January 22, 1988: Larry Holmes outpoints Mike Tyson (UD12)

I don't think it's reasonable to assume this scenario. It's like imaging Jeffries beating Johnson in 1910 - impossible, they both weren't good enoughat this point.

 

Exactly, just fantasy

 

Reasonable? We write lists comparing 105lb men in 2020 against 200lb men from 1880 pound for pound, whatever that really means...


It is just a bit of fun!

 

What? Not even close.
Foreman was a real monster who destroyed Frazier and Norton before he fought Ali .
Tyson did nothing even close to this after or before he fought Holmes

 

Holmes beating Tyson would have been huge imho. It would have conclusively shown that he could handle an aggressive swarming style of the highest calibre. He's already in many people's top 5. Beating a prime Tyson at that age would have elevated him to whatever position you care to argue him at. It would have added a lot of shine to his resume.

 

I put the likes of Ali, Louis, Lewis, Marciano, Liston, Foreman ahead of him and Frazier and Tyson equal to him. Falls anywhere from 6-8 for me. Not a knock.

 

I watched the McCall-Holmes fight (scored it in the what fights did you watch thread) and think I came out 115-113 for McCall. That fight was there for the taking for Holmes. It was a frustrating fight to watch, as the rounds he lost were mostly because he didn't do anything. McCall is pretty ineffective that night, but Holmes has huge spurts of inactivity. I know he was older and it was his last fight as a member of the elite, so to speak, but it was right there. I wonder what would have happened if he won. Holmes-Foreman, Holmes-Lewis?

Not that you asked, but here's what I wrote back in 2013 (where does the time go?) when I first saw the fight -

Instead of checking out other Larry Holmes title run fights I went the total opposite direction and watched his WBC title try against Oliver McCall that took place 17 years after he originally won the same title vs. Norton. I really just wanted to get this fight out of the way so to speak as I had often saw it was a close fight on boxrec and wanted to see it myself. I never heard of this fight as being a robbery. In fact you don't hear much about this fight at all. I now see why. Not going to be quite as detailed with my scorecard here, just give a few thoughts.

I scored it 115-113 McCall, with one "swing" round, that I scored for Holmes anyway. Fairly easy fight to score, but an odd one. Larry Holmes insisted the fight stayed on the ropes - and at 45 years old who could blame him - but got outworked and out muscled the majority of the time while on said ropes.

Holmes dominated the center of the ring action, the jab was still really damn good. McCall showed flashes of a great jab himself but is largely lucky that the old man was too tired to keep it in the center of the ring. Odd moments of the fight included McCall occasionally taking large laps around the ring (They did mention his "partying" habits and his was well into then by then) and Holmes calling McCall to the corner and McCall just looking at him inviting him back to the center of the ring. They both wanted to do the opposite thing they were good at that fight.

Any version of Holmes prior to 45, including the Holyfield loss and Mercer win beat this version of McCall, at least from what I saw.

 

I think that it is a question of who he did really beat

 

If Larry Holmes defeated Mike Tyson in Janury 1988 and had not only regained the WBC and IBF belts but won ALL the heavyweight titles ... and improved his record to 49-2, I can't image him not fighting Spinks a third time to avenge the only guy who defeated him.

Had Holmes defeated Tyson after Spinks stopped Cooney, Holmes-Spinks III would've been a monster fight.

I see no way it wouldn't happen.

But, I just want to follow the scenario you asked about. So, let's say, he's doesn't.

Holmes beats Tyson, and calls it a day. Retires for good in 1988 on top with all the belts. Becomes the oldest man to win the World Title (George wouldn't do it for another seven years).

Had Holmes defeated Mike Tyson and retired at 49-2, I could see him being rated the #1 heavyweight of all time.

Because Tyson certainly would've still beaten the guys who picked up vacant belts (whether it was Bruno or The Truth Williams or Tubbs, whomever.) And Tyson still would've defeated Spinks. So Tyson would've regained belts after losing them to Holmes. The beauty pageant in Indiapolis was still three years away.

So, with wins over heavyweight champs like prime Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith, Mike Weaver and Trevor Berbick ... and his only loss to all-time great Michael Spinks ... how would Holmes NOT be ranked #1 all time?

Louis didn't beat better heavyweights.

Ali might have a claim, but Ali didn't beat as many champs.

So it would've been a choice between Ali and Holmes for the top spot as the best heavyweight ever.

And had Holmes faced Spinks a third time, won and retired at 50-2, he'd definitely be #1.

 

I can't see Liston, Marciano, or Lewis ahead of Holmes, but all respect to @Gazelle Punch for his opinion. He seems like an educated member here.

I always make sure to read both you and Gazelle's posts here, @GOAT Primo Carnera you always have something interesting to say.

 

Apropos of the post I made in the 'Prime Larry Holmes vs Mike Tyson' thread - where the questions above originated, it would have been seen as a massive upset - not unlike the one Buster Douglas would actually achieve. It would also have, without doubt, significantly reinforced Holmes' already well-established rating.

And, since the alternative universe you outline does not provide much in the way of redemption for Tyson, some additional questions might be, how much damage would the loss have done to Tyson's legacy and how might Holmes' victory over him be perceived in light of this?

 

I find it hard to hypothizize about something that came nowhere close to happening.

I will say that if a prime Tyson had lost to 38 year old Holmes it would have been bad for the sport.