What 21 year old fighter was greater than Tyson from the Spinks fight?

Maybe. I don't know, one was 2 years retired, the other was in active fighting shape.

 

Garbage as usual & expected. Btw, you got a crinkly hair stuck in your teeth Gladys

 

One was a well rested 38 year old and the other was 40 something.

How many examples are there of fighters improving in their forties?

I guarantee Holmes wouldve had an excuse ready if Mercer knocked him out.

 

No one.

Seriously.

 

About as many as they are fighters being better coming straight off a two year lay off, than with a few comeback fights.

 

Well, I'm hoping you don't have your mind made up. I don't think years of being well-rested is a winner factor in any boxing match. Factors like will, endurance, heart, active fight schedule, ring I.Q., studying the opponent's tactics, prime conditioning (as opposed to over and under conditioning) tend to take a front seat. It's massively important to get rest...but 2 years worth?

And there really AREN'T many examples of fighters improving in their 40s. However, it could be argued the Holmes who fought Mercer had a higher ring IQ than he ever did at his prime, it actually had most to do with beating an indubitably top contender who at the time had already held a world title belt and come off a shatteringly impressive victory.

And I doubt you'll like anything I've written but it bears mentioning:Buster Douglas at his best was not 1980 Holmes. Never was, never could be...and he wasn't that on that Tokyo night, either. Douglas beat the living dog poop out of an UNDER 25 Tyson..

But as mentioned, you won't be happy with those assertions. They weren't mean to aggravate or annoy you.

 

Mercer was **** though.

Holmes in 1988 cannot be compared to PRIME Holmes.
well, he can be compared, but the gulf is massive.

 

Two off the top of my head:

The George Foreman who beat Cooney and Adilson Rodriguez and gave Evander a helluva fight and later beat Michael Moorer — in his 40s — was better than the late-30s version who fought Tim Anderson and Steve Zouski after being off 10 years. He fought his way into shape, improved his timing and defense, etc.

Same for Larry Holmes. He ‘second’ comeback, where he fought himself into shape and had fights one after another resulted in a better version as far as conditioning, timing and adjusting to what his body could do at that age.

He was off nearly two years and ill-prepared for the Tyson fight. Even Tyson himself admits he could not have beaten a prime Holmes.

You act like a fighter degrades with each day after a certain age and that preparation and timing and being in fighting shape with sharper reflexes has nothing to do with how good a fighter is — just if he’s 40 years and 200 days, he’s automatically worse than at 39 years and 311 days. That’s not how it works.

In fact, you know this but you’re so entrenched in your position you won’t admit things you know are true.

I’m over 40. If I fought today, I’d be hard-pressed to do anything because I haven’t trained. Allow me to train for 6 months and I’m absolutely going to be a better version of myself than I am today.

 

Mayweather did it. Vitali did it.

Now who tf got better in their forties?

 

Larry Holmes is chronically full of ****. Stop pretending like he was pulled off the street and didn’t train. Also, stop pretending he was out for two years. The time between losing to Spinks and entering training camp was nowhere near two years.

Now if you are talking about out for a decade George Foreman or your middle aged nonathlete self, it means you are reaching.

 

Holmes saw Damiani schooling Mercer and saw a chance for himself.

Shavers and Snipes landed the same right hand that Tyson trashed Holmes with. Larry was never beating Tyson.

 

I don't see what makes Mayweather better vs Marquez than he was vs Mosley apart from the style in front of him. Same with Vitali. There's no difference between him vs Peter and him vs Johnson or Briggs. 'Well rested' is a very self serving term. It's blatant watching Holmes vs Tyson, and vs Holyfield that the extra work and lack of inactivity hurt him.

George Foreman was better at 41 than he was at 37/38, for precisely the same reasons as Holmes was.

 

Nope. Holmes was out for about a year and a half. He might’ve been preparing for an exhibition too. Pretty much Gary Russel’s fight schedule.

He had a prime Mike Tyson to deal with.

 

Excellent rebuttal. The points made here were impeccable and I can't refute them.

 

An old depleted Holmes still almost survived the round against Tyson though, Tyson had to land a lot more than one punch to get old Larry out of there. Holmes lasted about 78 seconds after that right hand.
And that was Holmes who was a mere shell of his prime self.
A shell.

Prime Holmes would do a lot better. Obviously.