Do you agree with Mike Casey that Tyson's stoppage of a past it Larry Holmes was not an aberration

Tyson beat more contenders and champs who were similar to Holmes than anyone in boxing history. The closest Larry came to beating someone like Tyson was....

 

I thought you were insinuating Holmes' loss to Tyson was more relevant than Tyson's loss to Douglas in this matchup.

I'm undecided as to who wins this. I used to favor Holmes confidently a while back but now not so much. Truth be told, neither goes 3-0 in a trilogy.

 

That too.

 

Not trying to twist or re-frame your words - but it seems to me you're saying that Tyson was further removed from his peak self vs Douglas than Larry was removed from his peak self when he faced Tyson?

Correct or have I got that wrong?

 

That's not really what I'm saying. Tyson beat Larry Holmes. It was actually Larry Holmes in the ring with him. Tyson also beat a bunch who guys who fought a lot like Holmes including Williams who almost beat him and Spinks who did. Tyson lost to Douglas, but we already know he routinely beat fighters who were similar to Douglas in style and level (Douglas was similar to Holmes). Holmes never fought anyone like Tyson except when he did fight Tyson.

 

Holmes was starting to fade as early as 83 during Witherspoon fight, that's why during 83-85 era after Witherspoon fight. Holmes didn't fight the likes of Page, Thomas, etc. Because he realized he was an aging champion starting to slip, and wanted an easier route to the 49-0.

Tyson coming into the Douglas fight had destroyed Carl Williams in 1 round who was ranked number 2, and even after the Douglas fight had impressive early stoppages against Stewart, Tillman, and showed heart against the most dangerous challenger at that time in hard hitting Razor Ruddock.

Holmes coming into Tyson fight was coming off 2 losses, 2 of them being lackluster performances vs Williams, Spinks. And he was 38 years old coming off being inactive for 2 years or however long it was.

I think overall that answers the question.

 

I noticed some deterioration as early as the Cooney bout.

 

There's also the fact that Holmes got some of his old mojo back in his 40s and remained a solid B to B+ level fighter right through his last title challenge at age 49 -- point being, the 38 year old Holmes that faced Tyson was pretty much the worst version of himself. I think the 42-43 year old Holmes who fought Mercer and Holyfield wouldn't have lost to Spinks.

So I agree. Tyson wasn't all that faded against Douglas. That was a much worse performance than he was capable of at the time had he handled some basics better for that fight, like don't stay up all night doing drugs with hookers before a fight. The Tyson who fought Ruddock was still damn good.

 

Complete nonsense. His problem was that he was fighting prime Tyson.

Name some fighters who were better in their forties than at age 36-38.

 

I'm not saying a later Holmes would have lasted against a prime Tyson. He still got hit by straight rights too much to last.

 

Holmes never even beat any good boxer movers like Spinks in his comeback. He might’ve been capable of beating someone like Bonecrusher while older, but Williams, Spinks, and others would leave with decsions.

 

The 81 Holme busts Tyson up like a peach

 

Archie Moore had 3 x competitive decision fights with the 23 year old Harold Johnson when he was 37 and 38, winning 2 (1 very close) and losing 1.

He stopped a 26 year old Johnson, for the only time in their 5 fight series, 4 months before his 41st birthday.

He lost to the likes of Henry Hall and Leonard Morrow aged 34, yet beat Joey Maxin, HW Nino Valdes and Bobo Olsen in his 40's, in addition to the wonderful Johnson.

The Holmes that beat Mercer would have lost to prime Tyson too, but his style had adapted to his diminishing physical attributes in a way that the inactive version who fought Tyson, hadn't.

 

He peaked in the late 40s/early 50s while in his 30s, not the 40+ version who you’re blathering about.

 

Thanks, I appreciate you clarifying your perspective - though I don’t really agree with any of it - but that’s what we’re here for - to civilly discuss and debate.