Why was Holmes better in the 90s than late 80s?

He wasn't better, more favorable match-ups maybe. No boxer has ever been better in their 40s than they were in their 30s.

Foreman doesn't count as the few years he fought in his 30s, he was still shaking off the rust from his 10 year retirement.

 

Well he did arguably beat Spinks in their second fight.

Tyson was a force of nature. 88 Tyson would have done the same thing to the 90's version of Holmes.

 

He wasn't better in the 90s he was fighting much easier opponents because he wasn't a champion. Every time he fought at the elite level or close to it he struggled.

 

The Holmes that lost to Spinks was trying to retire, and the Holmes that lost to Tyson wasn't in exactly "peak" condition. Mike would've stopped him in the 90s too, but their fight would've gone on longer.

 

If by “ late 80’s “ you mean that the only match you had to critique him on was a prime Tyson then I’d say it’s a moot topic. If you’re including his 1986 meeting with with Spinks then he was still facing an all time great in his prime and arguably got robbed

 

he aged like everyone else, the 80s are simply underrated and C Williams, Whitearspoon and Spinks were much better than it seems today

 

The way i see it:
- Spinks boxed flawlesss in their 1st fight. Executing his game plan perfectly and did enough to score a close win.
- Yes, he kinda won the 2nd Spinks fight.
- Tyson is a mismatch and in addition to that he wasn't in the best shape in 88.

I think he reinvented himself in the 90s: very crafty, economically, setting up traps, beeing awkward. His experience and durability helped a lot to be still competitive and gave us some surprisingly competitive fights vs much younger guys.

 

Holmes fought till 52 pretty sure

 

I respect your views, but I don't think Spinks boxed flawlessly. He didn't listen to his corner anywhere near as much as he should, and to me looked like just winged it the whole time (and looked mostly goofy doing so).

That said, Michael hit on something by giving Holmes (as Marv Alpert said) a "different look" again and again. Holmes did way better against conventional fighters whom didn't change up much. Spinks kept the aging champ on his toes and pretty much confounded him.

And THAT said, I had Spinks winning by a bare point in the first, and losing by 5 points in the second.

 

He reinvented himself by fighting worse opposition except for Holyfield, who fought down to the level of his opponents.

 

Because Tyson wasn't there to smoke him

 

I didn't recognise what you said about the coaching. I totally agree with the rest.
I think he did everything right with his awkwardness, even though it looked so ‘un-graceful’^^

In my opinion, he gave it his all, overcame resistance and did everything he could to achieve this very narrow victory. He invested a lot and really pushed himself to the limit. I've rarely seen such an exhausted fighter after a fight.