All things considered which was the better win?

I both remember and agree with this.

 

:good

Yes, and it's revisionism to make out the Holmes fight was anything more than that.
It's fair enough to say the Holmes win is slightly better - I disagree, but it's arguable - but all this crap about "Tyson KO Holmes is miles better, this isn't even close" is just .... well, CRAP.

 

Holmes' jab was still good. And he had skills that Foreman never had.

That it was considered "suicide" was of course because of Tyson being that good as well. Had '91 Foreman been matched up with '88 Tyson it had also been viewed as suicide.

It wasn't close, but it was tough. Holy was staggered several times. And, no, he didn't dominate Foreman.

 

Can't believe we really have this discussion: What it boils down to is that Holmes of '88 was at least as good as Foreman '91, but he was much more decisively beaten. Ergo: Not close.

 

Yes but you can make a good arguement for what the fighters actually went on to do. I dont think Larry Holmes became any better taking more time off and then coming back to compete at the top of the divison. I dont think Holmes was a top ten fighter, but I also dont think his blowout loss could be attributed only to his layoff or not having a tunep.
Had it been Holyfield in that fight, I see the same type of scenario playing out as their fight later on, because Holmes still had the ability to move pretty well and he was holding his own until he got caught with that nice righthand. But thats speculation just as someone thinking Foreman would be alot tougher for Tyson than Holmes was, because the way I see it, Foreman's a lot easier to find and hit, and Holmes chin was probably comparable to Foremans.

 

Wrong.
Holmes of '88 was a rusty piece of ****.

If you were there at the time, you're being disingenous and delusional to portray it as anything other.

 

I agree with everything you say here. A fair argument can be made that Holmes was a more attractive win on paper, but Foreman was the more able bodied and accomplished opponent when contrasted with the timing of his fight with Holy and Holmes' fight with Tyson..

 

Holmes' jab hadn't been seen in years, and didn't make much of an appearance against Tyson either.

Of course, Foreman would have been considered to be out of his depth against Tyson, as he was against Holyfield, but at least he was credited with at least having prepared himself by fighting about a dozen times in the previous two years.
Interestingly, Holmes took a leaf from Foreman's book when he launched his own comeback in '91, knowing that the '88 strategy of going straight in with a top fighter was foolish - as we all knew at the time.

Well, it was at least as much of a domination as, say, Tyson-Tucker, but more of a beating. Foreman had a good fight at times, but was a horrendous punching bag for most of the time. Holyfield was hitting him at will for the most part. I'd call it domination.

 

Obviously, Tyson was a devastating force in Jan '88, and even that version of Holmes would probably go the distance with a lot of good heavyweights.

I don't think Holmes went on to do much of importance. I mean, I think his performances against Mercer and Holyfield say more about the modest abilities and under-performance of those two than they do about how much of a contender Holmes really was in the 90s. Of course, I give Holmes his dues, he was cagey as hell, and I give Tyson his dues for not letting Holmes befuddle him at all.
But, the very fact that Holmes took on 5 or 6 lower-level tune-ups regularly before even taking on Mercer, a modestly skilled fighter at that time, suggest he did feel the lack of real ring work was a serious issue in his previous comeback, Tyson's viciousness notwithstanding.

Yes, it's speculation. Sure, Holyfield might have always been a bit confused and awkward against any decrepit or rusty Holmes, who he beat clearly anyway.
I'll give Tyson his due, he did was he was supposed to do.

What is not speculation is to say Holmes was coming off a layoff, had been officially retired from November '86 to October '87, and singing with a band, and came back for a single payday .
And Foreman in '91 was an active fighter on a concerted mission, who'd at least been bowling over a slew of second- and third-raters. He was better prepared.

 

He used it against Spinks, not to the same effect, but it was there. It would be later on as well. Tyson was great at slipping and countering. I think this why he didn't use it, rather than that it had dissappeared completely (which he showed later it hadn't, of course).

