From a 1-10 scale what you rate holmes in the Tyson fight?

I dont think any fighter should be a lock to beat Mike Tyson in his prime. There are plenty who offer good competitive fights, Holmes being one of them in his prime.

 

Holmes would box his ears off, but then again I think Tyson was far more of a shell of his former self than Holmes was. Different styles too.

 

Not really an "off night" by Holyfield. Holyfield just didn't perform well against fighters who didn't come at him. Holmes was savvy enough to go 12 rounds and lose - a decision that wasn't close IMO. It is what it is. If it boils down to performing against various over-the-hill versions of Larry Holmes, Tyson did better against a better Holmes.

Mercer wasn't particularly good, very limited, IMO. Morrison wasn't particularly good, glass chin, IMO. You want to argue that 90s heavyweights were all that, now ?

Tyson was significantly better than Mercer, IMO. I think we all agree on that.

I don't believe the retirement layoff helped. I think it probably harmed him. You can argue otherwise if you want. It's not important to me.
I think Holmes was seriously over-the-hill against Carl Williams and in both Michael Spinks fights in 1985 and '86, and he only got older. Holmes was openly avoiding the best heavyweights in the world as early as '83 and '84, and lost his title to a light-heavy who he'd chosen as easy pickings.
The man had slipped dramatically, whatever way you slice it.

 

I have no problem with what you wrote, I would just argue against those who think Holmes at 43 would have performed better against the Tyson who destroyed him, thats all.

 

OK.
I really don't think you will find many people making that argument though. :good

 

Theres been a lot of people on this forum who claim that was the reason Tyson blew him away.

 

I voted 6

 

An 8. Tyson made him look old. There was no one Holmes fought who had anywhere near Tyson's style or talent at that particular style. He would have always been a handful for him.

 

No, he was old.
Go check it up.

 

I would say he was about a 6.. A Holmes who is a 6 though is still a tough guy, and had Tyson not put him away so early as the fight went on I think Holmes may have had some moments.. Mike looked great in this fight, one of his best wins regardless of where Holmes was at this point..

 

Again, I think Holmes fought pretty well against Tyson. He was flying around the ring in the early rounds.

 

I agree. People need to throw the experience factor because that had more to do with it.

 

He didn't fight well at all, IMO.
He just avoided getting KO'd for the first 3 rounds. Yes, Holmes was a smart guy who knew his way around a ring.
He had almost nothing left of his offensive arsenal and prime speed by 1988 though. He was an old fighter.

 

He looked so bad even the commentators remarked how impressive Holmes looked early on. Unforgiven why do you have a constant agenda to detract everything Tyson accomplished as a fighter? And dont feed me a bunch of bull**** that everyone else just overates Tyson. Come out of the closet. It doesnt take too much "sense" to figure that one out.

 

I voted a 5. I think Holmes had been in decline for a while before his losses to Spinks and then was out of the ring for a while before taking the Tyson fight. He showed his ring savvy in the first 3 rounds until he was clocked, but I think he looked pretty old and worn out. This is magnified by a swarming, pressure fighter at his absolute prime, coming at him constantly. A prime Holmes of 1980 fighting this match up would have been very interesting, as I think if Larry could survive the early rounds, he could win a decision.