Mike Tysons smartest opponent

[Biledriver]

Larry takes Tyson out into deep water and drowns him late. Tyson has six rounds max to get Larry out of their before Mike runs out of gas: That's not enough time against a prime Holmes. Tyson will win three or four of the early rounds on aggression (yes, judges favorited that back then), maybe even hurt Larry a couple of times, while Mike gets an eye swelled up from Larrys jab. After round six it's all Holmes.

[QueensburyRules]

Larry takes Tyson out into deep water and drowns him late. Tyson has six rounds max to get Larry out of their before Mike runs out of gas: That's not enough time against a prime Holmes. Tyson will win three or four of the early rounds on aggression (yes, judges favorited that back then), maybe even hurt Larry a couple of times, while Mike gets an eye swelled up from Larrys jab. After round six it's all Holmes.

- - Poo Lar dropped Rocky's jockstrap on his big feets that busts them up. He never beat a fighter holding a title won in the ring. He was Don King's Boy 100%...U could look it up if U sort through U piles.

[billeau2]

Another thread, another trolling campaign by Queefsburied

Queen B has a real hrd on for Holmes!

[billeau2]

Both Douglas and Holyfield (juiced) were strong enough to push back on Tyson. I don't think even a prime Holmes had the strength to keep 1989 Tyson off him.

I also don't think Ali could have either. I feel one had to be strong, as well as a good boxer, to get by the early rounds with Tyson. I don't think you can 'dance' your way though it. Tyson, in those years was quick enough to chase anyone down, even Ali.

Even the two lesser fighters (lesser than Holmes and Ali, not lesser generally speaking) that went the distance with Tyson, Tucker and Smith were both large, strong men.

BTW We are of the same thinking, the triangular comparisons do not work. Ali easily out points both Tucker and Smith, as well as Douglas. But Tyson? I don't think Ali could keep him off, such as Frazier showed us.

Holyfield, like Norton could also prove trouble for Ali.

First you had to be able to match muscle with Tyson, then you could begin to take him apart. E.g. Lewis.

If I may dovetail off this post: Holyfield used technique very effectively against Tyson, he was coached to go in and we all have a space in back/front of our legs where no third leg exists and we have no balance. This is actually a common principle in Ju Jutsu, what one has to do is resist the tendency to go back when being punched at. Holyfield got this down so he was pushing Mike back, nullifying his base and hence, his power.

Holmes would not do this. He did however have a granite beard, and took some heavy shots from Shavers. Tyson is explosive, and had fast feet, and Larry was an expert at lateral movement and keeping distance. It would have been a battle of who knew their skill set better. I think ifb they fought three times, Holmes wins at least once, maybe all three times. I base this on one fact alone: All else being equal, in a battle between range, reach, and the need to close distance, it is easier to keep a man back, than enter a man's perimeter who has the superior jab (reach) and distance.

This principle is as old as the hills, we see it in japanese Koryu military arts where weapons of distance primarily the spear and the short bow are initially used, and only when combat closes do blades and gripes come into play, with the short sword, Kodachi being used to lift the helmet and make the actual kill.

in a word: Tyson has to breech Holmes range. You can kind of see it when they fought in Holmes initial success. Tyson eventually can pressure Holmes and Holmes older legs cannot prevent this. With good legs? Holmes had the chin and skills to make it very tough for Mike to get in like he was able to do with an older version of the pinhead assassin, errr I mean Easton Assassin

[Tatabanya]

Larry takes Tyson out into deep water and drowns him late. Tyson has six rounds max to get Larry out of their before Mike runs out of gas: That's not enough time against a prime Holmes. Tyson will win three or four of the early rounds on aggression (yes, judges favorited that back then), maybe even hurt Larry a couple of times, while Mike gets an eye swelled up from Larrys jab. After round six it's all Holmes.

Maybe. But one point that perhaps you missed is, prime Tyson was quick - and a master of bobbing and weaving. Thus I can't imagine Holmes' jab doing all that damage. Moreover, Tyson ran out of gas only in a couple of his very last fights, when he was completely shot. Certainly not during his prime. He fought until the end even when past his best (see Douglas and Holyfield I).

Still, it would be a fascinating fight to watch.

[billeau2]

- - Poo Lar dropped Rocky's jockstrap on his big feets that busts them up. He never beat a fighter holding a title won in the ring. He was Don King's Boy 100%...U could look it up if U sort through U piles.

Im guessing to you Valuev does a number on Holmes? Wilt also!! Would beat Ali and his protege HOlmes the same night! and then still be able to play with the ladies and Knicks the next day.

