Who else would have KO'd Holmes the way Tyson did?

D'Amato also said that he was going to train Wilt Chamberlain to defeat Muhammad Ali, a very eccentric character indeed....

 

Can't see it myself.

 

Haven't watched the fight in probably 20 years or more, but if my memory is correct that wasn't the Holmes we are use to seeing.

 

It wasn't, but an older Holmes beat Ray Mercer, who had given Lennox Lewis all that he could handle, and went the distance with Holyfield.

I would have serious doubts about Shavers, or even Lewis, matching Tyson's performance.

Lets say that the only person I would attribute it to with any confidence, is Tyson himself.

 

Not Lewis for sure, ANYONE he saw as a real threat he played it safe.....and he would play it very safe even against the faded Holmes right hand and jab.

 

So Shavers who inflated his KO record with wins over journeymen and bums (save a weak victory over an ancient, past prime and chinny Norton) and failed against every other ranked guy he met is now as good a finisher as Liston who basically cleaned out the best fighters of his generation via stoppage?

Shavers is rightly famed for his power and rightly derided for his crude and flawed finishing skills whereas Liston has earned his spot as one of the more frightening and devastating finishers in heavyweight history.

Shavers as good a puncher and finisher as Liston.... laughable .

 

Overall, it was a good win for Tyson... BUT...

Holmes was retired. This was 1988 and he had not fought since 1986 (a questionable loss to M. Spinks) or won a fight since 1985 (a close decision over C. Williams). He had also lost a decision to M. Spinks in 1985.

Holmes didn't take the fight with Tyson too serious and he even recorded an album when he should have been training. It was a big payday for Holmes regardless of the outcome. In the end Tyson won by 4th round stoppage but Holmes did pretty well up until that point.

When Holmes fought Holyfield in early '92 he was much better prepared. Holmes came back in 1991 and won 6 fights in a row including a near shut out over the previously undefeated and heavy favored Ray Mercer. Had Mercer won he was going to get a World Title shot vs. Holyfield. Holmes got the shot and held his own for 12 rounds but clearly lost the decision.

So, in 1988 who could have KO'd Holmes like Tyson did? Keep in mind that this is far from a prime Holmes. It's not even a well prepared or very determined Holmes... like he was vs. Holyfield and McCall despite being in his 40's.

I must say, it's hard to really think of too many because Tyson had the right style for Holmes at that point in his career. Tyson was a fast starter, had quick hands and feet, very strong, a huge puncher, and he was very durable.

Foreman and Frazier may have a chance but I think that due to the style match up Holmes would be able to at least last the distance.

 

Shavers was a big puncher, there is no disputing that. He wasn't the most durable fighter and he wasn't the most skilled... but he could punch.

As for Liston? He stopped Williams x2, Folley, and Patterson x2 among others. Williams is one of the most overrated contenders ever and was far from durable. Folley and Patterson were small and not so durable. Machen (who was pretty much on par with Folley, but more durable), was able to give Liston problems and last the distance. Johnny Summerlin lost 2 close decisions to Liston early in Liston's career. Marty Marshall (180 Lbs.) broke Liston's jaw and beat him by decision. Nino Valdez was 137 years old when he fought Liston.

Shavers stopped Jimmy Young KO1, Jimmy Ellis KO1, and Ken Norton KO1 among others. He lost a close decision to Ali but did rock Ali a few times. He also went the distance with Holmes in their first fight. In the rematch with Holmes he dropped Holmes in the 7th round before being stopped in the 11th. He was stopped 7 times but 3 of those KO losses were when he was way past prime and 1 of them was very early in his career. The other 3 came vs. Quarry, Lyle, and Holmes.

Liston was a better fighter than Shavers but Shavers probably punched harder. Now, this doesn't make him a better finisher. They were close in that department... yep, I said it!

 

Dempsey gets lionized for beating a softer, staler, just as old and never near as great Willard in similar fashion... but Tyson, just another tomato can he knocked over.

OK, I get it.

 

Yeah really. I bet that 38 year old Holmes was better than Willard was at his best, let alone the version of Jess who had spent the previous three years working at the rodeo. Sad thing is Tyson's legacy doesn't even rest on the shoulders of beating Larry Holmes that way that a large portion of Dempsy's does for beating Willard.

 

Dempsey's win over Willard often gets grossly overrated.
That's no reason to grossly overrate Tyson win over Holmes though, is it ?

 

No it isn't. but sometimes the same people who praise other champions for beating diminished legends are the same ones who chalk up Tyson's career as being built on beating " a washed up Holmes." The contradiction is a little too obvious to pass over. Nevertheless I agree that its an overrated win.

 

Yeah, but on this particular thread there seems to be an unhealthy dose of the opposite bias, with klompton, for example, almost suggesting that Holmes' age and inactivity was hardly a factor.

 

I don't know that he speaks for the majority, but I agree. It was a "decent" win, but nothing more than that. Larry Holmes had been washed up for quite some time and the outcome of that fight was predicted long before it came into fruition.

 

Exactly.

Of course, to be fair, Tyson's very good performances in his five previous title fights were a significant factor in the near-consensus prediction Holmes would get massacred.

But, we all know Holmes didn't even deserve to be ranked, they had to rig it to get it sanctioned, and Holmes hadn't looked at all convincing in his three previous fights before that lay-off.