The Holmes that fought Tyson...

The Holmes that fought Tyson was a shell of the guy who fought Spinks, he looked and moved like an old man. Like the Trinidad who fought Jones last week he looked fit enough but the hardness that comes with serious training simply wasn't there.

After he recovered from losing to Tyson Holmes turned himself around and realised that he didn't want the image of him getting counted out to be the final memory of his career. For his 90's comeback he prepared properly even though he was heavier he was fitter, stronger and most importantly he he regained the mental hardness the takes you through the tough times. The Holmes that fought Holyfield could have gone 12 with the Tyson of 88 simply because he wouldn't have been so careless.

 

Larry began to fade noticibly from soon after the Cooney fight onwards. I'd say by '88 he was five or so years past his prime.

 

Jesse Ferguson went on to beat Mercer too.
Extra points there for Tyson !

 

Watch Holmes against Tyson and you'll see a fighter who lacked confidence and was concerned about defense more than anything else. You trying to tell me Holmes performed well against Tyson?. He made life difficult for Tyson for as long as the fight lasted. He seldom let his hands go with any kind of authority. It wasn't until the start of the 4th round that his jab was in Tyson's face on a regular basis. He lacked sharpness and couldn't do the things he wanted due to inactiveness.

It was a different story 4 years later. He was in the gym and keeping busy with tune-up's before he beat Mercer, and later got his title fight against Holyfield.

If the Holmes who fought Mercer shared a ring with the same version of Tyson he fought 4 years earlier you'd see a better effort, especially offensively. He'd have given Tyson more to think about.

 

I think Holmes was almost certainly more confident, and had better timing, when he fought Mercer and Holyfield. That's what tune-ups and activity will do for a fighter.

BUT he was older and fatter than when he faced Tyson, so the benefits are in doubt.

To me, it doesn't matter. He was nothing special at all any time past 1983 or '84. By 1985-'86 he's on a par with Carl Williams and Michael Spinks, then '88 or '92 he's noticeably worse than that.

He deserved a fight with Tyson as much as most those other guys, and he outright EARNED a shot at Holyfield by beating Mercer, but he just wasn't much good any more.

 

Exactly what I think, although I'm pretty sure you take a prime tyson back to that timeframe and i believe the end result would stay the same

 

Fair enough, i don't know enough about Sharkey's opponents nor circumstances (i heard the Fitz fight was fishy) to really judge his value.

That is just speculation. I think the Holmes win is worth more because:
a) Tyson dominated Holmes, whereas Louis was pretty much even up until the 5th.
b) Holmes went on to accomplish things, whereas Louis didn't. Maybe he could've, but we'll never know.

What, like Ali beating two top ranked contenders back-to-back after a 3 year lay off?

No doubt that it has its influence, but when you consider that he had been training for over 3 months, lost rust in sparring and went on to accomplish a lot afterwards, i think it accounts to much.

 

I find this "layoffs dont matter much" doctrine a strange one.

Especially when you're talking about a 38 year old guy.

Taking extended time out and coming straight back against the best fighter in the world is a recipe for defeat in the vast majority of cases.
Sugar Ray Leonard was an exception.

 

It was fishy. Fitz got hosed.

But again, Louis had been fighting constantly - 8 fights in the previous 12 months! No speculation about ring rust here, Louis was 8-0 including wins over top-10 contenders Cesar Brion (twice) and Lee Savold, plus another win over Jimmy Bivins who would enter the top-10 the following year. Holmes, on the other hand, was just coming off the longest layoff of his career in addition to being 38 years old.

Louis had accomplished things going in to the fight; Holmes just waltzed into the ring after a two year layoff. My contention, 'lest we lose sight, is that Holmes would have performed much better against Mike Tyson if he'd had a few tuneups first; certainly Holmes would have been viewed as a more credible opponent if he'd had a handful of wins over top-10 contenders prior to fighting Tyson, as Joe Louis had before fighting Marciano, and he would have performed better to boot.

Have you seen footage of Louis vs Ezzard Charles, Joe's first comeback fight after *his* lengthy layoff? Compare that to the way he looked in his later fights against Brion or Oscar Agromonte and it's clear that Louis is simply a better fighter, even accounting for the different in competition. His jab is sharper, his footwork is smoother, and his reflexes are clearly improved.

Ali was a remarkable talent, indeed, unique. But he was *28* when he came back to boxing. Surely you aren't trying to argue that a 28 year-old fighter and a 38 year-old fighter should be held to the identical standard?

I don't believe, and the conventional boxing wisdom concurs, that you can work off ring rust with a couple of months of hard sparring. Holmes was much smarter in his second career, moving up his level of competition slowly and letting the ring rust fall away naturally through consistent fighting (5 fights in 7 months against mediocre pugs before stepping up to face Mercer). THAT is the best way for an old, rusty fighter to recover from a layoff, not three months of sparring before facing the champion of the world.

 

Holmes wasn't what I would classify as being in terrible shape for the Tyson fight, in fact he looked Ok in my eyes. The big issue however, is that his speed and timing were pretty much gone at that point. Being off for 2 years, and showing up at 38 years old didn't help him. I also think he was a bit intimidated by Tyson, which can have a huge baring on things as well. Holmes was arguably better trained in his comeback during the 90's, as he was now fighting regularly and training more seriously. Of course, he never faced anyone in the 90's who was quite on parr with the fighter that Tyson was in 1988.

 

I would love to see an analysis without a bias towards Tyson one way or another.

The simple truth is that Holmes was good that night. Maybe as good as he was for his 2nd fight with Spinks. Holmes was fighting a good fight against Tyson. Holmes just got blasted.

I've always wondered what would've happened if the fight made it past round 5. Tyson has more fast twitch muscle fibers than probably any other heavyweight champion. Fast twitch fibers are the first to go. That is why Tyson has much fewer ko's past round 5. Holmes had a lot left in the tank after round 5. It could have been interesting.

 

I have to respectfully disagree here. Holmes was in noticeably better shape for the Spinks rematch than he was against Tyson, and his reflexes were a lot sharper as well. The biggest factor however, is that Holmes was out for blood against Spinks in their second fight, wheras he looked a bit edgy and uptight against Tyson. If you look at them during the stare down, Holmes was definately intimidated, unlike the rage that he had in his eyes against Spinks. The mentality was totally different.

 

Holmes contained Tyson for the best part of 4 rounds. He moved, grabbed inside, and spoiled. It was a performance resembling an old experienced veteran. He lost all three completed rounds and Tyson was hardly looking convincing at the same time. Holmes' offense was limited to say the least, as he was concerned about what was in front of him. He was in survial mode, no question about it.

Holmes done ok for as long as the fight lasted considering the circumstances, but "good" I can't agree with.

 

Holmes was not in his prime but he was in great shape and had good movement, I though it was an impressive win for Tyson by the way he dominated Holmes, I think Iron Mike had the style (right hand ) to always give Holmes fits. A prime Holmes may have lasted a few more rounds or fought back better but the results would have been the same. Now if you had a heavyweight today who blasted out Holyfield,BRIGGS,Maskaev,Ruiz instead of just winning a de like Sultan and Ruslin, you would take notice