful blend of styles with neither having a clear dominance over the other.

Holmes was hurt by the murderous punching Shavers but somehow recovered, how he recovered is beyond by comprehension as that right hand would have been the end of almost any heavyweight. Were Tyson to get him into that kind of trouble he doesn't let up and closes the show but does he get inside the jab and reach of Holmes to do it?

Holmes by mid to late knock out for me.

Welcome back Ghosty and Azania