[/QUOTE] There should be some kind of a IQ test on this site for guys like you to post......... Holmes did not get off the couch to fight Tyson, he knew the fight was on the the table a year before they fought, Holmes was always business/$$ oriented because that fight would make maximum cash in his pocket and he actively pursued it , had a FULL training camp and got waxed big time. end of story.................the ONLY flat out KO loss in his career........ Spinks was the undefeated Lineal Champ who had defused Holmes twice and absolutely passed the passing of the Torch test, something VK for example could not do, stopped a far fresher Cooney then the Alkie version Foreman got a hold of and never hit the deck until he met Tyson. BTW, the same even older Holmes ran circles around undefeated Mercer who in return ran Lewis razor close and made PEDfield look stupid at times of PEDfield's senior citizen fight tour.
There should be some kind of a IQ test on this site for guys like you to post......... Holmes did not get off the couch to fight Tyson, he knew the fight was on the the table a year before they fought, Holmes was always business/$$ oriented because that fight would make maximum cash in his pocket and he actively pursued it , had a FULL training camp and got waxed big time. end of story.................the ONLY flat out KO loss in his career........ Spinks was the undefeated Lineal Champ who had defused Holmes twice and absolutely passed the passing of the Torch test, something VK for example could not do, stopped a far fresher Cooney then the Alkie version Foreman got a hold of and never hit the deck until he met Tyson. BTW, the same even older Holmes ran circles around undefeated Mercer who in return ran Lewis razor close and made PEDfield look stupid at times of PEDfield's senior citizen fight tour.[/QUOTE] Holmes hadn't fought in two years effectively being retired and was nearly 39 years old - Do you think this was an impressive win for Tyson Your other ATG fighter that Mike beat was Spinks who makes no ones top 20 greatest heavyweight list. Spinks isn't even an ATG fighter he just beat a faded Holmes
There should be some kind of a IQ test on this site for guys like you to post......... Holmes did not get off the couch to fight Tyson, he knew the fight was on the the table a year before they fought, Holmes was always business/$$ oriented because that fight would make maximum cash in his pocket and he actively pursued it , had a FULL training camp and got waxed big time. end of story.................the ONLY flat out KO loss in his career........ Spinks was the undefeated Lineal Champ who had defused Holmes twice and absolutely passed the passing of the Torch test, something VK for example could not do, stopped a far fresher Cooney then the Alkie version Foreman got a hold of and never hit the deck until he met Tyson. BTW, the same even older Holmes ran circles around undefeated Mercer who in return ran Lewis razor close and made PEDfield look stupid at times of PEDfield's senior citizen fight tour.[/QUOTE] Holmes hadn't fought in two years effectively being retired and was nearly 39 years old - Do you think this was an impressive win for Tyson Your other ATG fighter that Mike beat was Spinks who makes no ones top 20 greatest heavyweight list. Spinks isn't even an ATG fighter he just beat a faded Holmes
I had a nagging feeling I left something or someone out. Whaaat? Can you believe it? The edit function isn’t available for that one and only post. I’ll have to check with the Mods to find out what’s up with that.
