Best Mike Tyson win pre-Buster Douglas?

I guess just like evaluating boxing, you're terrible at math.

Tell me which matches Holmes had in between his loss to Spinx in 86 and his loss to Tyson in 88.

 

You're arguing semantics, gents. Holmes had not fought for 21-months, to the nearest month, prior to the Tyson fight. That qualifies as inactive in my book. That's without mentioning his age & how much notice he had.

 

24 months didn't pass between Spinks and Tyson. Holmes had a layoff between Marvis and Bonecrusher too, but nobody cares about that.

 

He knew about the Tyson fight since October, well in advance.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but out of interest do you have a source for that?

I've read the fight was signed c.4-weeks before it took place. Even if it was first muted 3-months before it took place, I've no way of knowing if Holmes entered a full time camp in those first 2-months and trained exactly as he would have if the fight had been formally agreed. Seems unlikely though. Even if so, 3 months to train, with no tune up fights, after an 18-month retirement at 38, when he had clearly already slipped whilst active a 2-3 years earlier, doesn't suggest he was going to be somewhere close to being back to his peak.

What I do know is that Holmes was 38, at a time when that was old for a fighter, hadn't fought in almost 2-years, weighed c.15lbs above his peak weight and had lost his last 2 fights to a guy who had spent his career at and around LHW prior to their first fight.

The Tyson who beat Holmes may or may not have beaten any version of Larry, but the version he fought was substantially removed from peak Holmes.

 

That's just Larry's bull****. He knew the fight was happening well in advance and even had his own gym. He was 230 about a month before they fought.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-10-18-8703180779-story.html

 

Tyson’s win over Michael Spinks was devastating and noteworthy — he blasted out a lineal heavyweight champion in 91 seconds. You can mitigate a bit because Spinks was a blown-up light heavyweight who beat an end-of-career ATG to win it, but he still beat that ATG twice (although the second decision is questionable at best).

As for the Berbick/Tubbs/Pinklon/Bonecrusher/etc brigade, Tyson benefitted greatly from circumstance. There actually were more than half a dozen former titleholders (the ‘lost generation’ of 1980s guys who ate or drugged themselves out of whatever potential they had) because they were a bunch of largely average peas in a pod who mostly never successfully defended those titles. They just played hot potato … once in a while one of them would actually stumble through a successful defense, only to lose the next time out.

So it’s accurate to say Tyson beat a bunch of former ‘champs,’ but how many fighters have ever walked into a circumstance like he did where there were so many to beat BECAUSE they weren’t good enough to hold onto those spurious belts and kept passing them around?

Let’s take Tyson out of th equation for an exercise: If he never came along, or had fallen into street habits and ended up incarcerated and thus never on the heavyweight scene — who of the 1980s Lost Generation would have been a dominant factor at heavyweight for any meaningful period of time? Which of those were superior? The answer is none, as that’s how many of them did it before Tyson was in the picture.

Spinks was the most accomplished because he beat the mean to be the man — dethroning Larry, holding onto the lineal in a rematch (however most might have scored it) and then he was marking time before cashing out: Stefan Tangstad, back-from-the-dead (and his own drug problems) Gerry Cooney.

I’d posit that of the rest, the most talented with the most potential were Tim Witherspoon and Greg Page. The one who did the most for the longest — as far as staying in contention and being relevant and basically fighting anyone put in front of him — was Mike Weaver, although he was shopworn by the time Tyson came along. Yet Mike managed to miss those guys.

You can make a case for Pinklon but he was a hardcore heroin addict who just wasn’t going to ever live up to that potential over the long haul because of self-inflicted misery. Same for Biggs, who didn’t even get to claim a title.

Tubbs, Crusher, Berbick, Tillis … just right-place-right-time guys who happened to lay their hands on a ‘not the real champ’ belt. Nothing special about any of them (maybe except for Bonecrusher being a big puncher) adn their careers reflect that.

So yes, Tyson did what you claimed as far as beating people who had once held belts, but it hardly holds up to examination that this is a great run IMO.

Doesn’t mean Tyson wasn’t for real. Doesn’t reflect badly on him — he beat mostly who was around to be beat, and did so mostly decisively. But he was basically taking out the trash, so to speak.

 

Ok so it wasn't exactly 24 months...it was 21 months. You consider doing nothing for 21 months to be an "active" fighter...?

You said claiming Holmes was inactive leading up to the Tyson fight is a false statement.

 

Stop pretending like Holmes was doing nothing. He owned a gym and knew the fight was in the pipeline five months in advance. I’d imagine he was doing “something” well before the 21 month mark.

 

Honestly, this is all objectively true. The 80's guys were playing hot potato with the 2 trinkets Holmes didn't have. They had talent but never lived up to their potential and none of them managed more than 1 defense (some of them 0 defenses). It's also very unlikely out of that crowd anyone would manage to dominate if Tyson wasn't there, which shows how limited they were in terms of being consistent. I also agree that Weaver, Spoon, Thomas, and Page showed the highest ceilings of that generation but even they fumbled the bag and weren't at their best/failed to get in the best position when Tyson was belt hunting so that's their fault.

None of that was Tyson's problem, he did what he was supposed to do clearing out a flawed division similar to Rocky Marciano. He dominated without having a bunch of draws, robberies, or split decisions and he did so in an exciting 2-3 year span without a bunch of tune ups or arguing about A-side nonsense, so credit to him.

 

I'm not pretending like anything. You're pretending like having no fights for 21 months (3 months shy of 2 years) is an "active" boxer. Boxrec doesn't even agree with you and no trainer would either. Even if he were supposedly sparring, jogging, and hitting the heavybag (something you have no evidence of by the way) that doesn't remove ring rust lol. He was inactive.

 

Just apologize for claiming that Holmes was out for two years and that he did nothing for 21 months and let’s be done with.

And stop putting words in my mouth, bud.

 

I never said he "did nothing" for 21 months. You're the only one putting words in people's mouths bud.

He was inactive for 21 months, that is a fact. If you do not fight for 21 months you're inactive. As usual you simply do not want to admit you're wrong so you're arguing semantics. Would you like to do a poll?

 

I agree with this. Tyson-Holmes was on deck since late 1986.

I always ask this - who was Holmes supposed to fight to keep him active and in shape for Tyson? Should he prepare by facing Tim 'Doc' Anderson, Rocky Sekorski, or Eddie Gonzalez? These are all glorified sparring sessions at best!!

Why risk a multimillion dollar shot at the youngest ever champ by facing a Top 10 opponent? This wasn't a 40 year old comebacking Foreman who needed to show legitimacy. This is an established ATG who was on top for 7 years where most people thought he beat Spinks in the rematch and was the rightful lineal champ.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, Larry Holmes was a proud champion who knew what it took to get in shape, stay in shape and prepare himself in the best way possible for a dangerous world beater hell bent on destruction. There's no way he wouldn't train like a demon for hand to hand combat against someone like Tyson.

 

“You consider doing nothing for 21 months to be an "active" fighter...?” Hmm

I totally understand that it hurts your feelings to accept that Mike Tyson ragdolled Larry Holmes, but that’s what happened and no excuses can erase it.

You’ve managed to pop in making false claims without even showing that you understand what I was saying: Larry Holmes was a better fighter on the night Mike Tyson beat him senseless than he was at any point during his comeback. He would’ve beaten or been competitive with anyone else in the division not named Mike Tyson on the night he lost. Having the fight six months earlier wouldn’t change that.