How do you rate Tyson's win over Holmes?

[Controversial]

I remember at the time the press made a big thing about Holmes's age (38) when he fought Tyson but was age really a factor in his defeat? Considering how highly Holmes is rated by people (in most peoples top 3 greatest HW ever) Tyson's quite emphatic destruction of Holmes is rarely given credit.

Lets not forget after losing Holmes fought another 24 times, going 21-3 only losing to Holyfield (aged 42), McCall (aged 45) and a disputed loss to the undefeated Brian Nielsen (aged 47). He was never stopped again, beat the undefeated Ray Mercer quite handily four years after the Tyson loss and had two more cracks at the world title losing on points to Holyfield and McCall much later in life.

I'm not sure why he never had any warm up fights for Tyson, fighting him two years after losing to Spinks. Saying that I'm not sure how warm up fights wouldn't ultimately helped him against Tyson as Tyson wasn't your average heavyweight in those days.

So how do you rate this win for Tyson?

[Ezzard]

He was a replacement I think. Coaxed out of retirement by King.

My issue is that Tyson blew people away. It was dramatic the way in which he did it. And that does count for something… But I don’t give too many extra points for big KOs.

A swarmer who could slip the jab would always be problematic for Larry. Maybe prime for prime it plays out in the same way. But if Tyson shipped a few right hands early on Larry would have tamed him.

I really don’t think at that time that Holmes was a worthy contender.

[evrenb]

I feel Tyson should be given great credit for this win. Holmes was a handful for anyone at any age. Was he at his peak? No. But as you stated he gave Holyfield a very competitive bout, beat Mercer and I though unlucky not to get the nod against McCall. Tyson in the late 80's based his style on being exciting and taking people out. I think he should be praised for his big knockouts. He not only kayoed Holmes but completely dominated the whole fight minus the first minute of round 4. Tyson was a supremely confident, well trained , focused and dangerous fighter in the late 1980's. Berbick - destroyed, Thomas - Destroyed, Holmes - Destroyed, Tubbs - destroyed, Bruno - destroyed, Spinks - Destroyed. The only fighters to challenge Tyson in his prime were Tucker who was a great fighter and Smith who held all the way.
I know it will not be too popular here but Tyson in this era was probably the best fighter at Heavyweight that ever lived. I'm not saying he was the greatest of all time because the longevity wasn't there.
Tyson was definitely affected by his own demons and chaotic lifestyle, be it his own doing or not they existed.

Evren

[Controversial]

Berbick - destroyed, Thomas - Destroyed, Holmes - Destroyed, Tubbs - destroyed, Bruno - destroyed, Spinks - Destroyed. The only fighters to challenge Tyson in his prime were Tucker who was a great fighter and Smith who held all the way.
I know it will not be too popular here but Tyson in this era was probably the best fighter at Heavyweight that ever lived. I'm not saying he was the greatest of all time because the longevity wasn't there.
Tyson was definitely affected by his own demons and chaotic lifestyle, be it his own doing or not they existed.

Evren

I agree. If Cus and his original team were still about and Tyson stayed on the straight and narrow physically and mentally, stayed focused, trained hard etc... its frightening to think how long he would've ruled for. He would've got better as well I think, he was still quite inexperienced when he won the title as he had blown almost everyone away in double quick time.

[evrenb]

I remember Larry when asked how Tyson's power compared to Kenny Norton and Earnie Shavers he said Tyson was a sharper puncher...those other guys punched much harder but tyson was very awkward and very fast. Something like that anyway.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It was a solid win, Larry was more formidable when he fought Evander and even McCall.

[Controversial]

Yeah a few guys said other fighters hit harder than Tyson but it was his speed, combinations and two handed power that made him so deadly. His left hook, right uppercut and right cross were all fight finishers. I remember one commentator say that Tyson's punches even sounded different when they landed, might've been Ray Leonard who said it.

