Golovkin-Tyson parrallel

You'd travel a long way before you'd find a better skilled fighter than Golovkin. 345-5, 31-0

 

GGG has more skill than Tyson and Mike always had a size disadvantage.

 

Lots of fighters have power. Its the delivery mechanism of the power that counts. AA was a monstrous puncher at MW. Had some sickening KO wins but didn't have anywhere near the box of tricks that GGG has. Look how the end of rubio was set up and how his punching arcs and body positioning has inbuilt defence. The problem for golovkins opponents is that his skills are so well ingrained that they are almost imperceptible in normal motion.

 

I think the point being made is that the 37 years old Holmes was still a viable, world class opponent when he met Tyson and that Holmes being able to compete at world level, some years later supports that view.

Holmes wasn't just shelling up on the ropes against Holyfield. While appearing to be pinned on them or in a corner, he was defending quite brilliantly and, at times, countering Holyfield effectively. It's where Larry wanted him; saving his legs from having to try and hold the centre of the ring, which was never going to happen against the younger, prolific Holyfield. These tactics saw the considerable majority of Holyfield's workrate land on stony ground.

So, whilst I wouldn't say the 42 years old version of Holmes gave Holyfield hell, he sure enough made Holyfield work hard for the victory, taking a several rounds, along the way. Holmes gave Holyfield a bit to think about and was able to make him look sloppy, at times, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that Holmes/Holyfield puts Tyson's win over Holmes into a better context.

 

You're joking right? Holmes was in retirement, he didn't fight for almost 2 years. Don King offered him $5 million to come out of retirement, get back in the gym and fight Tyson. Holmes was nowhere close to being a 'world class opponent' at 37, it just speaks to how horribly thin the the 80s era was talent wise.

 

Your missing the point again and you must have an incredibly low opinion of both Tyson and Holmes alike, if you cannot acknowledge that Holmes then went on for several years, after this loss and, in his 40s, schooled Mercer (who'd just won a World Title but had relinquished it in favor of the Holmes bout) to a wide UD victory and took Holyfield the distance.

As for Holmes' lay-off, it's not as though we haven't seen elite-level fighters take that length of time off before and come back to make a big impression so this is more or less a moot point. Credit should be given where it's due and, like it or not, Tyson is the only man to ever have stopped Holmes.

By your reasoning, Holmes' efforts, at the age of 41/42 years old, speaks to how thin the 90s era was too, does it not?

 

There's nothing certain about that, at all.

Yours is just another sweeping statement that hints at being on the obsessive. The obsession being that of making the '80s out to be the worst Heavyweight Boxing era ever; trying to underpin an idea that all '80s Heavyweights were crap, when we are clearly right in the midst of the worst era ever.

Bermane Stiverne, Ruslan Chagaev and a clean-fighting Klitschko are all beatable and would each know they'd been in a fight with either Spinks, Berbick or Holmes. To dismiss them from any chance of winning a title today so easily is to quite clearly show your closed-minded bias against the 80s Heavyweight scene.

You seem also to be obsessed with a "37 year old Larry Holmes". Are you forgetting that Stiverne, Chagaev and Klitschko are all aged between a range of mid-to-late 30s, themselves?

 

You're thinking of ATG status.

You just defined Trevor Berbick. Berbick lost to Holmes and Tyson, but beat Pinklon Thomas, the only 3 heavyweights ranked in Ring's pound for pound ratings from the 80's.

Berbick can hold his own in any era, winning some and losing some. Again, you're thinking of All Time Greatness.

The 80's were a talent laden era for heavyweights, a very underrated decade that was full of potential. It's hard to become an ATG in a decade when Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson owned the era.

 

Nice post.

I'm lead to believe that anyone who shits on the 80's heavyweight scene wasn't old enough to have lived through it. Boxing was riding high from Ali's popularity in the 70's, which in turn produced a number of talented big men who were showcased in the heavyweight division. The 80's were flooded with fighters inspired by Ali, emulating his style and seeking the glory of winning the championship and the riches that followed.

Pay Per View was in it's infancy and promoters were hyping their guy as the next big thing. This as well as many other political factors lead the titles to become splintered while confusing the public who weren't quite sure who the one world champion was. Holmes wasn't the most popular champion and decided that it was better for him to earn money instead of respect, since he wasn't getting the respect he deserved anyways. Along comes Tyson, cleaning up the division and unifying the belts in lightening quick fashion. And because he steamrolled the division it's being assumed by many misinformed fans that the 80's were weak.

 

Tyson at His best was a monster...but He did not like being taken into the later rounds.....was a bit Mentally weak in my opinion.!!!!

 

He won more than he lost in the later rounds?

There was a number of guys who went past 6 rounds with Tyson, only 3 beat him.

Holyfield, Lewis and Douglas. Two of those guys are ATGs and faced Tyson nowhere near his best.

And also, Tyson never lost a decision that went to the scorecards.

Tyson, who only fought 8 rounds in 5 years, came back and went 11.5 rounds with Holyfield.

 

This has to be taken into consideration

Golovkins opponents are all the same size, Tyson, depsite being a small guy fought in the biggest division.

Margarito, Mosely and Pacqiauo all have reach equal to or greater than Tyson

 

Tyson only had 6 Losses in His Great Career 4 of His losses that went past 5 Rounds were all TKOs...Douglas Round 10....Holeyfield round 11...Lewis Round 8....and McBride Round 6...all were TKOs and all went into the later rounds...just an observation I think most Boxing Critics new you had to take Mike to the later rounds.!!!!

 

Tyson lost to cocaine, women and alcohol. Bad choices that messed him up before Douglas, Lewis or Holyfield even got a look in.

Prior to that he was elite.