On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101710
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

Image
http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/on-this ... ry-holmes/

Tyson arrived in the ring unannounced and almost unnoticed, and most of the crowd did not even know he was there until he shrugged his way through the cluster of people in the centre of the ring sand started prowling around its perimeter, like an animal staking out a territorial claim.

Tyson at such times, seems oblivious to anything going on around him. His concentration on the hob in hand was so absolute that he did not even cursorily acknowledge the introduction, while Holmes looked edgy and was sweating heavily.

Tyson tore into the attack from the first bell, driving Holmes to the ropes with a right to the body and a left to the head and forcing him to clinch. It was the first of many clinches – each time Tyson got within range, Holmes would tie him up.

His tactics recalled Bonecrusher Smith’s 12 rounds survival exercise against Tyson, and a touch of irritation showed a Tyson made as if to punch after the bell and then pulled it back.

There was still no sign of the once-elegant Holmes jab in the second. He was pawing with the left, using it to fend Tyson off rather than punch cleanly, and it was not succeeding. Tyson bulled his way inside, clubbing rights to the ex-champion’s body and making Holmes look old and flat-footed.

Referee Cortez cautioned Holmes for holding late in the round.

Tyson actually ran across the ring at the start of the third, and Holmes met him with a couple of solid rights to the head. It was Holmes’ first real success, and it inspired him to produce his best work of the fight.

He got through with a series of right uppercuts, and effectively smothered Tyson’s counter attacks. It was beginning to look as if we might really have a contest to report – but then just as the bell sounded Tyson smashed in a crunching overhand right to the chin.

Holmes was clearly shaken, although he had done enough earlier in the round to win it on my card, and on those of two of the three judges.

The crowd responded instantly at the start of the fourth as Holmes came out dancing, hands dangling and popping out jabs. Briefly, it was like the old hays … but then Tyson rocked him with a big left hook and, as Holmes tried to grab him, a stunning right slammed the veteran to the floor.

It was not a knockdown in the usual sense – the impact was so tremendous that Holmes seemed to have been hurled onto the floor, rather than punched. Incredibly, he got up at four, shaking his head to clear it.

Referee Cortez gave him the rest of the mandatory eight count, then waved Tyson back in. Holmes tried to retreat across the ring, but the stocky Tyson charged after him and a flurry of blows, including right to the body and final right which grazed the top of Holmes’ head, dropped the dazed challenger again.

Once more, he was up at four, and indicated that he was all right. But he clearly was not, and this would have been the right time for the referee to rescue him.

Holmes’ legs were out of control, and he reeled back as Tyson poured in more stunning hooks to head and body. There was not a hint of the compassion which Holmes had shown Muhammad Ali in similar circumstances eight years ago: the heavyweight division has not seen a more merciless finisher than Tyson.

Just when it looked as if Holmes would survive the round, he was pinned in a neutral corner. He tried to punch his way out of it, nut his right hand had become entangled in the ropes and he was swung around, off balance and square on to Tyson, to take final full-blast right to the head.

He fell straight backwards, unconscious even before he hit the floor, and there was real anxiety around the arena until, after a couple of minutes, he had recovered enough to go back to his corner.

It was as comprehensive a defeat as we have seen in a title fight, but at least it was defeat with honour. Holmes fought to the end, and his last conscious action was that rope-thwarted right.

In the old cliché, he was carried out on his shield, and this proud man would not have settled for less.

“I made it clear to Larry Holmes that his career is unquestionably over”, Tyson said afterwards. “Larry was a great champion in his time, but his isn’t his time anymore.”

Richie Giachetti, Holmes’ long-time trainer, summed it up best. “Larry went out with style, none of this tie-the-guy-up-the-whole-time stuff”, he said.

“He was moving real nice there in the fourth round and he stopped. He stopped. You can’t do that against Tyson. He’ll murder you”.

