All things considered which was the better win?

I actually thought Holmes did pretty good in the opening couple rounds against Tyson. Its just Tyson started closing the gap and Larry being the fighter he was did the right thing and tried to put a little heat on Tyson to get him off of him. It was the right strategy, its just Holmes got caught by a very good righthand, probably one of the better righthands Tyson ever threw. Most of the time Tyson hurt his opponents with hooks and uppercuts, but this was a nice righthand off the break. Tyson just was a great finisher back then and where Holmes could survive against guys like Shavers, Tyson finished him off.

 

I still don't like the way the cagey, awkward Spinks had to move up in '85 & dethrone the undefeated Holmes. He stole Mike's job!

Imagine the Tyson who faced Berbick brutally stopping a younger, undefeated 50-0 Holmes in '86. Sure people would still point out he was past-prime, but the win would be given far more credit from the critics.

 

You mean like Foreman, the without a doubt most overrated fighter on this board, didn't do any training in ten years before making his comeback against tomatoe cans that rarely lasted more than 2-3 rounds. Good sparring partners can give you a better warm up than that.

What the fock do you know about that?

 

.... atsch ... ANYONE KNOW THAT HOLMES88 WAS FINISHED MENTALLY, HE WAS NOT MOTIVATED.i was talking about holmes 92 and HOLMES88... anyway yes, old foreman was MUCH better than old holmes who never got the title again, FOREMAN DID AND HE WAS RETIRED DURING 10 YEARS , HOLMES WAS DESTROYED BY TYSON AND OWNED MY A BUM LIKE MCCALL,OR BRIAN NIELSEN. TOMMY MORRISON RAN FROM FOREMAN AND HE WAS BETTER THAN MCCALL OR NIELSEN HANDS DOWN, MICHAEL MOORER WAS BY FAR BETTER THAN MCCALL AND NIELSEN LMAO. END OF THE HISTORY!!!! (PEAK FOREMAN73-74 WOULD **** PEAK HOLMES)

 

typical answer when you have no answer.

 

You forgot the capital letters.

 

YES YOU ARE RIGHT

 

:good

 

this is a tough one for me. based off his later success, foreman seems to be the better answer. however, holmes' own later success (despite retiring after the tyson fight) should not be discounted. foreman's "activity" in the ensuing years was almost as non existent as holmes' and their post 40 success is similar, though foreman gets a clear edge based off of winning the title

the answer to this question (for me anyway) comes down to three issues:

1)who was better at the time of the fight?

Edge, slight edge, to Foreman. Being active counts for a lot and his power was still there. That really was always he biggest (and often only) weapon. holmes' jab was there but his other weapons were abadoning him and it was before he became to cagey master that dismantled mercer

2)Nature of victory

No contest, this goes to Tyson. He absolutely destroyed and dismantled Holmes. Holyfield struggled with Foreman, getting stunned repeatedly and legitimately hurt during that beautiful 7th round. Foreman made it competitive; holmes did not. You always can't have it both ways and say that foreman was amazing and made it a very close thrilling battle, and then say that holyfields win was awesome. A peak, ATG heavy should not struggle so mightily with an old man; that diminishes the win in my eyes

3)Stylistic match up

Even on this one, but slight edge to Tyson in this one. Holyfield had all the advantages of youth and weapons to beat foreman. Tyson had similar advantages physically but had been trained by Cus specifically to beat holmes. that was not lost and his style clearly lent himself to beating the jabbing master. Holyfield SHOULD have dominated foreman but got dragged, once again, into a brawl. Based on styles and weapons this is about even. Based on holyfields desire to trade and tyson's training, holyfield had a slight harder hill to climb

Based on these criteria it's damn close for me and calling the wins even would be reasonable. But given the dominance that tyson exhibited and the struggles that holy encountered lead me to believe tyson would win against a peak holmes whereas i can't say the same about evander. The nature of tyson's win was so conclussive, he shades this one in my eyes

 

Tysons performance was much better but the Foreman that lost to Holyfield was the best Foreman ever fought in his comeback and a good fighter. Probably a better opponent than Larry.

I'd go with Tyson though. Knocking out Larry Holmes is a freakish accomplishment

 

Holmes would never have fought Tyson when he had the belt.