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

There are plenty that think old George foreman was a better fighter than young George foreman

 

And Hopkins aswell.

 

How is it something i made up ? what part of my post is fantasy ?

Is it not a fact that when Holmes fought Tyson he was 38 years old, having not fought a professional fight for 2 years ? whilst coming off 2 losses to Spinks ? And 2 of those performances being lackluster against Williams, Spinks 1 ?

Is it not a fact that Holmes fought on the ropes more in his 2nd career ? and that's how he beat Ray Mercer ? and was able to survive and nullify Holyfield's offence whilst being competitive ?

So again i'm confused what i made up exactly ? i never said Holmes was better at 42 i did clearly state that in my post. All i said was he adapted a new style of fighting off the ropes in his comeback, probably because he didn't have his legs anymore. And thought that was the best way to conserve energy, kind of like an older Ali did at the twilight of his career.

 

You sound pretty triggered right now.

 

1) Right now? It took you 6.5-hours to come up with that witty retort; and 2) Don't confuse me occasionally providing you with benefit of insight into how others perceive your posts, by directing tongue in cheek posts towards you that imitate your posting style, as being in any way angry with you. I'm not & never have been.

 

Rebuilding his confidence? He was fighting tomato cans, not to "rebuild his confidence". Let's get real. He copied Foreman. End of. There's no rebuilding of confidence when you're facing sparring partner fodder to keep your name in the mix.

And he picked Mercer because Francesco Damiani showed everyone how to beat Mercer. And then after Holmes beat Mercer all the 80's retreads gave Mercer hell from Jesse Ferguson to Tim Witherspoon.

Besides, I was replying to Barrf's post about Holmes being better in his 40's, which is ludicrous. His fights are on tape for everyone to witness.

Now I agree that Holmes had to adapt with his age. It's common knowledge that fighters need to adapt when they get older. Nothing new there. I agree with you on that and maybe I should've been more specific. But let's not get carried away and say Holmes was adapting while facing no hopers who wouldn't make anyone in history better.

Holmes was "adapting" in the ring with Tyson as well, then. He knew he couldn't stand there and trade with Tyson so he got on his bike and flew around the ring like Lance Armstrong in the Tour De France. I mean he was flying in there but the moment he settled down was the moment he got blasted out.

 

And those fans who think Foreman got better don't really know much. He fought smarter because of his age. And like other posters are saying, older fighters adapt to their weaknesses in the ring.

Foreman definitely and matter of factly was not better in his 40's.

 

I think, as far as sheer terror-inducement, skill in punching and offensive measures, 70s Foreman was Mike Tyson before there was a Mike Tyson...perhaps the biggest difference being that Foreman beat overall more formidable competition. Just my opinion.

 

Foreman has the better win in Frazier and maybe Norton because Norton beat Ali once. And I'll add the win over Moorer as well. But Tyson beat the better fighters overall. If we include both of Foreman's careers he beat something like 7 ranked fighters whereas Tyson beat 22. From top to bottom Tyson beat the Top 10, Foreman never did.

Tyson was considered the top guy or near the top for almost 20 years. Foreman was considered the top guy for 3 years.

 

I think he needed to rebuild his confidence, after 3 straight losses including getting stopped for the 1st time. I actually think Holmes was more willing to take risks in his 2nd career compared to Foreman. He fought McCall, Mercer, two guys i don't see a comeback Foreman fighting honestly.

Not really because Holmes employed a totally different tactic to Damiani, Holmes basically fought off the ropes the entire night vs Mercer and frustrated him. Your also leaving out that Mercer had brutally KO'ed Morrison prior to Holmes fight, and also won a vicious encounter vs Bert Cooper. So Mercer had shown he was a very tough dangerous Heavyweight even at stage in his career. And your also leaving out that Mercer gave Holyfield, Lewis, razor thin close fights after the Holmes loss.

But my examples wern't no hopers were they ? i gave you examples of the Holyfield, Mercer, fights. Where Holmes primarily fought on the ropes for much of those fights. We're in a agreement that Holmes wasn't better at aged 42, but his new adopted tactic of fighting on the ropes actually helped him vs Mercer, Holyfield.

Again i don't disagree with you on that i don't think a 42 year old version of Holmes. With his new adopted tactic of laying on the ropes does any better vs Tyson of 88. Infact i think laying on the ropes would be an even worse tactic and Holmes would get stopped quicker.

 

Holmes had been a professional fighter for about 15 years when he fought Tyson and was far from his peak. This would be no easy day for either man if both are at their best. To paraphrase what was said earlier it’s unlikely either one would go 3-0 in a trilogy. Somewhat disingenuous to me to go by their match, unless we would want to sum up prime Tyson’s chances vs Lennox Lewis based on their match. Both guys were great in their primes. Holmes was probably at his best 1978-80. He was slowing down by 83, never mind 1988.
That being said Tyson would have been hell for him, or any other heavyweight h2h during his peak. Would have been a great fight.

 

Absolutely, I meant George beat the better fighters during his prime. And I do count Ken Norton as better than practically all the fighters Mike beat in the 80s...certainly that Ali-beating Norton was better than a past-it Holmes and I daresay the past it Holmes-beating Spinks. But that's just me.

It's just my opinion, but the heavyweight competition at the time of Mike's prime was nowhere near Foreman's time.

 

I agree. At the top the 70's were probably the best the heavyweights looked in talent and name recognition. But the 80's were chock full of talented big men who most likely were mismanaged while Don King took control with splintered titles running amok. All they wanted to do was win the title to receive that name recognition but didn't prepare properly for a long stay at the top. The talent was so deep that they were usurped in title defense #1.

The 80's heavies are underrated.

I usually place the heavyweight monsters with dynamic championship winning blowouts:
-Dempsey knocking out Willard in 3.
-Liston blowing out Patterson in 1.
-Foreman obliterating Frazier in 2.
-Tyson trouncing Berbick in 2 (or Spinks in 1, however way you look at it).

 

1978 Larry moved a lot better than 1988 Larry so the sequence that doomed him against Mike might never have happened to prime Larry.

Fights that might have gone differently, Prime for prime:

Evander loses to George and Larry

Mike-Larry ? 50-50