Holmes didn't fight Tyson for only the money, he fought him to make history. Nobody here is saying Holmes was prime, why is everyone so worried about that?
I didn't say that he did. One thing for definite, though, is that Larry was fighting Tyson for money. Reportedly, his acceptance of the fight was quite dependent on a certain, financial sum being reached. What history would Holmes have made, apart from being the third man in history to regain the heavyweight championship? Or, are you referring to Larry's own pre-fight-build-up-sound-bites, to the tune of him wanting to ensure his place in history by beating Tyson? Admittedly, the idea of a 38 year old Holmes coming back to beat the new tornado on the block, does carry a degree of romanticism about it. However, most pre-fight press writing stayed realistic; seeing the bout as a money-grab and a slaughter-in-waiting. Remind me... ...Did Larry Holmes call Tyson out or was he approached by Tyson's promoter, who offered him the opportunity? (genuine question) And, neither was I. What, the relevance of a past prime Holmes in a speculative matchup involving a "prime" Holmes? Well... ...this thread is (one of many I'd assume) speculating on a Holmes/Tyson, prime-for-prime contest but, invariably, their bout of '88 gets held up, in one way or another, as strong evidence for how such a fight would pan out. However, that really wasn't the full point of my earlier post. I was merely highlighting the difference between a major event, that the press might whip up and make a "big deal" over, and the reality of the situation being that their fight in '88 was generally regarded as a mismatch. Thus, the result not being as big a deal as the event and not really relevant to how a prime-for-prime contest would go.
Sounds like a pretty cool question. If Holmes would be somehow able to outpoint a young primed but nervous Tyson, and make 2 defenses before losing to Holyfield, what about his history? One thing for sure (imho): He´d be #2 right after Ali. As save as the sun rising.
It would have been seen as a massive upset, not dissimilar to that of Buster Douglas beating Tyson. Although, the odds for Holmes beating Tyson weren't nearly as long as the odds for Douglas to achieve the same. Bearing in mind that Holmes is widely regarded as a Top-5 ATG Heavyweight, it's difficult to imagine how much further up the ratings this one win could have taken him. Nonetheless, with Holmes at the stage he was at in his career by then, it couldn't fail to further cement his place in history. Who would the two defenses be against? This would matter to Holmes' rating, as well, would it not?. In addition, your scenario and imagined forecast on Holmes' revised rating does not take into consideration the hit Tyson's standing would have taken for his loss to a 38 year old, former champ; ring-rusty from a 21-month layoff and coming off two losses on the bounce. Asides from this huge loss, Tyson would have wins over Tucker, Thomas, Berbick, Smith, Biggs (and presumably two more over Ruddock) on his resume. I think this might give cause for some to reconsider some of the claims of Tyson's own status and place in heavyweight history. Despite many chants being made about Tyson's greatness - even at that early stage - he would have only been the undisputed champ for less than 6 months, before losing it to Holmes; making no further impression on the division, until he got out of prison. His post-prison record would do little to address the devastating impact of the Holmes loss. With the above in mind, I can't see Holmes automatically taking the number-2 spot, on the strength of him beating Tyson in Jan '88.
Well, I never said that you said that. I AM saying that Holmes didn't fight Tyson simply for the money. Holmes' acceptance of the fight was quite dependent on a certain, financial sum being reached. Yeah dude, it's called prizefighting after all, and they do negotiate to get paid in the 7 figures, especially against the undisputed/undefeated heavyweight champion of the world. However, a proud former champion like Holmes, who 4 years later got miffed at Michael Buffer for referring to him as a 15 time defender of the championship during the introduction to his fight with Holyfield (instead of 20 defenses) fought for his legacy AND to become the oldest heavyweight champion in the world. So yeah, a lot was on the line here. Kind of a big deal. Funny how people swipe it away like it ain't no thang. Such a big deal that it made the cover of Sports Illustrated. Such a big deal that KO magazine did an interview with Holmes a couple years earlier declaring a Tyson-Holmes battle as the biggest fight to be made. Such a big deal that many thought Holmes won the rematch with Spinks. It was declared a mismatch because Mike Tyson was that good. Back to that KO magazine interview - where Holmes told Tyson to "Show me you can kick my ass!" A deal was set with Jacobs and Cayton to get a Tyson-Holmes bout underway in 1986. HBO threatened Team Tyson to ditch a Holmes fight if they want in the unification tourney. Team Tyson promised Holmes first crack at the unified championship if Mike were to win. Holmes obliged, knowing full well that he had a chance to make history and some buku bucks. You didn't need the press to whip anything up to get people invested with Tyson-Holmes. The event itself shattered HBO records. Not bad for a faux Super Bout mismatch where the press brainwashed everyone into believing Ali could walk on water.
No problem dude. I love him too. Larry Holmes is 2nd only to Mike Tyson for me. My favorite heavyweights of all time right there.