He almost did.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15181
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ambling Alp II »

This fight doesn't mean much. Holmes was clearly past it. Interesting that the people that bring up Tyson's fights with McBride and Williams have no comment here.
davie
Cruiserweight
Posts: 6763
Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 00:45

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by davie »

I'd love to know what was going through Mikes head when he paced around that ring before the first bell.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote:This fight doesn't mean much. Holmes was clearly past it. Interesting that the people that bring up Tyson's fights with McBride and Williams have no comment here.
Holmes was still a good fighter though and often ranked in most peoples top 5 HWs of all time. After that loss 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 and beat the undefeated Ray Mercer quite handily four years after the Tyson loss. Contrary to what Holmes later claimed that he took the fight at short notice he was interviewed on TV three months before he fought Tyson and mentioned sparring 15 rounds in preparation.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46550
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by gilgamesh »

golden oldie wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:This fight doesn't mean much. Holmes was clearly past it. Interesting that the people that bring up Tyson's fights with McBride and Williams have no comment here.
No real need for comment as you summed it up yourself by saying the fight meant nothing much.

Not only was Holmes 38 but he had been out of the ring for 21 months. Tyson on the other hand was having his 4th fight in the 36 months between Lewis and McBride, with Williams coming less than 11 months before that.
The 38 year old Holmes that lost to Mike wouldn't have lost to the Danny Williams or Kevin McBride that beat Tyson. It doesn't really have much to do with your comment I suppose, just something I wanted to put out there.
Rexob
Middleweight
Posts: 6025
Joined: 20 Mar 2014, 15:17

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Rexob »

Controversial wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:This fight doesn't mean much. Holmes was clearly past it. Interesting that the people that bring up Tyson's fights with McBride and Williams have no comment here.
Holmes was still a good fighter though and often ranked in most peoples top 5 HWs of all time. After that loss 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 and beat the undefeated Ray Mercer quite handily four years after the Tyson loss. Contrary to what Holmes later claimed that he took the fight at short notice he was interviewed on TV three months before he fought Tyson and mentioned sparring 15 rounds in preparation.

Exactly Holmes was still a force Holyfield struggled when they boxed. Yes Holmes was past his prime but still a wise, clever, skillful opponent proving it years after the Tyson fight. One of Tyson's best wins he just blew Holmes say easily
Nobody else could before or after.
Last edited by Rexob on 24 Jan 2017, 16:50, edited 1 time in total.
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11173
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ezzard »

It was a great win...but so was any win over Holmes. Even the old version.

I expect we'll get something similar when Joshua takes on Wlad.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15181
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Some of these opinions really show how ridiculous people are with Tyson.

Some anti-Tyson people have no problem making a big deal about the Williams and McBride fights. Anybody who has the most basic knowledge of boxing knows those fights don't mean hardly anything. That wasn't anything close to a prime Mike Tyson.

The pro-Tyson people think the Holmes fight was a big deal. It wasn't that wasn't anything close to a prime Larry Holmes.

People need to rate Tyson's performances no better or worse than they would rate someone else in similar situations.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote:Some of these opinions really show how ridiculous people are with Tyson.

Some anti-Tyson people have no problem making a big deal about the Williams and McBride fights. Anybody who has the most basic knowledge of boxing knows those fights don't mean hardly anything. That wasn't anything close to a prime Mike Tyson.

The pro-Tyson people think the Holmes fight was a big deal. It wasn't that wasn't anything close to a prime Larry Holmes.

People need to rate Tyson's performances no better or worse than they would rate someone else in similar situations.
The difference there was Tyson was clearly shot, a shell of his former self and at the end of his career. Holmes wasn't shot, yes his 'prime' was behind him but he was far from being shot and proved he was still a good fighter by the career he had after the Tyson loss.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15708
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by elmersalsa »

golden oldie wrote:The problem of course with the pro Tyson lobby who are loathe to give any other fighters credit is quite simple. They will for instance claim Holy was very near his prime when he beat their hero but then state Holy was shot when Lewis beat him. This of course is nonsensical garbage as proven by the fact that Vander then went on to fight for a further 12 years, ( post Lewis ) winning 2 versions of world titles along the way. One of which was in his very next fight, 9 months after losing to Lennox.
The Real Deal was never the same fighter after beating Vaughn Bean
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