There should be some kind of a IQ test on this site for guys like you to post......... Holmes did not get off the couch to fight Tyson, he knew the fight was on the the table a year before they fought, Holmes was always business/$$ oriented because that fight would make maximum cash in his pocket and he actively pursued it , had a FULL training camp and got waxed big time. end of story.................the ONLY flat out KO loss in his career........ Spinks was the undefeated Lineal Champ who had defused Holmes twice and absolutely passed the passing of the Torch test, something VK for example could not do, stopped a far fresher Cooney then the Alkie version Foreman got a hold of and never hit the deck until he met Tyson. BTW, the same even older Holmes ran circles around undefeated Mercer who in return ran Lewis razor close and made PEDfield look stupid at times of PEDfield's senior citizen fight tour.[/QUOTE] This SI Vault Article below is dated 18 January 1988. Holmes fought Tyson on 22 January 1988. The article refers to it being January as at the time of its account - exactly when in January does not appear to be stated. It’s states that, after an apparently very uninspired work out, Holmes weighed in at 234 lbs, with the view to coming in at 224 lbs by fight time. Ultimately Larry weighed 225 3/4 lb for the fight. The article implies that Holmes wasn’t training so hard - and he repeated being tired several times as per the article. So, he somehow lost a touch over 8 lbs come fight time over a max. period of about 3 weeks - and by then, fight time, Larry did not look in any form of great or even very good shape. He was also 38 yo and inactive. The article quotes Larry as saying it wasn’t about or for the money - but the article pointedly negates that sentiment by noting Larry’s acquisition of assets and wealth over the years. Larry loved $$$ and when you love $$$, you can never have enough. Larry did better later in the piece because he trained and fought himself into better match conditioning and clearly had greater focus. Taking Leonard as a common opponent, should we take Ray as a static quantity and measure the respective performances of Kevin Howard and Marvin against Ray equally? Those fights were 3 years apart and Howard fought an even younger Leonard, after all. Well, the answer of course is NO, they can’t be measured equally relative to Ray. Leonard didn’t present as a static quantity for those two fights. An even older Leonard was far better prepared, conditioned and focused for Hagler despite the fight being 3 years after the fact of the Howard fight. Context is everything. While Mike posted a great performance against Larry, the context of Holmes situation can’t be conveniently divorced from the equation. Lord knows, the surrounding context of Mike’s circumstances and the degree of their alleged negative impact on Mike as at the time of the Douglas fight are cited at every turn. A number of the opponents Mike prevailed over had their own back stories also - but there are those who want to plump Mike with full and absolute credit for those victories - no deductions based on relativity. https://vault.si.com/vault/1988/01/...weight-title-that-he-considers-rightfully-his
This SI Vault Article below is dated 18 January 1988. Holmes fought Tyson on 22 January 1988. The article refers to it being January as at the time of its account - exactly when in January does not appear to be stated. It’s states that, after an apparently very uninspired work out, Holmes weighed in at 234 lbs, with the view to coming in at 224 lbs by fight time. Ultimately Larry weighed 225 3/4 lb for the fight. The article implies that Holmes wasn’t training so hard - and he repeated being tired several times as per the article. So, he somehow lost a touch over 8 lbs come fight time over a max. period of about 3 weeks - and by then, fight time, Larry did not look in any form of great or even very good shape. He was also 38 yo and inactive. The article quotes Larry as saying it wasn’t about or for the money - but the article pointedly negates that sentiment by noting Larry’s acquisition of assets and wealth over the years. Larry loved $$$ and when you love $$$, you can never have enough. Larry did better later in the piece because he trained and fought himself into better match conditioning and clearly had greater focus. Taking Leonard as a common opponent, should we take Ray as a static quantity and measure the respective performances of Kevin Howard and Marvin against Ray equally? Those fights were 3 years apart and Howard fought an even younger Leonard, after all. Well, the answer of course is NO, they can’t be measured equally relative to Ray. Leonard didn’t present as a static quantity for those two fights. An even older Leonard was far better prepared, conditioned and focused for Hagler despite the fight being 3 years after the fact of the Howard fight. Context is everything. While Mike posted a great performance against Larry, the context of Holmes situation can’t be conveniently divorced from the equation. Lord knows, the surrounding context of Mike’s circumstances and the degree of their alleged negative impact on Mike as at the time of the Douglas fight are cited at every turn. A number of the opponents Mike prevailed over had their own back stories also - but there are those who want to plump Mike with full and absolute credit for those victories - no deductions based on relativity. https://vault.si.com/vault/1988/01/...weight-title-that-he-considers-rightfully-his[/QUOTE] Nice find But..... Larry Holmes was a dedicated highly talented Pro Price fighter his entire life, he never quit or faked a injury to get out of a fight, he never saw Jesus in the dressing room or woke up on fight night in a brothel or got ko'ed by one shot by mediocre opponents. From Spinks 2 of 4/19/86 to Tyson 1/22/88 Larry was "inactive" for roughly 20 months, not uncommon for seasoned Heavyweights especially after a long career, current Top Heavyweights fight once a year or longer at best. Holmes was 223 for Spinks 2 and as you mentioned , three pounds heavier for Tyson.......Holmes WAS in fighting shape for Tyson ....... was 233 for Mercer......when he supposedly was less "rusty"....BS I say. I am convinced the Holmes who faced Tyson still beats Mercer and is decisioning McCall. I have a lot of respect for Holmes , the Sinatra song "I did it my way " personified Holmes who has a huge ego and he never could get over the fact that he simply got blown away in un competitive fashion by a superior fighter that night in 1988..................he was never before or after handled like that.
