Is Tyson’s win over Larry Holmes underrated?

If you were going to design a fighter to beat Larry, you'd design Mike, and that's what Cus did. It doesn't mean Mike automatically beats any version of Larry but Larry had to be at his absolute best to survive the storm and he wasn't. Again, that doesn't mean he was washed, It just means he wasn't peak.

 

But you won't mention that 21-year-old Holmes was knocked out by Nick Wells, right?

 

In the amateurs? Larry hated them. He said he was matched up against boxers much bigger than him. He lost to Bobick too. Back to the original topic. The laws iof physiology are immutable. By 38, a boxer loses fractions of speed, power, coordination, and recovery simultaneously. To a non athlete, it's no big deal. To a boxer it's the difference between slipping a punch and tasting the canvas.

 

Yes, the facts are stark, and the entire history of boxing shows that a 21-year-old heavyweight isn't yet good enough to become a champion.
Damn, you haven't just started following boxing yesterday—surely you realize that not even Ali, Marciano, Louis, Usyk, Foreman, or Frazier were champions at 21. Yet some of them became champions when they were over 30.

 

Floyd Patterson became a champion at 21, and Iron Mike became a champion at 20. Back to the original topic; experience =/= physiology. A fighter can be a better boxer at 30 and a worse athlete. Experience can compensate for physiological decline, it can't reverse it, and it eventually succumbs to it. As the old saw goes, old boxers don't paint beautiful canvases. They become part of them.

And most of the fighters you just named became heavyweight champions well before 30: Ali at 22, Louis at 23, Foreman at 24, Frazier at 26. And why are we confining ourselves to heavies? El Radar was 17, Manos de Piedra was 21, and The Hitman was 21 when they won their first championship. If you'd like I'll give you several more. Pac Man was barely old enough to drink in the Philippines when he won his first title.

 

Floyd was just as competitive at 21 as he was at 37.
Most heavyweights are better at 38 than at 21. You only have to check.

 

Floyd retired at 37. And Larry, Muhammad, and Mike weren't. I almost mentioned Joe but Rocky retired him at 37. Oh, and Rocky retired himself at 32 so he wouldn't end up like Joe.

More experienced =/= Athletically better

 

This thread made me think, so I did an exercise where I took a fairly conventional list of all-time heavyweight greats and assessed where they were in their careers at 38 years old- Washed, Retired, or In Decline

1) Muhammad Ali -Washed
2) Joe Louis - Retired
3) Larry Holmes- In Decline
4) Lennox Lewis-Retired
5) George Foreman - The exception. Requires elaboration- won the championship at 45 but had a highly curated second career with competitive bouts and some losses against boxers who couldn't have carried the Caracas iteration's jockstrap.
6) Rocky Marciano Retired
7) Joe Frazier- Retired
8) Mike Tyson- Washed
9) Evander Holyfield- In Decline
10} Sonny Liston - God knows how old he was but he was in serious decline by 38.

I wish I could put this in 18-point font. For the umpteenth time I'm not discounting the value of experience. What I am saying with age comes physical decline. The laws of nature can't be repealed.

 

While I personally don’t agree, of course it’s fine to reason that prime Mike beats prime Larry.

However, I would hope people don’t feel that their calculations on that were/are vindicated in any way shape or form by the complexion and outcome of their actual fight in 1988.

If prime Mike could reasonably reach his opponent with decent success, he was very likely to knock them out - Larry included even though it had never been done before to Holmes.

As an elite puncher, that’s exactly what Mike did and he did look great in doing so but that ability to do same and the associated wow factor didn’t speak as strongly for matches that went for more than just a few rounds.

Perception wise, to many, top tier punchers will often appear exponentially more invincible until they’re actually not.

That’s not to say they aren’t for real or worthy of high respect for being able to bowl over good competition
- but that mode of victory can and has lent itself to over hyping.

History had already proven same by the sudden falls of the likes of Liston and Foreman.

Mike’s disproportional aura was borne out by the ridiculous 42-1 odds set against Buster Douglas.

Stunning 1st round KOs of the likes of Spinks and Williams were isolated and and taken on board to suggest that Mike was also capable of knocking out every other man and his dog in just 90 secs or so -

Somehow ignoring Douglas’ preceding, none too shabby record, the 42-1 odds against Buster suggested that he took was going to become yet another 90 second victim.

 

How much you improved and settled is a credit to you. Top stuff. You might still have the odd heated debate, there's the odd bloke that's knows what buttons to press and when regarding guys like Tyson, or other. At this point you'd know who they are tho. Sometimes it's good to vent...... somewhat

I saw some good pictures of Holmes with Tyson recently on Holmes insta/facebook btw. Tyson's obviously very fond of Holmes.

https://www.facebook.com/championla...ittle-busy-lately-champions/2451191795367210/

 

This content is protected

 

Ha ha! My man

 

Me too
At 21:
Ali - irrelevant
Louis- irrelevant
Holmes - irrelevant
Tyson - undisputed
Lewis- irrelevant
Foreman -Irrelevant
Marciano - irrelevant
Liston - irrelevant
Norton, AJ, Walcott, Fury, Usyk, Johnson it'd itd..

 

ALL true, excellent post!

I'll just add that advanced training & PEDs have allowed boxers & athletes in most every sport success at a later age.

 

I will just add that Muhammad Ali was 22 years and 3 days old when he stunned Sonny Liston. If the fight was held 33 days earlier he would have still stunned him.