Holmes (Holyfield Fight) vs PRIME Morrison

I can see your point.

And I do think Holmes laying on the ropes against Morrison would be a dangerous tactic. Since Morrison is a good puncher and he can rip punches to the body and head.

But I just think Holmes is a bit too savvy for Morrison. And I do think Morrison not having that game changing right hand is a big factor aswell.

Funnily enough all this could've been answered if Morrison did actually beat Mercer.

Because more than likely that match up would've happened after.

We'll never know unfortunately.

 

Why do you think Holmes was poorly prepared for the Tyson fight? His weight was better than against Mercer. Visually, he looked like Holmes—soft but as always. He moved very well, had great confidence in his movements, moved fluidly, had a fighting mind, and showed no signs of rust. What makes you think his preparation against Tyson wasn't just poor, but very poor?

Regarding the Morrison-Holmes fight itself, it's hard to bet on Tommy, but I really don't know if Larry wouldn't have been knocked out for the second time in his career. Relying on the ropes and spending long periods in the corner against a puncher like Morrison wouldn't have been advantageous. Tommy was probably a worse fighter than Holy and Ray, but he had a better offense than both of them and could have capitalized on that. I wouldn't have bet on this fight if I didn't have to.

 

He was actually a number rated 4 HW in the world after he beat Mercer and just before the Holyfield fight.

https://i.ibb.co/LdjW6bYr/Holy.jpg

 

Because it is well documented that Don King moved the fight date forward, and Tyson doesn’t deny it either. Even if Holmes had the perfect training camp, he was never going to be fully prepared because he had been out of boxing for about 21 months and was already 38 years old. No one should be that inactive and then fight Tyson. Holmes looked good in the fight because he is an ATG, not because he had a decent camp. Holmes in his prime, by the way, is someone I would favor over Tyson.

 

Most of the fighters mentioned had fights with Holmes that fell through. For example, the Coetzee and Tate fights fell through back-to-back if I remember correctly. Also, Holmes destroyed Mike Weaver (12th-round TKO in a mostly one-sided fight), so what need was there for a rematch? And the Carl Williams rematch didn’t happen because Holmes lost his title to Spinks. You can argue Holmes should have given Williams an immediate rematch, but immediate rematches were rare in the 80s unless the decision was blatantly controversial, which this wasn’t. In fact, Williams himself admitted he lost in the post-fight interview. Also, your whole theory about Holmes ducking fighters with good right hands is immediately dismantled when you use the Earnie Shavers or Weaver fights as examples. Greg Page was mostly losing to other champions, and Pinklon Thomas had such a short prime that it’s hard to fully blame Holmes for not fighting him. A Tim Witherspoon rematch probably should have happened, even though the competitiveness of the first fight is mostly exaggerated.

 

Also, yes, Holmes didn't have an iron chin, but he had great recovery akin to Ruddock or Fury.

 

Did I understand you correctly that the fight was postponed? Can I ask you to document this, because I think it's nonsense. There's an interview with Larry Holmes about the Tyson-Biggs fight; the date was announced in October, and IT WAS MEET!

Yes, Larry had quite a long break, but many people say that at a certain age, something like that can even be beneficial. That's what Larry and his trainer claimed; of course, I don't attach much importance to it. But Leonard had a break twice as long and fought ATG in a higher weight class. Wlad Klitschko had the same break when he had one of the best fights of his career, and he was older than Holmes. Usyk fights practically once a year, saying it's perfect for him. I agree that Holmes was past his prime, but his very poor form has absolutely no justification. Especially since, in neutral circumstances, he couldn't beat Spinks and Williams, whom Tyson outclassed. And he did the same to Holmes.

 

Apologies, I did not know the context for your ongoing badinage!! It frustrates me when 'triangle theory' is espoused, particularly on a forum with so many knowledgeable posters so I did my usual, opened my mouth and put both feet in it.

Take care man, peace and love always, Px

 

I feel that triangle theory can have some merit, in at least showing that the given fighters being compared were on the same general level as each other.

 

Thanks for this reply. Sure, comparing past performances are useful but who beat who rarely stacks up as a reliable metric in my opinion. That said, no 'metric' is infallible and yes we do need to gather all available information. And then sometimes we have anomalous performances and other unknown intangibles that put all of our meticulous assessments in a box marked 'interesting conversation, no more'. An example I can think of is imagine had Morrison not fought Old George and the question had been posed, how would Tommy Morrison have done against comeback Formeman, even the aged, dominated version he fought. As a massive Morrison fan I'd be writing that for all his attributes, George's chin and power see him stopping an exhausted Tommy after 6.....history kicks me square in the bollocks there, doesnt it?

Take care all, have a wonderful day...

 

I don't know, I didn't answer,

but I woudln't put it past Larry to win

 

Neither Holmes at his time of life, by '92, nor Morrison in general were confident backs.

But I'd favor the youth of Morrison against Old Man Holmes.

Holmes' memorable win over Mercer is about all he has post-Spinks.

It was a great win, mind, when viewed in the context of Holmes' age, but Mercer couldn't have done much more to play into Holmes' hands than he did.

At least the best version of Morrison could work from behind a jab.

I wouldn't bet on the outcome but, if forced to make a pick, it'd be Morrison.

 

Agree, based on Tommy's other performances I'd have expected him to blow his wad and get KOd by Foreman.

 

My take too. Holmes over Morrison, but best Morrison over that Holmes.

 

I think Morrison would be too active and he would use his boxing skills to keep Holmes occupied between letting off eye-catching combinations which would steal rounds. Holmes didn't have the athleticism at that age to contain Morrison the way he could in his prime. Tommy would be smart enough to back off when he needed to in such a big fight.