All things considered which was the better win?

Two young champions; two has-beens.

One champion destroys his prey, who was an extremely tried-and-true, great ex-champion, within 2 minutes of Round 4, by crushing 45-second knockout.

The other champion grinds out a 12-round unanimous decision over an even older former champ whose only weapon has always been power.

Coming into the fight, the first champion is already one of history's most devastating. He delivers at the highest possible level that can be expected; his victim returns F-O-U-R Y-E-A-R-S L-A-T-E-R to school a few young lions at the top.

Holmes' layoff was 21 months. He had been a busy champion. He was old, but not even 40. It is eminently reasonable to say he still had plenty of ability, by any standard. No man, except an all-time-great fighter, had any business whatsoever doing what Tyson did to him. In his dressing room, this great badass suddenly felt intimidated when called to the ring; at the bell, this great offensive operator was instantly reduced to a wincer, a defender pawing pleadingly from his shell. The second minute after deciding to fight offensively --in the style that made him great-- he is on his back. Seconds later, after putting on a courageous stand true to his tremendous class, quality and heart of a champion, he is mercilessly crushed.

The other young champion had just won his title by sterling 3rd-round kayo. Though not considered a devastating heavyweight puncher, he is a very strong young athlete and is the huge favorite to retire his 42-year-old challenger. He performs well, but, by the final bell, the story has become his challenger: the old man --never known for stamina as a youth-- gamely survives the distance, gets in his own hard punches along the way, wins over the crowd, and --far from being discouraged into retirement-- parlays his showing against the young monarch to continue a storybook extension of his career, capped by regaining the heavyweight crown.

I am not confused as to which title-defense merits greater appreciation.

 

well, finally other man with balls here... i agree 100% brotha

 

honestly i think that tyson would be winning on the cards, but foreman 90-91 would ko tyson with a lucky hand late. foreman would take every shot from tyson. foreman had better chin. foreman 93-97 was too fat and old, he would lose against prime tyson by decision. prime vs prime, foreman kills tyson,but i think that even foreman 90-91 would have his chance to knock out a prime tyson. the people who think that this fight would be even similar to the fight with holmes ,lmaooooo. style smake fights, tyson would give problems to holmes always. foreman would give problems to tyson always. even old foreman 90-91, it is not matter, foreman was not fast never, the overweight was good for his power. and he had more experience, he could be outboxed but tyson was not a ****ing chicken like morrison or stewart who ran from him, tyson would exchange blows with foreman.

 

Holmes was not a fan favorite fighter. I dont think any of the name fighters were eager to offer Holmes a title fight or contention shot. Mercer stepped up finally to do it. As you said Holmes was a name going into the Tyson fight, his second go around, he was name that wasnt really relevant anymore.

 

Holmes was hardly a piece of ****. How do you think that Holmes of the Tyson fight would have done against the Foreman that Holyfield fought?

 

holmes 92, was MUCH better than holmes88. much more motivated. holmes 88 would get tko by foreman 91 without doubt. this holmes was static, and this foreman had good stamina, foreman by tko, no contest. holmes 92 vs foreman 91, i pick foreman by decision. maybe sd. and yes, holmes88 was a piece of ****, i agree with him.

 

No ****ing way does Foreman win a decision against Holmes. You are an absolute **** sucking ******. Stop humming Foreman's balls for **** sake.

 

You made that clear. And to me the fact that an older Holmes would come back several years later to have a comparable career to that of old George matters.

Yes, they were built on more or less the same padding, with some more substantial wins, but they were not that padding. They had beat it. That's the difference between Tyson's opposition andd Foreman's.

I've watched it many times (live on television for one thing) and don't agree with you. It was Holy's fight, no doubt, but Foreman made life tough for him at times. It was a clear win, but not an easy one by any means.

 

Yep. Shouldn't really be more complicated than this.

 

other users and i insult sometimes, but with a good argument, you are an absolute idiot, who insult behind a screen and you have no argument about the topic because you know **** about boxing, and possibly every user of this forum could destroy your face of clown, poor frustrated piece of ****.your avatar is almost as stupid and ******ed like yourself

 

Leave the avatars out of this

 

Nice, dude.

 

Yeah, aging a further four years really do wonders for a 38-year old's quality.

 

not, simply a 42 years old fighter trained and motivated is better than a heavy bag of 38 years old who did not nothing during 2 years and he was finished mentally.

 

If Holmes got scared in the dressing room, it's because he heard Tyson punching a hole through his own dressing room wall.

This content is protected

Photo from Sports illustrated.