golden oldie wrote:The problem of course with the pro Tyson lobby who are loathe to give any other fighters credit is quite simple. They will for instance claim Holy was very near his prime when he beat their hero but then state Holy was shot when Lewis beat him. This of course is nonsensical garbage as proven by the fact that Vander then went on to fight for a further 12 years, ( post Lewis ) winning 2 versions of world titles along the way. One of which was in his very next fight, 9 months after losing to Lennox.
I'm a Tyson fan but I don't think Holyfield was in his prime. His career looked over after the Moorer defeat where he was hospitalised and retired with heart complications. He came back "healed" and then Bowe stopped him, then he didn't looked too great beating LHW Czyz. He wasn't given much chance against Tyson because of all that but looked like a new man against Tyson, of course some have their opinions how he rolled back the years !!!

He went 8-6-1 and 1 NC after losing to Lewis yet somehow kept being given title shots, he certainly wasn't the fighter he used to be at that stage.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15181
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ambling Alp II »

To put it all into focus:

Holmes was way past it when he fought Tyson. He was also coming off a two year layoff. When Holmes did better against Mercer, Holyfield, etc. it was because he had several tuneups. The Holmes-Tyson fight does not mean much at all when rating either Tyson or Holmes.

Holyfield was certainly not in his prime when he fought Tyson. Tyson was not as his either, but he was closer than Holyfield was to his. If you want to put it into numbers, Holyfield at 80% beat Tyson at 90%. When rating Holyfield, this is a big factor in his favor. When rating Tyson, it hurts his case.

The Holyfield that fought Lewis had declined further. He was a little older and had more wear and tear by the time he fought Lewis. Obviously Lewis should have got the decision in the first fight, but it was not an important win at all. This fight should not mean much at all when rating either Holyfield or Lewis. And no it doesn't matter if Holyfield won some WBS title later or not. He was nowhere near the fighter that he had once been.

Tyson was done by the time he fought Williams and McBride. These fights are irrelevant when rating Tyson, or Williams or McBride for that matter.

Glad to help.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote:To put it all into focus:

Holmes was way past it when he fought Tyson. He was also coming off a two year layoff. When Holmes did better against Mercer, Holyfield, etc. it was because he had several tuneups. The Holmes-Tyson fight does not mean much at all when rating either Tyson or Holmes.
Holmes said the break done him good and he trained hard to fight Tyson. He was still a good fighter. Having a few tune ups wouldn't have made a lot of difference. He also took 3 years off after losing to Tyson and was still good enough to beat the undefeated Mercer after only 5 fights against nobodies (two of which ended in the 1st round) and then challenge Holyfield for the title in his next fight. The 5 guys he beat weren't exactly world class and Holmes was 3-4 years older at that stage.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15181
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ambling Alp II »

He looked rusty against Tyson. It's hard to be off for a long time, then be ready even if you trained hard.
When he came back later , the tuneups helped a lot. Yes, two of them were easy wins, but he had to train for them. He shocked a lot of people with his performance against Mercer.

I am not saying he would have beaten Tyson at that stage of his career. However, he would have been more competitive had he been more active.

People often want to have it both ways. Tyson fans You can't count the Holmes fight as a big win and then dismiss the Williams and McBride fights.
Anti-Tyson people want to dismiss the Holmes fights but count the McBride and Williams fights.

