Is Tyson’s win over Larry Holmes underrated?

personally, I would rank Larry at the bottom of the ratings by 1988. Sill had some life left but somewhat toothless, slow and easy to hit

 

*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.

I disagree.

As one columnist wrote the day before the Tyson-Holmes fight:

“Holmes himself actually talked about how Sugar Ray Leonard dethroned Hagler after a virtual five-year layoff. But, in that upset, a 30-year-old boxer fooled a 32-year-old slugger. Friday night, a 38-year-old boxer will be in with a 21-year-old slugger. Tyson in five. With no mercy.”

The writer was spot-on. Tyson stopped Holmes in four.

 

About 99% of the time Tyson’s win over Holmes is dismissed as a case of a champion beating a washed up fighter. And there is some definite truth that it was . But the decisive fashion in which it was done is what made it a good ( and not a great ) win. That and if we’re honest, Holmes even at 38 and being retired two years was probably still better than about 8 out of 10 guys in the top ten back then.

 

Tyson was better than any of Holmes opponents especially style wise - Tyson was a great right-hand puncher and unorthodox - I think Tyson (who was young) would beat any version of Holmes - Holmes could handle the left hookers, but right hands were his kryptonite and Tyson was consistent.
In fight 1 with Spinks (who never fought heavyweight) Holmes was right handled by M Spinks, but Tyson cleaned up the Holmes division and beat up the guys that Holmes avoided.

 

It was an impressive knockout and nobody did that Holmes before or after.
Tyson definitely doesn’t get credit for it, and yet is criticized for not fighting Foreman after that….another one that would’ve been dismissed.
Holyfield didn’t get much credit for Foreman and Holmes for the same reason.

 

Big Holmes fan. I do think he looked like a past-it fighter in 1985, when he narrowly and possibly controversially beat Carl Williams. That version of Holmes looked to me like one ready to be taken. Hence, no shocker when he lost to an undefeated former light heavy champ Michael Spinks in his next fight.

Holmes got into the best shape he could at that advanced age and nearly recaptured the crown in the rematch, but the judges gave it to Spinks on a split decision. Many in the press and public thought Holmes had won. Hence, because of that, many felt that Tyson vs. Holmes was the first true championship test because many felt that Holmes should have been the champion defending his title. Plus, former legitimate world champions always garner a lot of respect.

Nevertheless, a layoff of 1 year 9 months for an already aging past-it fighter certainly did not help matters for Holmes. No one really expected him to win against a very young, sharp, explosive fast and powerful champion who at that point, in early 1988, had all three belts and was considered the to be the best heavyweight in the world, even though Spinks was still the linear champ.

Still, Holmes had that championship aura and experience, which made the fight big.

And yes, no one stopped Holmes before or after, including four years after Tyson in 1992, against then undefeated Mercer (a 1988 Olympic gold medalist coming off a brutal KO5 over Morrison), whom Holmes defeated in an upset after taking a number of comeback tune-up fights to acclimate himself to his older body, and undefeated world champion Holyfield (whom Holmes frustrated to some degree with his ring generalship, speed, and defense and lost a respectable decision), so from that perspective, certainly one has to recognize something special about Tyson for stopping Holmes in 4 in 1988.

To me, old Holmes was somewhat similar to old Joe Louis. Clearly slowed down, not as active, quick, or snappy with his blows, the pace and footwork had slowed, as well as the ability to finish his man, but still so experienced and good that even a past-it far diminished version still was good enough to beat top contenders, as both Louis and Holmes did. BUT, neither were quite good enough to beat the champions of the division. Old Louis couldn't beat Charles or Marciano. Old Holmes could not beat Tyson or Holyfield or McCall, but could be competitive with the latter two. But nevertheless, Louis could beat Brion, Agramonte, Savold, and Jimmy Bivins. And Holmes still could beat a Ray Mercer.

Before the Tyson fight, Holmes said, ""I'm going down in history, not Mike Tyson. He's going down in history as a son of a *****. If he do happen to win this fight, down the line he'll destroy himself." That probably just added more motivation for Tyson to put him out. Holmes was trying to get into his head.

Larry actually was fairly successful at playing defense and sneak shotting Tyson on occasion for 3 rounds. But that version of Tyson was too seasoned, sharp, explosive, and well-conditioned for a past-it version of Holmes, who would need to be very sharp and much younger to handle that type of relentless pressure, explosive speed and power, fast footwork, along with then underrated defensive skill combined. It would take a late 70s, early 80s version of Holmes ('78'-'82), not late 80s.

Tyson and Cus D'Amato had discussed fighting Holmes for many years. Holmes was the champion when he was coming up, so they had thought about that one all along.

 

Grossly overrated

 

I didn’t know that. I hope he’s all good otherwise.

 

Not German but rather Danish beer (is that close enough for hand grenades? Hmmm, maybe I should re-phrase that. ) but during our first foray into Carlsberg Elephant Beer (7.2%) many moons ago, my mates and I got absolutely smashed well before our usual time.

The following day it also gave me THE worst beer headache ever - that feeling as if an axe had been struck into the base of your skull and was still firmly wedged in there. Eye watering.

I can tell you, I certainly don’t miss hangovers and they do become exponentially worse as you get older.

Remember the old youthful, hangover lament: “Please God, just make me feel better and I promise I will never do that again”?

Come next the Friday, there we all were again, front and centre at the bar, raring to go and setting ourselves up for a likely repeat of our Saturday morning prayers.

It’s funny how religion only comes to you in times of trouble.

Oh, and the good ol’ bed spins were always fun too. Hold on tight! Lol.

 

I actually got a tarot card reading from a psychic and asked them who could possibly throw me under the bus like that. And the initials that came out were J and T.

And I'm assuming we fought over a Tyson vs Lewis thread?

 

Well that settles it

I honestly cannot remember, but one way or another all of them would have 100% involved Tyson.

 

The good old 7.2%! Yeah, a tough gig. When i wanted to splurge I'd have some Leffe or La Trappe blond. It was around 6.5% and smooth as silk. One night it was out so i grabbed the Quadruple without overly reading the label. I thought it would be similar. Alas it was 10% and ridiculously smooth given the percentage. That night ended a little prematurely.

Part of the reason i like German beer is the purity law. Not only does the few ingredient rule make for a nice beer, there's less hangover with them for me personally. They say it's never been proven so maybe it's the placebo affect lol

I'd be throwing up on a Saturday morning and lining back up the next week. The mates would too. Crazy. It's funny, some of the best youth drinking stories involve chunders.

The bed spins were one of the worst things i have ever experienced. Maybe one time ever i didn't throw up when that happened.

 

No doubt. Just look at this thread.

If you had watched Tyson-Holmes and Holyfield-Holmes, you would have picked Tyson to strafe Holyfield. And you were wrong. Tyson still overhyped by newer generations that never even saw him in his prime.. that's the way it goes (I pump up Louis).. doesn't mean it's right.

 

We share the same warm and fuzzy memories, indeed! Wouldn’t change them for anything.