88' Tyson vs Prime Holmes

George Foreman also made a good showing against Evander, does that mean he wasn't a faded fighter compared to his former self ?

 

I've seen you bring up these two fights a lot in this thread to try and prove he had a weakness for the right hand. In those 2 fights Larry was being completely dominant and got careless (in the Shavers fight) by lunging in with a right uppercut from the outside with his left hand down. Do you really think he'd get that careless and do something stupid like that against Tyson, who wouldn't be getting dominated and outclassed like Shavers was?

In the Snipes fight, again, Larry was being completely dominant, and let his guard down and he got caught with another bomb. Again, do you really think he'd do that against Tyson?

 

It showed that Foreman was still a good, dangerous fighter yes.

When did I make the statement that Holmes was at his best in the Tyson fight? That's idiotic to the extreme. What I said was that considering that Holmes went on to beat Mercer, and give Holy a good fight that he was still a good fighter and while obviously faded, wasn't shot. I'm not basing my argument off of this fight anyway.

 

You make good points. But I'll say that if Holmes is foolish enough to be "careless" against the most powerful puncher of all time it doesn't bode well.

Larry was also troubled by right hands in other fights.

 

Tyson tko inside 6 rounds! Larrys arm defense does not work against prime mike tyson!

funny that I would pick Holmes from butterbean fight to out point/stop late Tyson of Lewis fight!

 

My point was that, although Foreman and Holmes were still dangerous, that doesn't mean they were anywhere near what they had been. It's hard for me to believe you're not basing your arguments off of this fight, when you've used this fight as a reference point a number of times. Had Foreman fought Lennox Lewis earlier and taken a beating, we wouldn't say he was close to what he had been because he knocked out Michael Moorer.

 

He was never really "troubled" by right hands. He got tagged a few times, but it's not like everyone he fought was nailing him with right hands, if that was the case, he never would have become an ATG, despite his great chin.

 

How much of that was due to the quality of his opponents during his reign, though? He fought few quality right hand punchers during his reign and to be honest, half or more of his title defenses were against jokes. Every time Larry fought a live contender who knew how to throw a right hand, he was troubled like against Spoon, Weaver.

 

He was also quickly fading by the time he fought Witherspoon. He won nearly every round against Trevor Berbick, who was no sloutch. Also, a guy like Mercer, Holyfield, or McCall should have stopped/dominated him if it is easy to land the right on Larry.

 

Don't worry, I get you. :good

 

Prime Holmes

 

Actually, I do think so personally.

 

Both Bill and Muchmore have made some great points here. I have to agree with Bill though. Let me make it clear that I picked a peak Tyson to get past Holmes, but I have always felt this with no real conviction. Holmes was a very savvy fighter who often appeared vulnerable, but always found a way to win. Muchmore is correct in that Holmes sometimes looked sluggish against less than stellar opposition, but I also agree with Bill that his weakness for the right hand is often overstated. As often as he was tagged by right handers, he usually prevailed and let's face it, Earnie Shavers, Ray Mercer, Renaldo Snipes, Mike Weaver, and Trevor Berbick were all guys who could crack. It wasn't like he was being dropped or losing to guys who were journeyman, fringe contenders or trial horses with just a hint of a right attached to their bodies.

I think I picked Tyson because he had the best well rounded arsenal of tools that seemed to trouble Holmes the most - the tendency to bob and weave, power in both hands, early round aggression, good defense, good chin, very fast handspeed, and an unrelenting attack.. Its no guarantee that these things would secure a victory, but let's just say that Holmes would have to work his ass off to get the win.. He also wouldn't have much room for mistakes.. Any false moves, laziness or bad executions would result in paying the price ten times over. He'd have to give the best performance of his PEAK career in order to finish the fight with his hands held high, and frankly, as much as i would like to believe that he could do it, its still difficult to pick him.

 

You think Larry would be completely dominant, do something dumb, and get nailed?

 

There's noway in hell Holmes could possibly be "completely dominant" Bill, so forget that. This isn't Shavers or Cooney, Holmes could win but he's going to have one heck of a fight on his hands.