You have count to all of them or none of them.
The obvious thing is to dismiss all of them. This really should not be a gray area here. It's pretty cut and dry.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Tyson fans You can't count the Holmes fight as a big win and then dismiss the Williams and McBride fights.
You can, as mentioned before the big difference is Tyson was at the end of his career, shot and never fought again. Holmes wasn't shot and had an entire career afterwards including two title shots (3 if you include the IBO)
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15708
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by elmersalsa »

golden oldie wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
golden oldie wrote:The problem of course with the pro Tyson lobby who are loathe to give any other fighters credit is quite simple. They will for instance claim Holy was very near his prime when he beat their hero but then state Holy was shot when Lewis beat him. This of course is nonsensical garbage as proven by the fact that Vander then went on to fight for a further 12 years, ( post Lewis ) winning 2 versions of world titles along the way. One of which was in his very next fight, 9 months after losing to Lennox.
The Real Deal was never the same fighter after beating Vaughn Bean
So you claim, yet he was one of only 9 guys to have held the WBA title " after " he fought Bean up until the present day. So he was obviously still good enough to accomplish that. I think you are struggling to understand making Tyson look a mug, yet being unable to do the same to the superior Lewis doesn't make a fighter semi shot.
Prime Lennox Lewis in the night that The Real Deal whupped Iron Mike would've not last 7 rounds with him. It would be worse if it's the Holyfield that whuupped Big George that night. Lewis CAUGHT Holyfield shopworn. He already accomplished at the time in conquering Iron Mike. His mission was COMPLETE. All those fights after Tyson were for him to pay the child support payments. That's all.

Lennox Lewis was strictly GARBAGE if you ask me. I don't know why people make so much fuzz put of him.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15708
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by elmersalsa »

No matter how the great Larry Holmes did after fighting Iron Mike. He ain't beating Tyson being Holmes at 38 years old. No way!
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

golden oldie wrote:
Controversial wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:To put it all into focus:

Holmes was way past it when he fought Tyson. He was also coming off a two year layoff. When Holmes did better against Mercer, Holyfield, etc. it was because he had several tuneups. The Holmes-Tyson fight does not mean much at all when rating either Tyson or Holmes.
Holmes said the break done him good and he trained hard to fight Tyson. He was still a good fighter. Having a few tune ups wouldn't have made a lot of difference. He also took 3 years off after losing to Tyson and was still good enough to beat the undefeated Mercer after only 5 fights against nobodies (two of which ended in the 1st round) and then challenge Holyfield for the title in his next fight. The 5 guys he beat weren't exactly world class and Holmes was 3-4 years older at that stage.
That is besides the point. Larry still had 5 fights in 1991 which kept him active for the whole of that year. He then fought Mercer in only the 2nd month of 92, there is no comparison with him being out of the ring for 21 months prior to Tyson.
Holmes wouldn't have beaten Tyson regardless how many warm up fights he had. No one would have prepared Holmes for fighting Tyson at that time. The same for Klitschko, he would have been out of the ring for 21 months when he fights Fury and Klit will be three years older than Holmes too. No one prepares Klit for Fury. I don't see anyone clambering for him to take warm up fights. His brother took almost 4 years out and went straight back into a title defence. Holmes was an ATG fighter and had 50 fights behind him, almost half his career at world level. He was in training at least 3 months before the fight, personally I don't think a warm up would have made the slightest difference.

golden oldie wrote:
Controversial wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:
Tyson fans You can't count the Holmes fight as a big win and then dismiss the Williams and McBride fights.
You can, as mentioned before the big difference is Tyson was at the end of his career, shot and never fought again. Holmes wasn't shot and had an entire career afterwards including two title shots (3 if you include the IBO)
Is this an admission that Tyson " wasn't " shot when Lewis beat him then? Because as the man said you can't have it both ways.
The point as I see it from Ambling Alp was there is a direct comparison between a shot Tyson and Holmes, that you can't blame Tyson for losing and also blame Holmes for losing as they were both shot. Holmes wasn't shot, shot fighters don't have the career Holmes had 3 years after losing to Tyson.

Personally I don't think we ever saw the best of Tyson, he ruined his career and even when undefeated I don't think he trained too hard after winning the title. Too me that shows how good he was at such a young age. Tyson was a street thug who won the lottery, he didn't change mentally he just became very rich and famous.

