Larry Holmes was in his prime when Tyson beat him(Read the post first)

Yeah, but he wasn't in his prime when Tyson beat him. He was clearly at his best at light-heavyweight. And he wasn't a big heavyweight either, although his skills and ring generalship made up for his weight disadvantage.

 

We're no longer talking about that, you made a thread on a completely different topic and somehow are tying these two things together, and you straight up lied. **** you dude, **** you. I'm going to have you banned, count on it. This bull**** you pull is intolerable, and you're now crossing the line. ****ing lying fraud sack of ****.

And by the way, notice how noone else agrees with anything you say, even though you delude yourself into thinking so with posts like these. Read the other posts. You're a pathetic, delusional moron.

 

Holmes was in his prime in the late 70s and early 80s.

 

I tend to agree. Between 1978 and 1982. His schedule was busy the following year, 1983, and he began to slow down in the process. He took Rodriguez lightly as he came in around 220lbs, his career highest at the time I believe. He sat down on his jab through the entire fight, using it to control the fight. Holmes' reflexes, mobility, and co-ordination evaporated when he was in against the younger Witherspoon, who was 15-0 at the time. Holmes' heart wasn't to be questioned when he was just about outta there during the 9th round. I believe those fights showed the first significant signs that Holmes was spiralling downward from his prime.

 

I didn't say what you accused me of saying. You started a poll about me and a few other posters based on something we didn't say and got everyone to chime in on it, attempting to lose us credibility based on something we didn't even say. That's why you'll be banned, because you're slandering other posters with **** you've made up, because otherwise noone agrees with your bull**** opinions. I never said Tyson beat a prime Holmes as you accused me of. You outright lied. And you then played the further sympathy card by talking of disrespect to legends(once again, when I did nothing of the sort) to get others on your side, and rigged the poll on something I once again didn't say, to try to get people against me.

If that's not the lowest, most insecure, scumbag move I've ever seen pulled on this forum I don't know what is.

I even said in that very thread that a fight between the two prime for prime was 50/50, anyone can look that up. You're an insecure, lying fraud. **** you.

 

1. Holmes was not in his prime when he faced Tyson
2. Holmes is under ratted
3. Holmes is under apricatied by a lot of people
4. A prime Holmes would have given a prime Tyson problems.
5. Tyson would still have won if they meet in their primes.

 

What did I say? You accused me of saying that Tyson beat a prime Holmes at the start of this thread. Point me to where I said that in the thread.

I clearly said in that thread and this one that a fight between the two prime for prime is 50/50 for me. Again, point me to where I said it. I'll wait.

edit: You're now conveniently offline. Figures. What a loser.

 

:thinkWell gents, there is the jist of this sorry thread.

 

I think it's pathetic to go out of your way to "expose another poster", when clearly you are wrong. :-(

(This is where he inserts a dirty sex joke involving my mother) Like all trolls do.

 

Holmes was no where near prime when they fought, but I can't remember reading anyone say that.

Keep this sort of thread in the general forum, it ruins the classic for everyone else.

 

But he still got more fanfare and support vs Tyson than near all the others. Hindsight is great but Tyson flogged a guy many thought would be a live opponent. It's a quite decent win even if not earth shattering.

 

:happy


:yep

 

Do you think Spinks may have doubted his own ability a little vs Tyson?