Why couldnt Holy put away a a 40 something year old Holmes?

Agree. Also, the styles of fighting in the Holy-Tyson bouts favored a Holyfield stoppage of Tyson.

 

I remember Holyfield getting alot of **** for this fight and the Foreman one.

Holmes was coming off a schooling of Mercer, whom Evander was expected to defend against.

Holmes stayed in his guard on the ropes and just looked to counter all night, and as I recall Evander got a pretty bad cut from an accidental elbow that slowed him down.

As pointed out Evander also just isn't a knockout puncher, though he could mess the most durable guys up with sneaky counters like his left hook on Mercer/Bowe and the right cross on Tyson. That didn't happen in this fight as Holmes didn't take many risks.

 

I agree with what Mongoose says above.

However, I do think Evander rightfully deserves criticism for not being able to do better against a 42 year old Holmes. It was this fight that still has me believe that a Tyson from the late 80s beats Evander. I know Holmes himself stated in an interview that he would never consider coming back into the ring as long as Tyson was champ because Mike was just too good. True to his word, as soon as Mike was out of the picture Holmes came back to humiliate Ray Mercer and make things awfully close with Evander. Prime Holmes clearly outpoints Evander.

 

Holmes fought defensively and Holyfield was conservative in his attack. It's not deeper than that.

Also, Holyfield > Tyson

 

Holmes still at 42 was a tough opponent and was always one of the most crafty fighters in the ring. Not many people give Holmes much credit for his comeback or Tyson much credit for destroying him. Holmes comeback was quite impressive at 42, he gave everyone he fought a tough fight, beating mostly all his opponents some of which were decent and one good yet one dimensional fighter in Ray Mercer. He fought a good fight against Holyfield which made the fight very interesting. Holmes defended excellently and actually had some very good rounds where he whacked Holyfield with some good right hands. Holyfield overall out worked him winning the decision clearly but the fight was competitive.

I feel Tyson's destruction over a 38 year old Holmes was much more impressive then most people make it out to be because Holmes though not in his prime and likely with some ring rust still had quite a bit left and was very crafty I don't see many fighters in history being able to destroy Holmes the way Tyson did on that night. It doesn't prove a prime Tyson was better then a prime Holyfield though as anyone who knows anything about boxing knows that styles make fights and a faded Holmes could deal much better with Holyfield's.

 

It's not as simple as that. Foreman took control of centre ring and came after Holyfield.
Holmes fought a very, very different fight.
Very few fighters can look good against a guy that retreats to the corners and fights a defensive fight. Holmes made Mercer look bad and beat him with the same tactic. Even Nielsen made Tyson look bad doing much the same thing.

 

Holmes was a defensive wizard with underrated speed, timing, cagey ring generalship, and enough pop to get respect. It took a very special tremendously hard and fast punching relentless Tyson to take him out. Anyone else without that brand of special talent was not going to take him out.

Holy could punch and had a good offense, but not on the level of a Tyson. Holy was a more balanced fighter in terms of pacing his output, throwing a bit more but not quite as hard, and using a bit more defense. Anything less than the nonstop ferocious power-punching of a Tyson and Holmes is going rounds.

Holy was a bit confused by Holmes' defensive quick counterpunching style and did not want to foolishly fall into his traps too often, as did Mercer. So that rendered the fight more tactical. Holmes was sharper for Holy than he was for Tyson because he had been more active and fighting regularly at that point, and had learned how to adjust and win with an older body.

Holmes had an underrated chin too. Ray Mercer could crack and he took it pretty well from him. But that shows you just how freaking hard a prime Tyson could hit.

Remember how ferocious Mercer was against Morrison, and remember that guy got schooled by Holmes. So no surprise at all to me that Holmes had a few tricks of the trade in his arsenal that gave Holyfield a legitimate challenge. Experience and talent, even at an advanced age, matters. Larry didn't win 54 fights (up to Holy) and successfully defend the title 20 times without being special. Sometimes an old master can give you more troubles than a young tiger.

I remember after Mercer nearly decapitated Morrison, a friend of mine bet me that Mercer would stop Holmes, but I bet him that Holmes would at least go the distance, that he was an entirely different style than Morrison. My friend lost two bets in a row to me (he picked Morrison over Mercer) and that was the last time he bet me in boxing.

 

When he fought Butterbean he was 51 years old.......

 

And Holmes won a deserved unanimous decision.

judge: Vaughn LaPrade 97-92 | judge: Phil Kornberg 98-91 | judge: Peggy McCuen 96-93

A 10 years younger version of Holmes would have stopped him.

 

Holmes still had a solid jab, solid chin, defense and smarts as an older fighter ( Age 42 ). he managed to cut Holyfield. I think Holmes won 4 of the 12 rounds.

Holyfield didn't get a chance to counter ( One of his best attributes ), and Holmes positioning made Holy's left hook pretty much a non factor.

If they fought in their primes, Holmes wins IMO

 

Holmes was still good enough to completely embarress a guy that was being pegged as the best rising challenger at the time in Mercer.

Funny how perception is, on paper Evander failed to knockout an older former Champion whom Tyson already KOed a few years ago.

Imagine if Mercer/Holmes didn't happen, and Evander got to defend his title against the undefeated monster who just destroyed Morrison and Damiani. It would have gone down as magnficient defense.