The problem with Holmes wasn't even primarily his age, it was his atrocious condition and extended period of inactivity: he was a fat rusty mess who had barely trained. Mercer was a Chisora-tier plodder and would frequently go life and death with journeymen. I'm not claiming that Holmes was "shot" when he fought Spinks but he was not at his best and had been getting controversial decisions in recent fights. It was seen as a massive black mark at the time that Holmes became the first reigning HW champion to lose to a LHW, even though most believe Holmes was robbed in the rematch. Douglas was able to beat McCall, Berbick and Page? So were 42 other guys. Douglas had 4 losses (3 by KO) 3 controversial decisions and a draw in 33 fights before he fought Tyson and all but the KO loss against Tucker were against less than stellar opposition. Douglas was regarded at the time as a journeyman or at best a fringe contender; he was the biggest successful underdog in boxing history. He's not comparable to Bowe with 1 official loss and none by KO, who beat Holyfield twice (many would argue three times) Douglas was blown out and quit in 3 rounds to Holyfield in his fight after Tyson. If prime Tyson was what his supporters make him out to be, Douglas shouldn't have been able to beat the cr*p out of him for virtually the entire fight and KO him even on Tyson's worst day. I can critique Tyson's opponents while defending Wilder because Tyson (like the vast majority of past champions and their opponents) is overrated while Wilder and his opponents are underrated. This isn't to say that Tyson wasn't a very good fighter but he was very limited anthropometrically, very young and inexperienced on his run to the championship. This strongly suggests to me that he and his opponents (who were also generally shorter and lighter than modern fighters, often with drug/alcohol problems) were overrated.
Because you mentioned his enormous weight and I thought that might be a good launching point for the discussion since it was slightly off topic and I thought it might get lost in the shuffle. I was hoping you might have some 2 cents on it as well. As for which posters, it's been a minute I can't remember exactly which posters. But I do remember butting heads with some people in the general forum who seemingly kept contradicting themselves when it came to the issue of fury's weight. One minute it's terrible how overweight he is and a valid excuse, but the next minute it's an advantage. And I'm directly comparing his weights in all 3 fights. It's not rocket science. They claim he wasn't at his best in the 1st fight because of enormous weight he had to lose. But he actually weighed even more in the rematches. The main point was that the claim is that fury looked bad and got dropped in the first fight because of his weight and being rusty. He was no longer rusty and was even heavier in the 3rd fight and still went life and death with Wilder getting dropped yet again. He was gassed and on the verge of being stopped himself in some moments. The way fury defenders just dismiss wilder as a worthy opponent and the excuses they use completely contradict. Well, yes. In this very thread and others people are now falling back on the fury wasn't 100% excuse and he wasn't all focused and there. I study body language. He seemed ready to repeat what he did in the 2nd fight and was genuinely surprised and a little wary of wilder the first few rounds. It took him a bit to adjust to the body shots, which basically just meant grabbing and mauling illegally yet again. Not his fault the ref didn't enforce the rules but that's a fact. Few does not automatically mean 3, it can mean 2: "not many but more than one" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/few It isn't thin air. It's an observable fact that Wilder had gone 12 rounds before. It's an observable fact he has late round stamina and multiple late round KOs and knockdowns. It's also observable that he looked out of it and off from the very beginning. He did NOT look like his usual self, unless you can show me fights besides the 2nd fury fight where he looked sluggish and weak and gassed in just 2 rounds? Yes fury contributed to him being drained, but how much? I don't buy that in just two rounds of leaning and head locks wilder was completely spent. It doesn't even make logical sense. We're not talking about limited sluggers like Lamar Clark here. And I never said anything about the gloves or costume. I'm simply saying just by looking at the film it's obvious wilder was not 100%. The reasons why are a totally separate issue. Well I've gone on record saying i do not think he has a very long Louis/Holmes type of reign, but he probably does better than the average 80's contender because he was disciplined, in shape, athletic, and not on drugs. And he has the x factor of absurd top 5 punching power. This was in response to this statement: You said he had many chances and didn't take them. I thought you were accusing Wilder of choking and not trying everything he could to win.
Although you're correct that Fury fans are often inconsistent, the weight issue isn't necessarily so. Bulking up to a weight -- or simply reaching a comfortable heavier weight naturally by dieting less -- is different from draining down to that weight after being obese. What Fury (supposedly) did in Fight #1 is draining down from being obese. What he (supposedly) did in the other fights was either bulking up or just letting his body find a comfortable spot. So I can see why some would see a difference.
I don't see anything in Fury's camps that indicate he was "bulking up". Dude looked like a blimp before the 3rd fight. This content is protected He has been a lardass since 2014 and rarely does serious strength training. There are hundreds of photos and clips of him chowing down on complete garbage. It's a stupid argument.
I don't know. I just don't buy the whole new and improved fury bulking up to a solid 270 nonsense. He obviously did his usual road work, heavy bag, sparring, etc. But I think he simply figured he can just overwhelm opponents with sheer size whenever convenient. Hence why he's a lot less disciplined with his diet.
Yeah, that's somewhat close to my view. I think he walks around as merely fat, but got morbidly obese during the layoff, and had to lose so much weight in fight 1 that his performance suffered. Fight 2 onward he wasn't suffering from the effects of drastic weight loss; just typical lack of discipline and overeating. Although the surprise strategy from fight 2 made a major difference as well, probably.