Nice find But..... Larry Holmes was a dedicated highly talented Pro Price fighter his entire life, he never quit or faked a injury to get out of a fight, he never saw Jesus in the dressing room or woke up on fight night in a brothel or got ko'ed by one shot by mediocre opponents. From Spinks 2 of 4/19/86 to Tyson 1/22/88 Larry was "inactive" for roughly 20 months, not uncommon for seasoned Heavyweights especially after a long career, current Top Heavyweights fight once a year or longer at best. Holmes was 223 for Spinks 2 and as you mentioned , three pounds heavier for Tyson.......Holmes WAS in fighting shape for Tyson ....... was 233 for Mercer......when he supposedly was less "rusty"....BS I say. I am convinced the Holmes who faced Tyson still beats Mercer and is decisioning McCall. I have a lot of respect for Holmes , the Sinatra song "I did it my way " personified Holmes who has a huge ego and he never could get over the fact that he simply got blown away in un competitive fashion by a superior fighter that night in 1988..................he was never before or after handled like that.[/QUOTE] You stated “Nice find BUT…”, but then didn’t offer anything but highly subjective, unsubstantiated opinions. The evidence clearly suggests that Larry was NOT in fighting shape for Tyson. I also note that you snuck in “woke up on fight night in a brothel” - another excuse for Tyson, a 23 yo Tyson no less. As I said, an explanation or excuse for Mike at “every turn” - but a total rejection of assessing his opponents in equal and opposite fashion. 21 months was an appreciable period of inactivity during that time - and inactivity generally is that much worse for even older fighters who need to fight more often in order to stay sharp. Naturally. From the get go, Holmes clearly didn’t have the gas in the tank to go too many competitive rounds anyway. His executions were languid in their own right. Of course he was less rusty for Mercer, and he was a properly, match conditioned 233 lbs. If the disrepair of certain opposition of Mike’s was properly accounted for as at the time (read: keeping the assessments even handed), then the Douglas win wouldn’t have been viewed as huge an upset as it was perceived to be - Don’t you find it glaring that when Mike won, there were no allowances made for the quality of the opposition as they presented - in order to accurately gage the quality of Mike himself? BUT, when Mike himself lost, it was like a dam bursting, with excuses for Mike flooding in from every direction. Very circular reasoning to protect the mythical, unbeatable status that some wanted to unrealistically maintain for Mike. It was rinse, repeat come the first Holyfield fight - when Mike, the “preferred”, heavy favourite, dramatically crashed again, - majority calculations being badly awry for the 2nd time in Mike’s career… Yet, somehow Mike was still eked out as a favourite for the Holy rematch….some strongly held myths require a quite the beat down before due adjustments in perception come about…if they ever come about at all.
hard to say. Vitali Klitschko had a 4-year break between Williams and Peter when he returned at almost the same age as Holmes and fought one of the best fights of his career. The longer break before Hagler didn't hurt the younger Leonard either. I noticed that technical fighters don't need to fight every two months. it's all an individual matter, but 20 months is not a very long break. If Larry was past, it wasn't much, and I'm sure he was in better shape with Tyson than with Mercer, and even more so with McCall. Second issue. in 1985-1986 Holmes had no break as an active, long-lived fighter and fought very equal fights with Carl Williams and Michael Spinks. In 1981, at his peak, he fought 15 rounds with Trevor Berbick, after which he called Trevor the strongest fighter he had ever fought. Tyson needed a total of about 7 minutes on Berbick, Spinks and Carl Williams, on all three. It's funny when I hear people say that Holmes would have kicked Tyson's ass without this break... he would have kicked Tyson's ass more than he kicked Berbick, Spinks, Williams?
