The Holmes that fought Tyson...

I think he was pretty good, actually. He had been training for months, so he lost whatever ring rust he had during sparring. Since i think he beat Spinks in the rematch, you could even say he had not consistently been beaten (when in shape). As you said, the fact that he went on to accomplish something more than 4 years after, shows that he was still pretty good.

I think it is Tyson's second best win. The way in which he disposed of Holmes, which no one did before or after him, was very impressive to me.

 

I think the reason people take something away from tyson in this fight is because of the sheer intimidation. From the point of walking down to enter the ring holmes had a deer in headlight look on his eyes. I think the fear got to him and he spent most of the fight trying to survive rather than mix it up. Which is incredibly impressive feat, because he conceded the loss in his head before he ever even got a taste of tyson real power. Once he felt that power, he knew it was inevitable, he tried to survive the onslaught that led to the stoppage but it was an impossible feat to ask of any man.

At least thats my humble take on things.

 

I agree. I don't think Tyson gets as much credit for his win over Holmes as he should. And Larry Holmes' fans tend to downplay his fight with Tyson. But I think Mike Tyson beat a good version of Larry Holmes. Granted, Tyson didn't beat a prime, on top of his game Larry Holmes, but the Holmes that he did beat was still a good, solid fighter. The Holmes people are fond of saying how Larry was inactive for over two years and just jumped in to a Tyson fight cold. But that's not the case. Holmes looked very good and sharp as late as April of 1986 when he lost to Michael Spinks. Holmes was still a very good and solid fighter at that point. Then, he signs to fight Tyson in late 1987, and starts training for that fight. And Holmes still was training even before the Tyson fight was signed. So, in actuality, Larry Holmes was not inactive for two years; more like a year at best.

Even with a year layoff, considering how hard he trained for Spinks II and how good he looked, it's safe to say that Holmes didn't lose much by the time he fought Tyson. Remember, Holmes never took much punishment up to that point in time, and he had never been knocked out or severely beaten up. So, in 1988, Holmes' ring mileage was minimal. Combine this with the facts that Larry Holmes went on to beat Ray Mercer, fight Holyfield in a competitive fight, and nearly won the title again in 1995 against McCall, and what you have is a strong case that says Mike Tyson beat a good Larry Holmes!

 

It shows the absolute desperation of the Tyson jockriders that they have to exhume the dusty corpse of Larry Holmes to prop up their hapless hero. A 38 year-old man who hasn't had a fight in two years ends up being consider a great win simply because the heavyweight division was so weak.

Presumably Tyson's win over Brien Neilsen makes the Holmes fight even more significant, or something. Yeesh.

 

No question the inactivity hurt Holmes more than anything else. His previous fight was 2 years earlier, the Spinks rematch. When he came back again during the early 90's he had tune-up fights to prepare for Mercer and Holyfield.


As far as I know, Holmes wasn't even in the gym during his 2 years of inactivty apart from the 3 months training he had to prepare for Tyson.

 

I don't think that played that much of a role.

I don't doubt for a minute that Holmes was scared before the fight (didn't he want to postpone the fight from his locker room because he was so nervous?). But once the bell rang and he got hit by the first punch, his boxing instinct took over. When you see the way he complained and was angry after the 3rd when Tyson hit him after the bell, i see someone who's trying to win and who thinks he can win. The way he started dancing like Ali in the 4th certainly shows that he was confident.

 

I don't think it's desperation at all. It's just being analytical and judging the Tyson-Holmes fight with a rational eye. Holmes had not had a fight in 1 year, 9months - not two years! And, the fact that Holmes was 38-years old isn't necessarily saying much. He hadn't suffered a lot of beatings and he was never one to abuse his body like many other fighters. As late as April of 1986 Holmes looked very good and was sharp, so don't try and paint Holmes as being a "corpse"! He was not even close. Was he prime Holmes? Of course not! He was clearly past his best, but he was still a good fighter and a good win for Tyson!