NEETzschean, I’ve already noted Larry’s circumstances. But it’s still impressive how Mike took him out in just 4 rounds. Nobody else ever did that. So how was it not impressive? He still had elite level skills. He was still a top level, top 10 HW in the 90’s. Mercer was a better fighter than Chisora. In HW boxing, anything can happen. We both know that. But how many people gave Lennox the trouble that Mercer did? Lennox lost to McCall and Rahman by getting caught. But Mercer almost beat him by winning rounds. Regarding Spinks, you had to be an elite level HW to push even a faded Holmes as close as he did on 2 occasions. Even if you didn’t agree with the decisions, Spinks proved his worth. Ask yourself how many guys who Wilder beat would have beaten Holmes in 1985. Again, if you don’t rate these guys, that’s cool. But then don’t come on here and pretend that Wilder’s competition were better, as they weren’t. It’s a joke. Again, Tucker, Holmes and Spinks are just superior to guys like Bermane Stiverne etc, and nobody knowledgeable is going to argue otherwise. If you think that Mike’s opponents were poor, then you have to believe that Wilder’s were garbage. There’s just no other way to look at it. Do you know what a journeyman is? Douglas was a world class fighter, who beat other world class fighters. I said that he was comparable to Bowe, in that he was unprofessional and inconsistent. With more dedication, he could have had a different career. You guys are too hung up on records. Look at his skill set. List me how many guys who Wilder fought with the same level of ability. You could count them on one hand. The whole world knows what happened in Tokyo. Again, Mike turned up in awful shape. He didn’t train. He was getting beaten up and dropped by Greg Page in sparring. The footage should still be on YouTube. He slept around, hardly did roadwork, and when the fight came around, he was completely gassed after 5 rounds. You do the math. He’d beaten guys better than Douglas. He’d beaten guys who’d beaten Douglas. You consider Douglas to have been a nobody. So how did a nobody beat a guy who’d destroyed Spinks and Holmes, as well as beating Tucker etc? Mike was nowhere near 100% either physically or mentally for that fight. If you’re one of the guys who thinks that Douglas would always have beaten Mike, then that’s cool. But don’t pretend that Mike was at his best. Douglas cashed out against Evander. He just went through the motions just like Mike had done against him. He didn’t want to be there. The version of Douglas who fought Mike in Tokyo, would never have laid down for Evander in just a few rounds. He then retired for 6 years. You can do what you want, but you just sound foolish. Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker and Michael Spinks etc, were clearly a better group of fighters than Bermane Stiverne, Luis Ortiz and whoever else you want to put forward on Wilder’s resume. Again, you cannot rubbish Mike’s opponents whilst hyping Wilder’s. It’s absolutely laughable. Sure, Larry was old and past his best. But again, he went on to beat Mercer and was a top HW in his 40’s, whilst still possessing great technical ability. Spinks got 2 decisions over a younger Holmes, who was looking to equal Rocky’s record. What the hell has Bermane Stiverne ever done? What has Ortiz achieved? What has Eric Molina etc ever done in comparison? Tell me how Wilder’s opponents are underrated. Tell me what they did at the highest level. Tell me why they’re better than Mike’s wins.
Really good post, but Holmes was nearly two years inactive before the Tyson. He'd had a good amount of tune-ups before Mercer. It was a really bad idea for Holmes to even entertain the idea of fighting a 21 year old Wunderkind with absolutely zero tune ups...or anything else. I hold Michael's one victory over Larry as impressive considering...however, the way he did it was almost universally panned by the critics at the time. He barely edged the fight by dint of his clowny slipperiness. I don't think anyone in boxing history would have been particulalry impressed by his performance but hey, he did the unthinkable, unseated a top 5 ATG. Good on him. The second fight was one of the most obvious, disgraceful decisions in the history of heavyweight championship boxing imo.
Although you wrote it in bold, that is an inaccurate statement. He fought Tyson 1.75 years after Spinks and wouldve been in training about 1.5 years after. It wasn't a huge layoff. There's a difference between Mike Tyson and Ray Mercer.
All respect, but doesn't 1 and a 3/4 years seem like a fairly lengthy lay off? I say that's one of the reasons Fury didn't look so hot against Wilder this last time (and imo basically got knocked out in the fourth round). And there's absolutely a HUGE difference in quality level between Mercer and 80s Mike. I didn't mean to imply anything different to that point.
Harsh, Rules. How else was a career light heavyweight that had never fought at heavyweight supposed to win against a guy like Holmes? He was hardly going to overpower him or overwhelm him with his size. Truth be told Spinks fought an absolutely perfect fight and stayed disciplined and gallant. He utilized his strengths and worked around Holmes age. I don't remember an extreme amount of criticism after the first fight. Sure it wasn't much of a spectacle but Spinks was there to win with what he had and that's what he did. I agree Holmes won the rematch but it's worth noting Eddie Futch believed Spinks won both fights and quite a few noted writers scored it for Spinks as well as a couple of good posters in here from memory. The comfortable majority favored Holmes tho, absolutely mate.
I recall being freeked by the finality of it. That Hagler smashed him so decisively, so consummately. I was astonished Hearns could have been so completely decimated.