[The Defecator II]

Maybe. But one point that perhaps you missed is, prime Tyson was quick - and a master of bobbing and weaving. Thus I can't imagine Holmes' jab doing all that damage. Moreover, Tyson ran out of gas only in a couple of his very last fights, when he was completely shot. Certainly not during his prime. He fought until the end even when past his best (see Douglas and Holyfield I).

Still, it would be a fascinating fight to watch.

I’m well aware of Tyson’s attributes as I was an adult during his prime years and watched every one of his fights from the ESPN days to HBO to PPV. Bobbing and weaving doesn’t necessarily negate a jab. Ali turned the bobbing and weaving Joe Frazier’s face into jello. Buster Douglas pounded the crap out of Tyson with his jab. Holmes may very well had the greatest jab of any heavyweight outside of maybe Sonny Liston. Tyson isn’t nullifying Larry’s jab. I’ve seen every prime Tyson fight where he went deep into fights or went the distance. In every instance he decelerated rapidly after 6 rounds and his offensive output declined rapidly. He ran out of gas. That’s why Quick Tillis was able to claw back rounds and make the scores close. Usually his opponent, if they survived that long, were so far behind it didn’t matter, or were too beat up to take advantage…..or were going to have the ref pull their plug in the next round or two.

[Tatabanya]

I’m well aware of Tyson’s attributes as I was an adult during his prime years watched everyone of his fights from the ESPN days to HBO to PPV. Bobbing and weaving doesn’t necessarily negate a jab. Ali turned the bobbing and weaving Joe Frazier’s into jello. Buster Douglas pounded the crap out of Tyson with his jab. Holmes may very well had the greatest jab of any heavyweight outside of maybe Sonny Liston. Tyson isn’t nullifying Larry’s jab. I’ve seen every prime Tyson fight where he went deep into fights or went the distance. In ever instance he decelerated rapidly after 6 rounds and his offensive output declined rapidly. He ran out of gas. That’s why Quick Tillis was able to claw back rounds and make the scores close. Usually his opponent, if they survived that long, were so far behind it didn’t matter, or were too beat up to take advantage…..or were going to have the ref pull their plug in the next round or two.

Excellent points. We must be around the same age, as far as I can tell.

Only a minor issue of mine: Frazier was slower than Tyson. Most heavyweights were. And, while it's true that sometimes Mike's tendency was to slow down in the later rounds, he still kept fighting hard (and sometimes, see the Jose Ribalta fight, he even won by knockout at the very end).

True, Tyson had several off nights. Most definitely, Tillis and Bonecrusher Smith were two of them. I don't consider the Tyson who fought Douglas as a valid example for anything. He never trained for that fight, and feasted with pṛstitutes until the day before according to what Mike himself wrote in his book.

[The Defecator II]

Excellent points. We must be around the same age, as far as I can tell.

Only a minor issue of mine: Frazier was slower than Tyson. Most heavyweights were. And, while it's true that sometimes Mike's tendency was to slow down in the later rounds, he still kept fighting hard (and sometimes, see the Jose Ribalta fight, he even won by knockout at the very end).

True, Tyson had several off nights. Most definitely, Tillis and Bonecrusher Smith were two of them. I don't consider the Tyson who fought Douglas as a valid example for anything. He never trained for that fight, and feasted with pṛstitutes until the day before according to what Mike himself wrote in his book.

I was born during the Lyndon Johnson administration, if that helps. I started watching boxing on ABC’s Wide World Of Sports in the 1970’s. I take a very balanced view of Tyson. He was grossly overrated for so long by demented Stan-bois that it caused a predictable backlash. Now he’s criminally underrated. I think I have him in realistic perspective. FWIW Tyson is the one fighter I’d like to sit down with and break down old fight films.

[Tatabanya]

I was born during the Lyndon Johnson administration, if that helps. I started watching boxing on ABC’s Wide World Of Sports in the 1970’s. I take a very balanced view of Tyson. He was grossly overrated for so long by demented Stan-bois that it caused a predictable backlash. Now he’s criminally underrated. I think I have him in realistic perspective. FWIW Tyson is the one fighter I’d like to sit down with and break down old fight films.

Yeah, we were born in the same time bracket. I was a huge fan of Mike as a youngster. With the passage of time I have become more of a student of him - I read lots of the books existing on the subject - and have grown to admire him as a person overall, while keeping things in perspective myself. We don't grow up for nothing...