The Holmes that fought Tyson...

this is nonsense. holmes looked like he was shot in the Witherspoon fight. for some reason he faded badly right after the fight with Cobb. i tend to ntoice these things. he might have still been a good fighter in comparison with other heavyweights but he was no longer the best but one of the best.

he was not sharp at all and stuggled in almost every fight. some of those fights should never have taken place; Frazier, Scott Frank :yuck James Smith, David Bey ukke Carl Williams. the proof he was washed up was the Spinks fight.

Tyson doesnt need Holmes to prove his greatness. he was boxing in the late 80's, the newsmaker and even in his loss to Douglas he was still great.

 

Larry wasn't as in good of shape as you would think. He pulled an Ali and trimmed down to look slimmer. He was still rusty, sparring doesn't get rid of ring rust. Sparring just isn't the same as fighting for a title or in a real match. Larry wasn't fully mentaly prepared either. Its obvious that for the first and last time going into the ring he wasn't confident and he was intimidated. Its not that he couldn't take Tyson's punches as much as he just wanted to survive and was even a little bit scared. Those two things usually will cause you to go down easier then if you were confident and are in the mind set that you are invincible. Afterwards Larry said that Tyson didn't hit as hard as he thought he would (Bonecrusher Smith said the same), and that he's been hit harder by Shavers and Cooney. The Tyson fight is similar to Ali-Holmes IMO, or Louis-Marciano. The older guy trims down and looks like he's in great shape, but really he's only a shell.

As for the later wins, he changed his style up. He formed into more of a counter puncher that made you come to him, not chase him, and nailed you with his jab as you got into range. He was an old man trying to survive and at the start of the 4th round dance like he did 10 years earlier. Not a good mix as we saw.

 

This thread is crazy.

Holmes was a greatly diminished fighter from what he had been, he'd been slipping 5-6 years earlier, he'd been retired for 21 months, was coming straight back with no tune-up, and he was 38 years old, there's absolutely no sensible argument against any of these things.

None of these things have ever been doubted, they surely weren't doubted at the time, and Holmes was never given a chance back then against Tyson for precisely those reasons. In fact, other young heavyweights had been favoured over Holmes for some time.

Pinklon Thomas landed more jabs and one-twos on Tyson than Holmes even dared to throw. He took a better punch that night than Holmes too. I think Tyson should be given more credit for that win over Thomas than for what he did to Holmes. Holmes wasn't the same has he had been, he barely mounted an offensive against Tyson.

I dont care what Holmes did afterwards, after he had several tune-ups he beat Ray Mercer, but Mercer wasn't that good. Holyfield beat Holmes clearly, dont forget that. Sure, Tyson's power made his victory more spectacular and impressive than Holy's workman-like effort, that's good, it's a good finish.
But Tyson should really be credited with beating the good younger fighters he beat, not old rusty Holmes.

Give it a week or two and I would not be surprsised to hear some of you guys saying "Tyson destroyed an ATG heavyweight in his prime", "Tyson beat a peak Holmes".

 

On the contrary to the people that said Larry was fatter in the Mercer fight, look at this picture of Larry's build. Its about the same IMO.

This content is protected

 

The Ali/Holmes example you used is nonsensical in terms of analyzing Tyson/Holmes. Ali was already showing signs of Parkinson's by the time he fought Holmes, and he was under the influence of powerful thyroid medication that was incorrectly prescribed for a thyroid condition that he didn't have. So, a sick, doped up Ali gets soundly thrashed by Larry Holmes. But Larry Holmes, who was neither sick nor on any incorrectly prescribed medication at the time, gets soundly thrashed by Tyson and that supposedly shows how weak the victory is for Tyson?

The Holmes that Tyson knocked out was light years better than the Ali that Holmes beat.

And, as far as Holmes' inactivity prior to facing Tyson, 21 months is not exactly Foremanesque in terms of layoffs. Even Larry Holmes himself said prior to facing Tyson that the layoff served to reinvigorate and heal his body. It was only after Holmes got knocked on his ass that he started complaining about how detrimental the layoff was to him. Typical Holmes stuff by the way.

 

I just don't see it. Holmes still looked quick and agile against Tyson. He was lighter, and he moved just as well - or even better - than the supposedly better trained and focused Holmes of 1992. If you put the Larry Holmes of the HOlyfield or Mercer fights in against the Tyson of 1988, I still think the result is the same. The result wouldn't improve any.

 

Tyson was incredible that night. He had all the physical gifts and was still using them all to maximum effect at this stage. Holmes was still a fine fighter although no where near his peak. It was a signature win for Iron Mike.

 

Holmes did just about NOTHING against Tyson. He "moved well" means he knew how to run and hold for 3 rounds, and that's about all he did.

I basically agree with the idea that he was no better for Mercer and Holyfield, but I think the tune-ups and activity gave him some confidence and probably sharpened his timing. But that's probably offset by him being older and heavier anyway.

Obviously Holmes beat Mercer because Mercer was not as good as Tyson. In fact Mercer wasn't a particularly good boxer at all, just tough. (The guy had a 12-round war with Bert Cooper, and I seem to remember he was trailing on points against Damiani, I think).

Holmes-Mercer. Great win for an OLD MAN, but that's about it.

Holyfield beat Holmes clearly. Because Holmes scored with a few counter-shots off the ropes in the early rounds, making Holyfield look a bit dumb for a second, people seem to think Holmes "did well". Well, I thought he lost about 10 rounds and spent most of the fight trying to survive.

Let's face it, the REAL Larry Holmes was the one fighting in 1978-82, certainly not 1988 or 1992.

 

I think that this argument is going back and forth a little too much, with a little misinterpreting on both sides.

I don't believe that anyone is arguing that Holmes was still at his peak. No one is saying that Tyson beat the version of Holmes that people argue as a top 10 all time great. Holmes did go on to show that he had some fight left in him after the Tyson fight. People are saying the Holmes win was a good win over a quality heavyweight, not a great win over the best of the best.

 

Exactly! Holmes did almost nothing against Tyson because he knew he was in over his head and would get hurt the first time he really opened up. But that doesn't reflect the fact that Holmes was a shot fighter as many seem to think. It had more to do with Tyson himself.

 

This thread is ****ing ridiculous!!!

You guys are somehow trying to give Tyson credit for a "high quality win" because he beat a 38 year old boxer coming off of two straight losses and almost a two year layoff. Just face it, Tyson never beat a great heavyweight in their prime or even near their prime. I understand part of this was due to his sentence, but don't try to rationalize that Holmes was anything more than he was in 1988-- ten years after he won the WBC belt nonetheless.

 

Just because they say they feel like they are in the best shape of their lives doesn't mean it's true. Ali said he felt great before he fought Larry, was he right? Larry forgot that he was older and far past his best. Larry said that as he was walking into the ring he realized he wasn't ready, and wasn't as sharp as he used to be. Ring rust is a very dangerous thing, and it caught up with Larry that night. Larry was an old man trying to fight like he used to (without the offence) 8 years before. The only time Larry truly moved like he did in his younger days was at the start of the 4th round where he popped Tyson with his jab. When he stopped moving he got caught.

 

Prime Tyson vs prime Holmes would have been awesome!

 

This is a GREAT post Magoo! You've done a great job of actually understanding a great fighter, IMHO..... deserves kudos from me

Anyway, I've nothing to add to what you already wrote. Except, of course, to state you are a great benefit to the forum for cutting out the crap on this one!

 

Agreed! Too bad Tyson never faced a prime Larry Holmes!