Yes, Foreman had been keeping active against tomatoe cans. Not had one really compettive bout or any opponent even remotely as good as Holyfield, but he had been keeping active. It still doesn't make up for the fact that he had been away for 10 years before that, that he was older than Holmes was in '88 and that he wasn't as good a fighter to begin with.

And even if it did make up for that, there still would be the little fact of Tyson winning in far more impressive manner.

I think this fight was clearly more competitive than Tyson-Tucker. I had Holy winning with 3-4 rounds and he was in trouble several times. Tyson had a chin check early on by Tucker, but that was all. I had him winning with 8 rds. Holy was exhausted in the last round against Foreman, while Tyson barely breathed hard in the last round against Tucker. It's quite clear which the easier payday was.

 

I'm not saying that Holmes was good as much as I'm saying that Foreman was bad. Yes, Holmes was regarded as a rusty, has-been no-hoper. But Foreman was considered a relic. A joke with a padded record.

Tyson performed as was expected, more or less, while it was a surprise that Holyfield-Foreman was as relatively competitive as it turned out to be. And this even though Holy wasn't nearly as highly rated in '91 as Tyson was in '88.

 

Well, I think Foreman had showed more of a devastating jab leading up his fight with Holyfield, than Holmes had showed '84 - '86. Neither mind the fact that Holmes hadn't even been in the ring for almost 2 years when he fought Tyson.

Sure, Holmes showed a jab later on, when he used TUNE-UP fights to sharpen himself up again.

Foreman's opposition had been mediocre at beat. But that can be said about some of Tyson's challengers too (or anyone's challengers).

Holmes, however, hadn't impressively beaten any top-flight heavyweight in years. He'd been taking on 15-fight novices and the contenders he perceived as being easy touches since 1982, sometimes with near-disastrous consequences (Witherspoon, Williams).
He then lost to a fighter who had never faced anyone north of 175 - Spinks - who himself was reluctant to take on the top heavyweights.
All well and good, but after the Spinks rematch (admittedly could have been a robbery but still confirmed Holmes' faded ability) he didn't fight for almost 2 years.

Well, Tucker had an easier night that Foreman too !
You talk about Foreman staggering Holyfield, okay, but Holyfield had Foreman spinning around like a drunk at times, and the bell saved Foreman on one occasion.
He hit him at will for the most part. Target practice.
You talk about this guy staggering that guy, but how much trouble did Tyson have Tucker in ?
And Tyson's the big puncher.

Holyfield beat Foreman clearly, I'd call it domination.
Tyson beat Tucker clearly, I'd be inclined to call it domination too.

 

But then Williams and Spinks are far better than anyone Foreman met prior to Holy.

Come on! Now you really have to reign yourself in. Thomas, Berbick, Tucker, Tubbs, Williams, Spinks etc were miles better than anyone Foreman fought up to his first title shot. This isn't comparable by a long stretch.

This is nothing new, and nothing I haven't already agreed with.

When both stagger each other on numerous occassions, both are exhausted at the finish and some 3-4 points tell them apart it isn't a domination in my book. Don't know if I'd call Tyson-Tucker a domination either, but since Tyson had it all his way for the last nine rounds I'd sure call it a more comfortable win at least.

 

Well you would think that since you have his virtual **** in your mouth whenever you type.

 

Well, in truth, Spinks is only good because Holmes lost to him.
Other than that, Spinks isn't even a viable heavyweight.

Sure, they are better, but Foreman's activity was more recent. To me, that matters.

No, you might have misunderstood me there.
Some of those guys - Bruno, Biggs, for example - were built on the same or similar padding that Foreman had entering the Holyfield match.
Tucker was only marginally better, 'cos he'd beat Douglas. And Tubbs and Thomas hadn't beaten anyone ranked in the 2 or 3 years prior to fighting Tyson.

Holyfield used Foreman as a punch bag most of the fight. Anyone who watches it will see that.