From a 1-10 scale what you rate holmes in the Tyson fight?

Your post is a little confusing, but yes Holmes got clocked and he never recovered. Tyson was a tremendous finisher. Had Holmes been hurt like that even as a young man, he would have had a hard time surviving.

 

What are you confused about? At that point Tyson was in his prime. Yes he did have perhaps under rated movement (especially head movement) and the peek a boo defence, but I think we can safely classify him as a swarmer. What I am saying is that this showed up Larry's age and degeneration badly. If Holmes had fought someone else with a different style at this point I don't think he would have looked as bad. This is giving props to Tyson, he made Larry look old. However, there is no getting away from the fact that Larry was on the slide for a while before that point. I think at his 1980 peak, it would have had a much greater chance of being a different fight, perhaps a bit like Ali-Frazier III. Holmes would have been stronger on his feet then, would have made good use of the jab, and had better movement.

 

Don't be silly.
I haven't said anything on this thread to detract from Tyson's accomplishments.
Tyson was a phenomenal devastating fighter, a KO artist par excellence.
But I don't go for this revisionist bull**** that tries to inflate the quality of opposition in his prime.
I stick to the facts. The facts about Holmes is he was well past his prime, and he did NOT put on some good or amazing performance - I'm calling bull**** on anyone who tries to say he did, or that he was somehow near-prime or anything other than an old formerly great has-been.

I couldn't give a **** what the American commentators said - their job is to sell the action to the viewer or for whatever reason they got it wrong.
My own eyes (and the eyes of many others who saw and reported what they saw in that fight, so I'm not even in a minority) tell me that Holmes was NOT fighting well.

If landing a total of 3 weak punches in round one, and 3 weak punches in round two can be described as "looked impressive early on" then you must be on another planet.



:good

 

No thats never your agenda. atsch

And noone has, consensus seems to rate Holmes about a 6, which is probably pretty accurate. Its still the most impressive win over Holmes in his post comeback, so yes the win is underated by detractors of Tyson because most brush it off as Holmes being rusty for the reason Tyson stopped him when noone else could.

And noone says that either. Holmes performed well. His plan was to hold and frustrate Tyson early and then open up in the later rounds. Tyson made him change that plan and Holmes definitely became more offensive in the 3rd and 4th, and he did perform well compared to some of the other younger fighters who just came to hold and survive, Holmes actually tried to fight back.

The commentators and the entire arena which errupted when Holmes started popping his jab and moving well in the last two rounds. HBO should have hired you to inform the world what a fraud Mike Tyson was. :?

Holmes was 38 and outclassed. He didnt look like a tired fighter. He was actually physically in very good shape. Its easy to look back and say Holmes was old and rusty because Tyson blew him out, just as Spinks was scared shitless, even though Eddie Futch and Spinks himself, claim that Spinks was not scared.
Case in point people "revise" Tyson's career just as badly, negatively, because of the ease at which Tyson was beating guys. Guys who went on to perform pretty respectable against top opposition. Holyfield couldnt knock Holmes out and Holmes performed better at a more advanced age, so he was better years later. Thats more revisionist bull**** than anything.

 

id say about a 7 while obviously well past his prime he was not the washed up old has been a lot of people claim a heavier 4 years older holmes beat ray mercer a lot easier than lennox lewis did as well as giving prime evander holyfield a tough fight as well .

 

You seem to have the "Tyson agenda", and I don't like to make that accusation, but you seem obssessed with ascribing one to me.
I'm on this thread answering and discussing the question posed, ie. how much on a scale on 0 - 10 was Holmes when he fought Tyson ?
You seem to have a problem with that.
I happen to rate Tyson lower than you do. I probably rate Tyson a bit lower than the "average" on this board, and I'm sure you rate Tyson a bit higher than the "average". That shouldn't be a problem.
We don't need to start accusing each other of having "agendas".

I happen to think Holmes was greatly diminished fighter by 1985, nevermind 1988. That's an opinion I hold on boxing history, specifically on Larry Holmes.
It's NOT a dig at Mike Tyson.

I've said nothing about the quality of the win on this thread.
I've kept to the topic of this thread, ie. how much Holmes had slipped.

(FYI, I cannot fault Tyson's performance whatsoever. It was a devastating clinical destruction, one of the all-time classic heavyweight KOs.)

Look, if you mean Holmes performed as well as could be expected for an old over-the-hill formerly great has-been who was expected to take a beating, then yeah, he did.
But he didn't do anything beyond that.

Who's calling Tyson a fraud ?

Maybe the crowd were cheering on the OLD man and huge underdog when he tried to dance like he was young again, because that's what crowds do. They root for the underdog, and cheer him on when he looks to be giving it a go. And that lasted about 45 seconds.

You just seem to want to rant against these invisible "Tyson detractors" constantly.
Spinks, Futch, what the hell ?

You say its "easy to look back and say Holmes was old and rusty" ..... but actually the fact that Holmes was 38 and hadn't fought in 21 months was a big issue before the fight. The word was that it was suicide for an old Holmes to come off a layoff to fight a young active fighters as dangerous as Tyson.
Hell, there were loud calls for Holmes to hang them up before Tyson came along.

That's all I'm talking about - Holmes' diminished state, at 38.

Again, that's not something I've said on this thread. And I disagree with the idea that Holmes was better in 1992, he wasn't, he was worse.

 

Youre full of **** Unforgiven, and everyone knows it. :hi:

 

Why do you say that ? Why the hostility and rudeness ?
I've done nothing but discuss the topic of the thread, and you've ranted at me for a load of stuff that hasn't been said on this thread, and now you 're having a tantrum or something - I don't know why ?
Maybe you're having a bad day, I dunno.

I'll continue to be civil to you because I value your insights and knowledge as a postor.

:good

 

yep....even prime ali would,t recover from that

 

That's what i thought.

Not me then. :good

Yet .....

It seems you showed up for an argument, and in spite of the fact that you have no problem with what I actually say, I was the only available opponent.

:bbb

 

What do My2Sense, Unforgiven, and Magnasaki all have in common? :happy

 

I dont know.

But I'm seriously wondering ..... has one of the kids hijacked lefthook31's account ? :think