[evrenb]

Funny I watched Tyson's comeback (first one) against Tillman last night and although he got the first round KO he was way off from where he was in the 1986 - 1988 era.
Regarding Holmes ; he was probably in better form as he was active but older. Larry didn't like opponents conducting the pace of a fight.

[Controversial]

It was a solid win, Larry was more formidable when he fought Evander and even McCall.

How was he more formidable? Not sure how a 45 year old Holmes was any better than he was at 38 especially being as he was heavier as well?

[man]

larry was clearly well past prime. his record
after the fight just showed how great even a
fading holmes was.

that being said, prime mike tyson can defeat
anyone. prime4prime this would have been a
great matchup. the real fight left the sour
taste of aging greatness ...

[Ambling Alp II]

This fight means less than when Lewis beat Tyson.

[Counter-puncher]

It was a solid win, Larry was more formidable when he fought Evander and even McCall.

How was he more formidable? Not sure how a 45 year old Holmes was any better than he was at 38 especially being as he was heavier as well?

more prepared & less rusty I am guessing

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It was a solid win, Larry was more formidable when he fought Evander and even McCall.

How was he more formidable? Not sure how a 45 year old Holmes was any better than he was at 38 especially being as he was heavier as well?

He was in better shape and used tune ups to get his timing. If you remember at the time the Tyson/Holmes fight just popped up out of nowhere. Larry only trained for a couple of weeks. Not that the later version would have beaten that Tyson, but he was clearly a better fighter.

[evrenb]

This fight means less than when Lewis beat Tyson.

Hi

I disagree with this ; After Tyson lost to Lewis he never showed any ability again and lost to mediocre fighters ; Williams, McBride. He was clearly way past his best. Holmes on the other hand fought for many more years after his loss and beat some of the best of the era (mercer) and was highly competitive against the elite (holyfield).

Also Tyson performed better against Lewis who tied Tyson up a lot, leaned on him etc.

Just my opinion


Evren

[Controversial]

Larry Holmes

"I was in Easton, Pennsylvania {running business operations}. They came at me with a $3,400,000 Fight Purse."

"I didn't need the money, but that kind of money was hard to turn down. I was over 250 lbs., and I figured a
one fight 'Cash Pay-Out' was like hitting the Lottery by accident. Kind of like purchasing a 'Quick-Pick' with
some extra change that you had in your pocket."

"I put in about 3-Weeks of Training with Bernard Benton, the former Cruiserweight Champion. All I wanted to do,
was to get down in weight, and give it a go. Make it look respectable."

Even if Holmes had a full training camp I still see the result being the same. Fitness wasn't an issue in the fight and Holmes didn't look like he was struggling, in fact he came out in the 4th round snapping out the jab like the old days. Skill wise he was still the same fighter, he never really relied on speed or a high work rate.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

If you substitute Ray Mercer for Tyson that night, Larry would have gotten his ass kicked.

[Jaywheel]

The only fighters to challenge Tyson in his prime were Tucker who was a great fighter and Smith who held all the way.
I know it will not be too popular here but Tyson in this era was probably the best fighter at Heavyweight that ever lived.
Evren

Buster Douglas would like to have a word with you.

[Jaywheel]

Solid win for Tyson. Up there with the Ruddock win on his resume.

[Ambling Alp II]

This fight means less than when Lewis beat Tyson.

Hi

I disagree with this ; After Tyson lost to Lewis he never showed any ability again and lost to mediocre fighters ; Williams, McBride. He was clearly way past his best. Holmes on the other hand fought for many more years after his loss and beat some of the best of the era (mercer) and was highly competitive against the elite (holyfield).

Also Tyson performed better against Lewis who tied Tyson up a lot, leaned on him etc.

Just my opinion

I'm sorry, I guess I should have explained my reasoning.

First, as far as deciding how far past his prime a fighter is, I think it's more important how a fighter was performing before the fight that you are talking about than after. Before the Lewis fight, Tyson was certainly past his best but was also certainly better than he performed vs McBride and Williams.