I didn’t say Larry would’ve kicked Mike’s ass without the break. How Larry beat Berbick vs Mike’s manner of victory comes down to styles - old Larry fought Holyfield also but didn’t get stopped like Mike did. Against Mike, Larry also lasted near 3 1/2 rounds longer than his conqueror Spinks did. Go figure. Going back several decades - Ali struggled with easy Foreman victims in the form of Frazier and Norton but somehow beat George himself? Again, go figure. I did reference Leonard vs Hagler already. Prior to that, Leonard was as rusty as all hell vs club fighter Howard in ‘84 and was dropped for the first time in his pro career. Leonard retired again and bided his time for Hagler to deteriorate that bit further. Leonard’s recapture of himself for the fight was nonetheless impressive - far more the exception than the rule. But that fight had been on Ray’s mind for years - particularly the potential strategy to beat Marv. Ray’s prep for Hagler involved far more time and training than Larry’s did for Mike. Ray pointedly reinvented his physique, adding muscle, putting on a number of extra pounds sans fat. Ray also prepped himself via several?, full blown matches against bonafide MWs in the gym. It was NASA level, leave no stone unturned, prep and training. For Tyson, Larry did none of that and he was already 8 years older than Ray was. So how was come backing ‘87 Ray an even better version than the even younger, come backing ‘84 Ray? See above for explanation. What is funny is that Mike can be assumed to have been in such an extreme state of disrepair at just age 23 when Buster well and truly kicked his ass, but good old, inactive, ill prepared 38 yo Larry was barely a touch beneath his prime self. The duality in treatment is mind boggling.
Problem w tym, że tak naprawdę nie wiesz, co chcesz powiedzieć. Oczywiście styl sprawia, że jest walka i oczywiście różni bokserzy, z różnymi bokserami iw różnym czasie upadają... inaczej to jest życie, to jest boks, a nie gra komputerowa. Opisz konkretnie, co masz na myśli. Czy myślisz, że Larry z 1985 roku byłby poza zasięgiem Tysona? Fakty dowodzą czegoś przeciwnego, ale jeśli masz argumenty, chętnie wysłucham. Jeśli Tyson z łatwością pokonuje Spinksa, który był liniowym mistrzem, jak to wytłumaczyć, nie przyznając, że Tyson mimo wszystko był na wyższym poziomie? jeśli Tyson jest faworytem z Douglasem 42-1, jeśli każdy uznany ekspert twierdzi, że Tyson jest na wyższym poziomie niż Buster, znacznie wyższym, jeśli nikt nie daje Busterowi szansy i według wszelkiej logiki i profesjonalnych analiz jest kolejną łatwą ofiarą Tysona Jak wyjaśnisz, że to co się dzieje poza tym, że ta walka to przypadek? ten sam przypadek, co porażka Włada z Rossem Purritty, Lewisa z Oliverem McCallem, Listona z Martą Marschall, Durana z Kirklanda, Nortona z Garcią i wielu, wielu innych. Tyson prowadził szalony tryb życia poza ringiem i coś takiego było po prostu nieuniknione. Jak wiele osób mówiło – tylko Tyson może pokonać Tysona i dokładnie tak się stało. W przeciwnym razie Douglas powinien rządzić co najmniej od 1986 roku i zdominować kolejnych czołowych graczy, ale przegrał z trzema rywalami, których pokonał Mike. Wybierz opcję, która Ci odpowiada, ale najpierw pomyśl logicznie i najlepiej obejrzyj kilka walk
Lennox, Holmes, Ali and Foreman. I think at any certain specific points, those men were absolutely unbeatable by any other HW on Earth.
To the contrary, he concealed injuries and lied on medical exams so that fights would still happen. At different times, allegedly walked into the ring on fight night knowingly having a torn/not fully healed bicep, broken/not fully healed left hand (I think this one was twice), and torn retina. That's one thing he definitely can fairly talk **** to modern fighters about.