Larry Holmes: "Everything I predicted and said about Mike Tyson came true"

Good points.

 

He sounds like a bitter **** to be honest.

 

deal:deal


He has a chip on his shoulder the size of Mt Rushmore.

 

This. He always seemed bitter about the loss. I remember him saying that he got KO'd because his arm got caught in the rope. Boxers always have big ego's.

 

Larry is great no doubt, and I like Larry and his comments, but everytime he is interviewed he cannot talk about boxing objectively. It is always about how he would do against guys now. Fact is there were some guys Larry did not fight. I would have loved a Witherspoon rematch.

 

Did Larry really say that?

I mean it's the type of **** thing he'd say about someone but I thought him and Joe were very good friends.

I think I even read where Larry spoke of how much Joe used to work him (and the other sparring partners) over and how working with him taught him a lot.

Anyway I reckon peak Frazier would give Holmes absolutely heaps and quite possibly (and maybe even likely) beats him.

 

It was something along those lines, like 'if I was Ali I would have never been beaten by someone with just a left hook like Frazier' I can't quite remember but it was along those lines

 

Well he's a ****wit then.

 

Of course, Holmes' opposition wasn't great. But he kept winning, often against genuine ranked heavyweights. He didn't get KO'd by a Buster Douglas or a Hasim Rahman.

Some of the names you mention for Ali - for example, Mathis, Foster, Bugner, Ellis, Lyle, Bonavena, Chuvalo - were not any better than the men Holmes was beating.
And Frazier BEAT Ali the first time. Ali was lucky he ever got a rematch. Norton beat Ali too - once, and some say twice or even all three times.
And Leon Spinks beat Ali, and Holmes was about the same age as Ali when he lost to Michael Spinks.

You can rip apart anyone's record.

I'm not a big fan of Holmes and some of his defenses, but I think Holmes did enough to be an all-time great. Don't you ?

 

Yep. And getting that arm caught in the ropes also prevented Larry from signing up for a rematch with Tyson as well. Why no insistence on a rematch?

 

i agree and? i was talking about ali, not tyson or lewis

no way

ali was past his prime when he faced PEAK FRAZIER AND PEAK NORTON. PRIME LARRY HOLMES FOUGHT A WAR AGAINST PAST PRIME NORTON

YES GREAT LOGIC, AND MIKE TYSON DESTROYED BERBICK BUT ALI LOST AGAINST BERBICK, SO TYSON WOULD KILL ALI ?RIGHT?

HOLMES WAS A GREAT FIGHTER BUT HE DID TALK GARBAGE ABOUT EVERY LEGEND HE IS A ****ING JEALOUS . AND FOREMAN WOULD KICK HIS ASS IN THE STREET

 

Indeed Hydraulix,Buster was the most unlikely contender.

 

Holmes can say **** like "I never lost to no Buster Douglas" etc but that ignores the fact that he did lose to someone that Douglas beat. So what does that mean for Holmes and Tyson? Obviously Holmes wouldnt say Douglas was better than Tyson. Holmes also says that Douglas was the first guy to fight back against Tyson. Does this mean Holmes didnt fight back? He always tries to qualify his loss by saying he wasnt focused. Bull****. If there was one man you were going to be focused on at that time it was Tyson. He was bar none, far and away, the biggest name and biggest cash cow in the sport. He was as feared as any fighter and had massive appeal. And Holmes "couldnt get up" for that match? Bull****. I can see using that as an excuse for winning a gift decision over the then unknown Tim Witherspoon. Or going life and death with the then underrated and unknown Mike Weaver. But to say you were out of shape, or couldnt get up for Tyson at that time is about as ridiculous and unbelievable as can be. To bash Tyson for losing to Douglas (who was awsome on that night) when you yourself lost to Tyson shows his ignorance really, its like saying "Douglas is a D level fighter so Tyson losing to Douglas means Mike is an F level fighter which I predicted all along." He says that he would never lose to a D level fighter but ignores that he lost to that F level fighter. Where does that leave Holmes???

I give Holmes credit. He was a good fighter. But he was an ******* and still is. Hes a whiny jerk with a chip on his shoulder. In addition to that his reign is populated with fights he avoided AND he single handedly helped legitimize the proliferation of championship titles just to avoid more difficult matches. The guy never gave credit where it was due when he was beaten or given a rough going over and none of that seems to have softened with age. I imagine hes a pretty difficult guy to live with.

 

Well, obviously (and the whole world and his brother knows it) Holmes was a washed-up 38 year-old has-been who was just too damn OLD when he fought Tyson.
It was no secret at the time.
He's just too stubborn or proud to say that now.

Habitual winners often make bad losers.
Hagler and Lennox were the same.
And 99% of fighters have excuses for losing.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8b7n9U6D3Y[/ame]