Yet, at the exact same age, Tyson struggled to even daze Doug Jones. And Ali was one of the youngest champions. Holmes won 20 fights after the Tyson bout, so his age of 38 is irrelevant, given that he was still far, far better than the majority of heavyweights. Holmes has much more in common with Walcott than with Louis. So, his age of 38 and everything else you’re saying really doesn't matter.
If you believe athletes improve physiologically with advancing age, especially into the late thirties, there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. I'm not, and have never disputed the obvious fact that an athlete or boxer can perform better with experience. I am saying that with advancing age comes inevitable physiological decline, i.e. muscle mass loss and, especially, reflexes. Do you believe athletes in their late thirties are physiologically superior to athletes in their twenties? And no one is saying Holmes was washed, but he was coming off the first two defeats of his professional career in 50 bouts, and for all the success of his second career, he never reached the heights of his first career. Do you believe Larry's second career was as successful as his first career? Michael Gerard Tyson was born in 1966. Doug Jones retired in 1967. Do you still believe they fought?
Of course they don't improve [at that stage]. But they *do* improve after the age of 21. What don't you get? Just because 38 isn't an optimal age for a heavyweight boxer doesn't mean 21 is. Holmes got knocked out by Nick Wells while wearing soft gloves when he was 21—what are you trying to prove? That a 21-year-old Tyson wouldn't beat a 21-year-old Holmes? Are you crazy? When I mentioned Doug Jones, I was referring to his fight with Ali—anyone would realize that was just a slip of the tongue—but you actually went and checked what year Tyson was born? That’s insane, seriously.
True, but for one thing, Mike was younger against Tillis than Ali was against Jones; and secondly, there isn't a boxer who fought 27 bouts—including a title fight—in the first two years of his career without running into trouble in any of them. There isn't one, and there never has been. It’s perfectly normal for there to be a lackluster fight in the mix. Thirdly—all things considered, a 20-year-old Tyson performed better against Tillis than a 22-year-old Holmes did against Nick Wells. Right?
Sir, I will be the bigger man, take the high road, and not respond to your insults in kind. You are the gentleman who said there had been no heavyweight champions twenty-one years old or younger. I correctly pointed out that Mike Tyson was 20 and Floyd Patterson was 21 when they became champions. You are the gentleman who said Floyd Patterson was competitive at 37 years old. I correctly pointed out that he retired at 37. You are the gentleman who said Mike Tyson fought Doug Jones. I correctly pointed out that Tyson was one year old when Jones retired. If you want me to be your fact-checker, I will be more than happy to oblige. Now, as to the substance: I have said ad nauseam and ad infinitum that fighters can improve with experience. I have never argued that 21 is the optimal age for every heavyweight, so I have no idea why you keep arguing against that proposition. A fighter can become a better boxer while becoming a worse athlete. Experience can compensate for physiological decline. It cannot reverse it. And since you now concede that fighters do not physically improve “at that stage,” we seem to have finally arrived at the point I have been making all along about a 38-year-old Larry Holmes. But by all means, please keep correcting things I never said, and I will correct the factual errors you actually made.
I’ve been trying to get across all along that being 38 doesn't necessarily mean being worse than at 21... I’m citing simple examples: Walcott was better at 38 than at 21; Liston was better, Lewis was better, Usyk was better, Moore was better, Mercer, Witherspoon, and so on. The fact that you brought up Floyd changes nothing. And most importantly—Holmes was BETTER at 38 than he was at 21. What part of my statement don't you understand? What do you find offensive about it? Do you think Holmes was better at 21? That if he’d stepped into the ring in the form he showed against Wells, he would have given Mike
Boxers can and usually do get better outcomes with experience. Never have I disputed that. What I have been saying is they don't get physiologically better with aging, especially into their late thirties, and there comes a time in every athlete's career when experience can't overcome physical decline. As the old saw goes, old boxers don't paint great canvases. They become part of them. P.S. The 38-year-old Holmes was much better than the 21-year-old Holmes, but the 29-year-old Holmes was much better than both of them. Again, experience matters, but in the battle between experience and the physical decline that comes with aging, there comes a point where the latter always wins.
You know, you might as well say that the sun shines more intensely when it’s higher in the sky... You really need to realize that you’re arguing with yourself. I’ve agreed with you several times that 38 isn't a great age for an athlete, yet the next moment you’re explaining to me that people age. What does that have to do with anything? Is it about your ego? In the context we're discussing, 38 is just as unsuitable an age as 21—so I ask you again: what exactly do you disagree with? Say that sentence out loud and think about what your problem is; it’ll really make things easier for you.