All things considered which was the better win?

noway...holmes 92 was trained, old but trained and more motivated mentally. he was better in 1992, holmes88 was a heavybag, himself did admit that he did nothing during 2 years. anyway i think that holmes gave a hard match to evander because holmes had a bad style for evander, prime vs prime holmes would beat evander. old foreman 89-91 was better than any version of old holmes. the overweight of george was good for his style of power, the overweight was bad for larry. who was a stylist.

 

what a bunch of crap... the foreman who faced morrison was older and more fat. he was better in 90-91. and morrison destroyed ruddock before and better than tyson did. morrison fought better against a much better version of lewis, tyson was pathetic against a shot 37 years old lewis.
morrison did outbox foreman, he never did exchange blows with him. foreman even in his late 40s never was a class c, he had iron chin and his power could finish a fight with a single shot ,and he was competent against any young fighter in the top of his era. tyson was worse than ridiculous in his late 30s. he was destroyed by bums.
and i pick even old foreman 90-91 to knock out any version of tyson.styles make fights

 

Tyson-Holmes, easy.

 

I agree. Holmes went the Foreman route and fought cans, BUT he earned his shot with a clear win over an undefeated Ray Mercer, who himself was coming off the dismantling of Tommy Morrison.

I do believe the layoff after the two Spinks fights helped Larry. He needed a break. He just happened to get broken himself.

 

Holmes took his exhibitions less seriously than he did sparring. He more than likely threw less than 20 punches per round, none of them with any force at all behind them. Him going 15 very light rounds against someone he could knock out whenever he felt like is the equivalent of him going to the gym and doing serious sparring for 4 or 5 rounds.

 

Neither u or I saw that fight but Tompkins did and commented Larry looked pretty good to which Holmes agreed he felt the same. I'm sure he threw more than 20 punches in 3 minutes...

 

I don't buy that the layoff helped Holmes.
Maybe if it had been 12 months, but it was almost twice that.
Tyson certainly feels that Holmes was rusty and under-trained.

Anyway, Holmes had been battered by Carl "The Truth" Williams and Michael Spinks already.
His skills and sharpness had diminished shockingly already in 1985.

At least Foreman in '90 and '91 was doing pretty much what he'd been doing in the early 70s before he faced Frazier : brutally knocking over hand-picked opponents and third-raters in a few rounds. He wasn't as good, but he still had what made him champ in the first place - that monstrous strength and power.

 

Ffs. He was past his prime, but he was certainly no ring wreck. "Battered" by Williams? Come on. I don't think Spinks battered him either, even though he clearly won their first meeting.

Holmes of 1988 was probably a bit similar to Ali in the late 70's. Beatable, but clearly one of the top HWs around and extremely hard to KO. Foreman of 1991, on the other hand, was not that hard to outbox. And he really gave Holy trouble at times, while Holmes was blasted away by Tyson. This is not close by any means.

 

Well, someone battered him him that night, because he sure looks battered :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZQ5Mu_fU_g&feature=related[/ame]

2:39

Holmes was considered finished, and a relic by 1988. He'd lost the title to a guy who hadn't even been fighting as a heavyweight, and Holmes had been on the decline for 5 or 6 years, and was known to have deliberately taken the "easy" fights at the end of his reign (not so easy, as Williams showed).

Foreman was considered a bit of a joke too, a dinosaur. But he was an enigma, and had resurrected himself, and his power and strength still made opponents wary of fighting him.

To say, "this is not close by any means" is an apalling case of revisionism.

 

Battered implied that he lost, when in fact he won a UD. Ali was marked after beating Foster, but no way would I call him battered in that fight.

And he wasn't battered by Spinks either.

But he would go on to show he still had quality. Would never be stopped again and had some good perfomances against top opposition.

It really isn't. If Holy had stopped Foreman without taking a punch, then it would be close. But him winning a tough fight with a 41-year old Foreman is not in any way close to Tyson blasting out a 38-year old Holmes. It's delusional to say it is.

 

Right! Its not like Holmes consistently got worse during his comeback he continued to be competitive with top opposition.

 

These classic enthusiasts refuse to give Mike his full credit for beating Larry Holmes, it would be understandable if Mike beat him by decision but he knocked that man out in 4 rounds and Holmes never got knocked out before or after fighting Tyson. So why not just give Mike his complete due on that fight?

 

He took a lot of punches, and many people do believe he lost to Williams.
When I say battered I mean he took a load of punches to the head, which he did.

Thw Williams and Spinks fights proved what many had been saying for a couple of years : Holmes is over-the-hill.

He was a cagey old pro, yeah.
But Foreman went on to prove himself after fighting Holyfield too.

It's revisionism. You want to make out Holmes was still a viable contender in '88, but no one thought so. It was considered suicide for him to come straight back off a layoff and with no wins under his belt.
Holmes was just a name, a filler, because Tyson was running out of opponents, and his camp and Spinks' camp were giving each other the run-around.
The jab and the speed that had made Holmes great had long faded.

Foreman was tougher because he still had his punch and his strength that made him great.
He was an ACTIVE fighting on a winning streak.
Holyfield wasn't a KO artist or puncher like Tyson was, but he dominated Foreman. And it's revisionism to suggest it was close or anything like that.

 

If we're talking legacy, then I might rate Tyson's win over Holmes a little bit higher, on the basis that Larry had never been stopped, was a more recent champion and arguably robbed against the incumbant champion Spinks... But as for who the "better opponent" was, then I'd give it to George. Foreman was active, well trained and had a workable fight plan going in against Holyfield. he was also an active player in the division and had acheived top rank status, whereas Holmes hadn't truly won a fight since 1985, and a questionable win at that. Foreman would have given Tyson a lot more trouble than Holmes did.