2nd, at first glance you might look at Holmes performances vs Mercer, Holyfield, and McCall and think he was at higher level for the Tyson fight than he was. Holmes was very rusty when he fought Tyson. He had not fought in almost two years. After the Tyson fight, he fought several tuneups before he fought Mercer and got rid of the ring rust.

3rd, Tyson was 21 when he fought Holmes who was 38.
Tyson was almost 36 when he fought Lewis, but Lewis himself was 36. He is actually older than Tyson. To me, Lewis-Tyson seems like a much more fair fight.

Not saying that the Lewis-Tyson fight was anything near the importance as it would have been if they fought in their 20s. However, I think it should count for something.

[Datsue]

The only fighters to challenge Tyson in his prime were Tucker who was a great fighter and Smith who held all the way.
I know it will not be too popular here but Tyson in this era was probably the best fighter at Heavyweight that ever lived.
Evren

Buster Douglas would like to have a word with you.

[drunkenpiper36]

A very good performance, but not a legacy win. Holmes was 38 years of age, had not fought in two years and had been washed up for sometime, even before the layoff. A win over Larry Holmes looks good on anyone's record, but the name belied the actual quality of the opponent at the time of the meeting.

[evrenb]

The only fighters to challenge Tyson in his prime were Tucker who was a great fighter and Smith who held all the way.
I know it will not be too popular here but Tyson in this era was probably the best fighter at Heavyweight that ever lived.
Evren

Buster Douglas would like to have a word with you.

First I would never take away from Douglas' amazing victory. As i stated earlier the Tyson of 1986 - 1988...the opponents I listed were beaten during those years...coincides with the loss of Rooney and co...cliche but true....

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think it's more convenient than it is true. I'd pick that Douglas to beat any version of Tyson.

[evrenb]

This fight means less than when Lewis beat Tyson.

Hi

I disagree with this ; After Tyson lost to Lewis he never showed any ability again and lost to mediocre fighters ; Williams, McBride. He was clearly way past his best. Holmes on the other hand fought for many more years after his loss and beat some of the best of the era (mercer) and was highly competitive against the elite (holyfield).

Also Tyson performed better against Lewis who tied Tyson up a lot, leaned on him etc.

Just my opinion

I'm sorry, I guess I should have explained my reasoning.

First, as far as deciding how far past his prime a fighter is, I think it's more important how a fighter was performing before the fight that you are talking about than after. Before the Lewis fight, Tyson was certainly past his best but was also certainly better than he performed vs McBride and Williams.

2nd, at first glance you might look at Holmes performances vs Mercer, Holyfield, and McCall and think he was at higher level for the Tyson fight than he was. Holmes was very rusty when he fought Tyson. He had not fought in almost two years. After the Tyson fight, he fought several tuneups before he fought Mercer and got rid of the ring rust.

3rd, Tyson was 21 when he fought Holmes who was 38.
Tyson was almost 36 when he fought Lewis, but Lewis himself was 36. He is actually older than Tyson. To me, Lewis-Tyson seems like a much more fair fight.

Not saying that the Lewis-Tyson fight was anything near the importance as it would have been if they fought in their 20s. However, I think it should count for something.

I agree and disagree with some of those points. I will put my case like this : no one before or after done to holmes what tyson did that night......except Duane Bobick lol :-)

[keithmoonhangover]

A Very High Quality Win

I'd rate it a 'very high quality win'.

Mike was very impressive, and had come into the bout in fantastic physical condition. Some say,
that was the best Mike Tyson - both physically and mentally.

This was no 'walk-over', despite Larry's advanced age {38 years, 3 months}. Despite only having
a few weeks to prepare, Larry was still a smart fighter who could neutralize hard-punchers and
present difficulty to anyone.

Mike was 'focused' in this bout, and may have been the perfect fighting machine on that January 22, 1988 night.

We agree on something other than drummers.