 

I can see your point and I'm not saying its invalid. I just didn't see anything that reminded me of what I would call Holmes' instinctive will to win on display. He looked nothing like the champion that would get in the ring dripping of confidence from early/mid 80's. It looked more like he was running for survival thinking "maybe if tyson gets tired, or slows down, I can let my hands go" - which never happened. IMHO.

Either way it would have been better to see a prime holmes vs a prime tyson....but it was possible due to timing.

 

Do you honestly think Holmes was any better against Mercer and Holyfield than he was against Tyson? Do you think he had more skill or was any more capable? I really don't think he was. I think the Holmes of the Tyson fight was just as good - perhaps even better - than he was against Mercer or Holmes. Just look at the tape. Watch how Holmes moves and fights; watch his punches. Do you think the Holmes of the Tyson fight could have beaten Mercer and gone the distance against Holyfield? I think he could have. I don't think the Larry Holmes of the Mercer and Holyfield fights was any better than the one Tyson starched. It's just that Mercer was a very limited and one dimensional figher, and Holyfield lacked the firepower and aggressiveness that Tyson had in excess!

 

OK, let's get rational.

That's your rational rebuttal?

It's saying exactly what it says - Larry Holmes was 38 years old. And he hadn't had a fight in 643 days.

So when Holmes was two years younger and hadn't been away from the ring for 643 days, he "looked very good and was sharp." Yeah. Rational. That's what it is.

I'm well aware he wasn't dead. He was, however, 38 years old and coming off a two-year layoff. I thought Muhammad Ali looked pretty decent in the late rounds in the second Leon Spinks fight, but when he fought Larry Holmes in 1980 he was 38 years old and coming off a two-year layoff himself. To claim this "win" over Ali's wheezing carcass is a great tribute to Holmes' ability is laughable, and thankfully Larry Holmes had a distinguished enough career that his fans don't need to do so.

Tyson, on the other hand, needs all the help he can get.

 

I think you're exaggarating a bit. Fitzsimmons and Corbett were old and inactive for years too, yet they were Jeffries' best wins. Not to mention they were tiny by comparison. Marciano's opposition wasn't that young either (but i rate him highly), Norton (who was old and nearly retired) gave a peak Holmes a very tough fight. I think Tyson knocking out Holmes like that, was very impressive.

 

21 months out of the ring, 38-years old, Holmes hadn't looked at all impressive in about his last five fights BEFORE the lay-off. Even if you think he definitely beat Spinks in their 2nd fight it was hardly a dominant performance. His last opponent before Spinks, Carl Williams, had almost beaten him, given him hell for 15 rounds, closed his eye, arguably deserved the decision or a draw.
This was long before the layoff.

Nobody gave him a chance, some openly feared for his life.

Great PERFORMANCE by Tyson, but the opponent's name belies the quality of that opponent. Larry Holmes was a has-been, ill-prepared for the fight, coming straight off a layoff, and had been over-the-hill for sometime.

 

The holmes that he beat went on to beat mercer. Who did the tyson that lewis beat do after thier fight, oh yeah nothing.

 

I'd consider Tom Sharkey to be Jeffries' best win as champion. Prior to winning the title, you'd have to consider his KO of Hank Griffin.

You can be old and active, or young coming off a layoff, but expecting a fighter who is both near-40 AND immediately stepping up to a championship fight after a lengthy retirement to perform adequately is simply unfair.

That's why Marciano's win over a 37 year-old Joe Louis is far more impressive than Tyson's victory over the 38 year-old Holmes; Louis had fought continually since his comeback and was as good as you could expect a 37 year-old boxer to be. Holmes would become a better boxer during his second comeback career after managing a few fights under his belt - after another lengthy layoff Holmes fought Tim 'Doc' Anderson, an unimpressive fighter, and then reeled off another 4 wins before facing Ray Mercer a year later. If Holmes were to have faced Mercer (or a comparable contender) right off the bat instead of Doc Anderson, I'd offer that he'd have lost that fight too.

Being active certainly counts for something, and to claim otherwise only flies in the face of all history and evidence.