Is Tyson’s win over Larry Holmes underrated?

I give Tyson most of the credit for making Holmes look bad. Yes, Holmes was rusty after being inactive for almost two years (and had a pretty short camp also, I believe), but there's a reason he got taken out shortly after finally trying to make a fight out of it.

 

Yes, it is underrated for several reasons:

*1.* Holmes himself tried to downplay its significance for years. We all know the stories about Don King showing up with a suitcase full of money and a six-week training camp. In reality, there is plenty of evidence that Larry had been negotiating the fight for about a year, and it was officially announced three months before it took place.

*2.* People often point out that Larry was 17 years older, but that is taken out of context. Statistically, a 38-year-old heavyweight is closer to his prime than a 21-year-old. Of course, everyone develops differently. You could compare where a 21-year-old Holmes was versus a 38-year-old Tyson, but the 38-year-old Larry was undoubtedly still very, very good. The "old man" label is heavily misused in this context.

*3.* A two-year layoff for a fighter of that age can be a problem, but it can also be beneficial. Ray Leonard came back after four years, Vitali after four, Wlad after two, and De La Hoya after two - and each of them performed brilliantly in their comeback fight. For some reason, this factor is only emphasized in Holmes' case, just like his age and the myth of the short training camp.

*4.* Considering how Tyson fared against common opponents during that period - Berbick, Spinks, Smith, Thomas, Frazier - the outcome of this fight isn't a total surprise. Tyson did just as well, better, or much, much better against the same opponents, while Larry had faced them when he was younger and active.

 

Was peak Larrry as strong as Buster Douglas? Buster used all his size and girth to work behind a stiff jab to frustrate Mike.

 

The laws of physiology are immutable. A twenty one year old athlete is infinitely closer to prime than a thirty eight year old athlete.

 

I’m sure Larry has a solid excuse and if there’s one guy in the planet who we can all trust, it’s Larry.

 

Larrry is using a walker and wheelchair for mobility at times. That makes me feel old.

 

The One, take the heavyweight top 10 and calculate the average age; then check whether it's closer to 38, 21, or maybe somewhere in the middle? I'm curious myself.

 

Physiology =/= Experience. Robbie was 120-1 at 30 years old. He ended up with 19 losses. At 30 years old Ray Leonard was beating a natural middleweight all time great. At 40 he was helpless against Hector Camacho. At 38 Tyson was losing to journeymen and losing badly. Look at RJJ's career arc. There's myriad other examples.

 

I said at the beginning of this thread that Larry was neither shot nor prime. His whole second career ironically demonstrated he wasn't the former when Mike beat him. Maybe Mike beats any version of him. We will never know. He will always be a stylistic nightmare. But athletes aren't like wine. They don't get better with age.

 

Watching the replays of that fight, Tyson isn’t just punching Holmes, he is trying to punch through the man, his intent was to utterly destroy him. Larry must have pissed him off .

 

Tyson at the time was still upset Larry beat his idol. He's over it now. There's a picture circulating around from a recent boxing event in Vegas with Larry sitting in a chair and Mike bending over to talk to him.

 

He's not far off 77 now. Frazier died at 67, Ali at 74, Foreman at 76 i think. Norton at 70. Shavers 78. Jimmy Young 56. Ron Lyle 70. Quarry 53.

Weaver is 75 still going i think. Holmes is one of the last links to that earlier era above. He was a little later than many of them but caught the back end of it. Hopefully we can get Holmes to 80 or more. He still seems to have his faculties tho i haven't seen much of him lately.

I'm just reading Chuvalo died this week. Time for a thread!

 

I saw Ray. He's 70 and looks much younger.

 

No worries Champ.

I only linked the previous thread for any additional comments you might be interested in, certainly not to say or imply “Aw gee, this has all been done before”.

It’s still an interesting topic and your thread is moving well. Good stuff.