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

Totally agree with the context you've laid out - which is more or less what I've included and tried to make clear in my own posts.

The most significant and impacting features to the actual Tyson vs Holmes fight were that Larry was old and clearly deteriorated. Add to that his inactivity, and Larry wasn't even the best he could possibly be at age 38 anyway. And ignoring these major components and referencing other fights when Larry was already deteriorated to reason that Tyson beats any incarnation of Holmes really only serves to compound the analytical error using circular reasoning.

Finally, the duality in treatment screams when it involves a fighter like Mike who's own conveniently abbreviated prime is defined by its own circular reasoning. With a significant 12-15 years separation, Holmes' performances at 35- 38 are fair game but those of a 22 -23 yo Tyson aren't? Hmmm.

 

it was an aberration alright. Holmes hadn't fought in two years.

And I don't see a headbutt in here either

This content is protected

 

Yep, no butts about it.

 

Not really. Holmes doesn't have the firepower to bust Tyson up. In fact the exact opposite is more likely.

 

Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton came close to signing a Tyson-Holmes fight in 1986 but HBO told them to drop it or else Tyson wouldn't be allowed in the unification tournament. Cayton and Jacobs were so confident of Tyson winning the tourney that they promised Holmes first crack at Tyson's undisputed championship.

Holmes isn't a dumb man and would never go into a fight unprepared especially when history was to be made. He knew a fight with Tyson was in his future and he didn't want to ruin his chances by slipping up and taking a fight he didn't need. He fought a 15 round exhibition to stay in shape and had plenty of time to prepare accordingly.

And people above saying Holmes was better a full 3 years after facing Tyson despite him being older, fatter and slower are a bit misinformed. Any excuse to take Tyson's win away. It's amazing how far the goal posts shift when it comes to Tyson's accomplishments.

 

Holmes got better in his 40's by getting fatter, older and slower? Holmes got better by facing cans like Tim Anderson and Eddie Gonzales? You don't get better by facing guys that can't even pass as sparring partners! That's not how anything in this world works. In fact that is the opposite of getting better!!

Shame on you posters who agree with Barrf's post.

 

He wasn't better but he adapted his fighting style in his 40s, and was also fighting far more often and rebuilt his confidence. Remember Holmes was coming off two losses to Spinks, and a less than stellar performance against Williams, not to mention the ring rust not fighting a professional fight in 2 years.

But i am certainly not suggesting that 92 version of Holmes, is anywhere more competitive against 88 version of Tyson. Because with Holmes's style of laying on the ropes in his 2nd career, that would certainly end in disaster against a prime Tyson.

 

He lost to Leonard Morrow and Henry Hall in 1948, aged 34.

He beat Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, HW Nino Valdes and Bobo Olsen in his 40's.

Maxim, Johnson, Valdes and Olsen were better than Morrow. All but arguably Olsen were better than Hall, the 2 of whom are close.

7 of his 9 LHW title defences were made during his 40's.

Fact, not opinion. Logic only.

 

I don't see anyone taking Tyson's win away. He beat a 38 yo, deteriorated, inactive and ill prepared Larry Holmes. Mike is credited in due proportion for that win, no more, no less.

Btw, after a 10 hiatus, Foreman got a lot better the more he fought since his first comeback fight in Mar87 at age 38 vs Steve Zouski.

If the goal posts have been shifted, they've only been borrowed, in all equity, from Tokyo, Japan along with the playbook that apparently allows for extensive analysis and determination of ALL possible causes for a fighter not being at his absolute best in the event of a loss. I mean, one would think 38 yo Holmes' inherent deteriorations spoke far more for themselves than the alleged, significant impairments of a 23 yo Mike Tyson, coming off a 1st round KO W in his last fight.

Takeaway: It's not always ALL about Mike or always viewing things ONLY from his perspective.

 

Then list his entire resume instead of cherry picking fights off a guy with hundreds of them.

His light heavy title shot came way late and his best years were leading into that.

You're about as clever as an oyster.

 

Cherry picking facts and presenting them as an absolute indicator, eh? Remind you of anyone? You'd have to be pretty dim to believe I was serious.

 

Spinks did not “whup“ Larry the second time.

 

That just sounds like something you made up.

Holmes was fighting jobbers because he copied the George Foreman route in getting a title shot. Fight a bunch of stiffs to get into contention based off your name then face a ranked contender.

Holmes was barely hanging on to his championship and fading in the mid 80's.