Shot Fighters - Who gets the most credit...

How can you take the title from Larry twice? Also, you can make a very strong argument that Larry should have gotten the decision in the rematch. And you can make an argument he won the first fight. Larry Holmes is anything but self centered. He just recently got the boy of steel award for donating millions to the fight against cancer. He's given back more to his community then most. He pretty much pays for the St. Anthony's youth center single handildly with all of his donations. He only charges $15 a month to go his gym. The whole reason his gym is open to the public is to keep the kids off of the street. He would take years off of his life if it helped kids be productive and funtioning members of society. It is a well known fact that the only reason Larry took the fight against Tyson was for the pay day. They were both shot fighters, or close to it, and they are known as Tyson's best wins, when they shouldn't be.

 

He took the title from him and beat him in the rematch. Regardless of what you think of the both verdicts, one thing was clear; Spinks belonged in the Heavyweight Division based on his victories (or in your case very close fights) against the champion.

What I meant by self centered is that Holmes was a proud Champion, the fact that he gave a better account of himself by beating Mercer 4 years after the fact and extending Holyfield to the distance taking about 4 rounds in the process means that he had more in the tank than some give him credit for. I dont buy for one second that Holmes was underprepared or only took the fight for the payday. Holmes was a respectable champion with solid wins and a respectable reign. Furthermore in 1987 Tyson was at the height of his powers, I find it hard to believe that anyone would sign for a fight with him and not come in tip top shape. I mean who doesnt train their ass off for Tyson?

To me Tyson's win over Holmes was better than Holyfield's win over Foreman.