Does Tyson deserve more credit for his Holmes fight?

It was 19 months after the second Spinks fight, not 5 years. Larry took off 12 months between Bey and Bonecrusher. Too much is made of how 'rusty' Larry had become. The guy had been boxing twenty years, fer Chrissakes. The rest probably did him as much good as it did bad.

 

I agree. Too much was made of Larry being off.

Larry Holmes was interviewed on camera the night Tyson beat Biggs.

Holmes knew the fight was in January. He said the layoff was beneficial because he'd been a really active champ.

Holmes said he wanted the title back because he thought he got robbed in the Spinks rematch. He was highly motivated.

And he spelled out that night how he planned to beat Tyson, and he said he wouldn't come back unless he was sure he'd win.

And Tyson steamrolled him. Just like Tyson steamrolled Spinks and Tubbs that year. Just like he would've steamrolled just about anyone who ever fought if they'd have gotten in the ring with him that evening.

None of those guys - Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks - had ever been easy outs for others. They just ran into a buzzsaw that year when they faced Tyson.

It was a great performance. Shouldn't be overlooked.

 

Well, many believe that as a fighter ages a busy schedule can become even more important and necessary and Larry had the type of schedule post the Tyson fight.

So, it might not be exactly apples to apples pointing to how viable Holmes still proved himself to be post Tyson.

 

If what you say is true—that Larry was in decline from 1983 onwards—then the fact that he remained competitive twelve years later implies that the supposed high standard of the 1990s heavyweight division is nothing but a myth. In fact, "Fat George" confirmed this.

Even while remaining active, Holmes couldn't beat Carl Williams or Michael Spinks—fighters who lasted a combined total of just two minutes against Tyson. Honestly, though, Larry’s performance was actually quite good, all things considered.

 

If what you say is true—that Larry was in decline from 1983 onwards—then the fact that he remained competitive twelve years later implies that the supposed high standard of the 1990s heavyweight division is nothing but a myth. In fact, "Fat George" confirmed this.

Even while remaining active, Holmes couldn't beat Carl Williams or Michael Spinks—fighters who lasted a combined total of just two minutes against Tyson. Honestly, though, Larry’s performance was actually quite good, all things considered.[/QUOTE]

This is intriguing.
Maye make a thread about it!

 

This and Mike's surgical dismantling of Biggs were his scariest performances for me. Holmes had an anvil of a chin and could still box, stick and move; he showed this briefly in the fight itself, but Mike was the irresistible force that night. A tremendous performance...


...still say peak Holmes beats him....

 

He had like 1 month’s notice after being out of the ring nearly 2 years and had became out of shape.

He was better prepared in the Mercer fight and even in absolute terms, that version of Holmes would potentially beat the version of Holmes that fought Tyson.

 

I count this fight as one of the most underrated wins in HW history. Holmes had the advantage in experience, reach, and height. He obviously wasn't prime but Tyson made it look easy. He did the same with Spinks who was in fact a full blown HW by the time they fought.

 

No way. Holmes just came off of a two year layoff and fought Tyson in his first return bout. Are you kidding me? Holmes didn't stand a chance, looking at that. Zero Zip Nada

Maybe if he had had more fights under his belt (say, three) before he fought Tyson... then it would have been more impressive.

 

Are we talking about Tyson who is the only one to have knocked out Holmes (and no one else even came close), or are we talking about some other Tyson?

 

Mike is always going to be a stylistic nightmare for any iteration of Larry. It doesn't mean Larry couldn't win.

 

Vitali Klitschko was just as old coming off a four-year layoff, when, with no comeback fights, he totally dominated 28-year-old Sam Peter for the title.

I'm sure comebacking Holmes in 1988 would've beaten that Sam Peter, too.

And the Tyson that Holmes fought would've demolished old Vitali coming off a four-year layoff, as well.

Tyson was just as his absolute best. Holmes was off for longer periods later. But nobody demolished him like that before Tyson, or after Tyson.

Give Tyson his due. For that period in 1988, he arguably could've beaten any heavyweight who ever lived. He was at his very best.

 

I mean Holmes wasnt a prime fighter but he wasn’t completely shot neither. So yeah Tyson should get more credit for that win.

 

Still the only guy to KO Holmes, regardless ... if the fight had taken place against Ali in 1980, we'd be saying the same thing (I'm guessing the same outcome, all other factors - Ali's thyroid medication screw up - unchanged).

And while he may deny it, there's no question: when he entered the ring, for the first and maybe the only time in his career, Holmes looked realllly unsure ... like, "What the **** am I doing here?" I think some part of him knew this wasn't going to go well.

 

Holmes had a long steady slow decline. It was never a big drop-off from year to year for him. He started his prime as an elite ATG level fighter, so even after a long period of slow degradation, he had degraded only to merely "very good".

He was past his best when Tyson mauled him, but wasn't washed. He never looked washed in the ring, even in his final performance against Butterbean.