As you know, 38-year-old Larry Holmes, who had previously been inactive for almost two years, lost to Mike Tyson in 1988. Feel free to replace the Holmes from the Tyson fight by another Holmes version. It doesn't matter if you think Holmes would end up losing or winning. It's all about the best possible version for this fight... Would you pick the younger Larry Holmes from Shavers I, or maybe the more experienced Holmes from fighting Muhammad Ali or Leon Spinks...? He wasn't always in best condition either. In some fights he seemed a bit overconfident or e.g., he said he got the flu before he fought Weaver... Anyways, which Holmes version would you choose?
If the question was framed as the earliest version of Holmes capable of beating Mike - I’d take the 78 version that faced Norton.
No, No, of course you can also take an older version. In general, I like to follow a boxer's career from time to time and analyze different nuances. For instance, I rewatched the Marciano fights a while ago. I think he got scar tissue that affected his career from Johnny Shkor on (according to Mike Stanton). But obviously, the pre Shkor version would be too green for a fantasy matchup against other champions. If I remember correctly, he didn't look good against Lee Savold but the commentator said that Marciano was sick before and first thought about postponing the fight... His left hand arguably wasn't completely developed until the fight against Matthews. Thus, even if he looked strong in some fights before (e.g., against Joe Louis), it's better to take a later version for a fantasy fight... He was a bit rusty against LaStarza II, due to inactivity and needed 4 rounds to get into the fight... Hmm, probably not the best version to pick. Later on, he became more of a volume puncher (at least evident against Moore) and lost some of his brute power... Therefore, I would take a Marciano version from Matthews till Walcott II. Probably Walcott II, because he might be a bit more experienced and confident as a freshly crowned world champion than before... But back to the thread topic. I think it's also an interesting question which Holmes version would be best against Tyson. I tend to Shavers I. I was very impressed by this performance. He certainly wasn't that experienced, but he was already 28 years old and speed + reflexes won't get any better later. Maybe this younger version was a little more elusive and less prone to big right hands... But okay, the Norton fight was just a few months later.
Holmes first win over Shavers was a great performance but it wasn't the best of Holmes for me and he was just past peak vs Cooney. I thought he filled out just a touch without losing anything post Norton too. I have him smack bang peak around the Ali fight.
no version of Holmes could handle 88 Tyson, all of his notable competition was significantly slower than Tyson and lacked combinations
To give Larry the best chance I’d probably pick the 1980 version. Holmes fought four times that year and by age 30 was likely at his peak. Given his somewhat late start in the game it took him a while to develop in the pros. That said I’m not sold on the idea that he’d beat Mike Tyson but I’d certainly give him a shot at it