He wasn't totally shot when he fought Lewis but he wasn't the fighter he was 15 years earlier.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

golden oldie wrote:I am sure no one has claimed that Holmes could ever have beaten Tyson. Rather they were pointing out the obvious which is Holmes without the ring rust would have put up a far better showing. Hence when he came back in 91 and fought " regularly " he achieved the things he did. As for Tyson not being the fighter he was 15 years previously when he fought Lewis, one could argue Lewis wasn't the fighter he was a few years earlier either.
That's my point, no amount of warm up fights would have made a real difference, so the argument is null and void if no one thinks he would've won anyway. Holmes was still a good fighter, evidenced by his career 3 years after losing to Tyson. So for people to dismiss the win by Tyson makes no sense to me.

Yes of course you could say Lewis wasn't the same as he was 15 years prior but out of the two Tyson was a poorer version of himself than Lewis was. Tysons lifestyle, size and style didn't lend itself to a lengthy career, Lewis's did.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15181
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Controversial wrote:
golden oldie wrote:I am sure no one has claimed that Holmes could ever have beaten Tyson. Rather they were pointing out the obvious which is Holmes without the ring rust would have put up a far better showing. Hence when he came back in 91 and fought " regularly " he achieved the things he did. As for Tyson not being the fighter he was 15 years previously when he fought Lewis, one could argue Lewis wasn't the fighter he was a few years earlier either.
That's my point, no amount of warm up fights would have made a real difference, so the argument is null and void if no one thinks he would've won anyway. Holmes was still a good fighter, evidenced by his career 3 years after losing to Tyson. So for people to dismiss the win by Tyson makes no sense to me.

Yes of course you could say Lewis wasn't the same as he was 15 years prior but out of the two Tyson was a poorer version of himself than Lewis was. Tysons lifestyle, size and style didn't lend itself to a lengthy career, Lewis's did.
Holmes would not have won at that age, even if was not coming off a long layoff. He was not a good of a fighter than night he took on Tyson. We are talking about a 38 year old who had been off for almost 2 years. Lots of other guys would have beaten Holmes that night. However, he he would have given Tyson and given him more trouble. He would have lasted longer, possibly going the distance.
You are underestimating the layoff factor.

If all Tyson did was win a decision or a late stoppage against against an old Larry Holmes, nobody would have made a big deal about it. Nobody makes a big deal about Holyfield beating an ancient Holmes either.

Again, you are trying to have it both ways. You can't count the wins against over the hill fighters and not count Tyson's losses when he was over the hill. Lets use commonsense and ignore them all.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Controversial wrote:
golden oldie wrote:I am sure no one has claimed that Holmes could ever have beaten Tyson. Rather they were pointing out the obvious which is Holmes without the ring rust would have put up a far better showing. Hence when he came back in 91 and fought " regularly " he achieved the things he did. As for Tyson not being the fighter he was 15 years previously when he fought Lewis, one could argue Lewis wasn't the fighter he was a few years earlier either.
That's my point, no amount of warm up fights would have made a real difference, so the argument is null and void if no one thinks he would've won anyway. Holmes was still a good fighter, evidenced by his career 3 years after losing to Tyson. So for people to dismiss the win by Tyson makes no sense to me.

Yes of course you could say Lewis wasn't the same as he was 15 years prior but out of the two Tyson was a poorer version of himself than Lewis was. Tysons lifestyle, size and style didn't lend itself to a lengthy career, Lewis's did.
Holmes would not have won at that age, even if was not coming off a long layoff. He was not a good of a fighter than night he took on Tyson. We are talking about a 38 year old who had been off for almost 2 years. Lots of other guys would have beaten Holmes that night. However, he he would have given Tyson and given him more trouble. He would have lasted longer, possibly going the distance.
You are underestimating the layoff factor.

If all Tyson did was win a decision or a late stoppage against against an old Larry Holmes, nobody would have made a big deal about it. Nobody makes a big deal about Holyfield beating an ancient Holmes either.

Again, you are trying to have it both ways. You can't count the wins against over the hill fighters and not count Tyson's losses when he was over the hill. Lets use commonsense and ignore them all.
I disagree. So Klitschko aged 41 stands zero chance against AJ after a 21 month lay off? Are you forgetting SRL beat Hagler after a 3 year hiatus and after never fighting at middleweight? Having time out doesn't equate to losing all your ability. How many fighters would have knocked Holmes out in 4 rounds if they fought him instead of Tyson? Comparing Holmes to the Tyson that fought McBride/Williams is ridiculous, it was still a good win against an ATG fighter. Holmes wasn't shot, Tyson was against McBride/Williams that is the big difference.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15181
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Don't really care about the Klitschko fight, but yes it's a disadvantage to fight after a long layoff. If AJ is any good at all, he will win easily. Yes there are examples of a fighter coming back and looking good after a layoff. However they are the exception, not the rule.

No I don't think anyone could have knocked out Holmes in four even in that situation. However a ton of guys would have beaten him. He certainly wasn't one of the top 10 heavyweights in the world on that night. Holmes prime went until maybe 1983. The 1988 version who had Tyson beat was a shell of what he had once been.

Tyson had several others wins over fighters who were better than Holmes was for that fight. Talk about them.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15181
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Looks like you were responding to Controversial. Both of you are being biased, just in completely different ways.

You want to count the Williams and McBride losses. Nobody else outside of their immediate families thinks they mean much.
Controversial wants to make a big deal out of the Holmes win, which really wasn't a big deal of all.

I do disagree about a fighter being in his prime or not. There are degrees. Seldom does a fighter lose it all over night. Most gradually decline if they stay around lone enough.
At a certain point, (depending on wear and tear) You gradually lose speed, stamina, reflexes.

Holmes was not as good in 1983 as he was in 1978, but he was better in 1983 than he was in 1988.
Tyson was not as good in 1996 as he he was in 1989, but he was better in 1996 than he was in 2003.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote:Looks like you were responding to Controversial. Both of you are being biased, just in completely different ways.

You want to count the Williams and McBride losses. Nobody else outside of their immediate families thinks they mean much.
Controversial wants to make a big deal out of the Holmes win, which really wasn't a big deal of all.

I do disagree about a fighter being in his prime or not. There are degrees. Seldom does a fighter lose it all over night. Most gradually decline if they stay around lone enough.
At a certain point, (depending on wear and tear) You gradually lose speed, stamina, reflexes.

Holmes was not as good in 1983 as he was in 1978, but he was better in 1983 than he was in 1988.
Tyson was not as good in 1996 as he he was in 1989, but he was better in 1996 than he was in 2003.
I'm not making a big deal over it, all I said was you can't compare Holmes losing to Tyson to Tyson losing to McBride/Williams. Tyson was well and truly shot at that stage, Holmes wasn't. I also appreciate Holmes wasn't the fighter he once was but that doesn't mean he was the shadow of his former self, he could've held his own against any other HW at that time and beaten a good few.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: On This Day: Mike Tyson thrashes an ageing and overweight Larry Holmes

Post by Controversial »

golden oldie wrote:


As for your other point about Tyson being further away from his prime than Lewis, again that is nonsense. Either a guy is in his prime or he isn't. There are no degrees. Boxing is a split second sport. Either you can still get your shots off when you see the openings, or you can't. Either you can still slip the other guys shots or you can't. The correct lifestyle, and commitment to training are just as important as any other asset in the fight game. .
Nonsense of course there are degrees. Didn't you say earlier Lewis wasn't the fighter he was 15 years earlier? There are numerous examples of fighters losing something as time goes on, that doesn't mean they are shot but they might not be as good as they once were either. Tyson against McBride and Williams was shot, his desire to win was gone, he was a 3 round fighter, his fitness was poor and he was there for the money. He wasn't that bad against Lewis but he wasn't the same fighter he used to be either.
Post Reply