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

[Controversial]

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.

But he didn't win by decision or late stoppage, he knocked him spark out, something no one did before or after. The reason no one makes a big deal about Holyfield beating Holmes was because it went to points and it wasn't a pretty win. If anything Holyfield was criticised for not beating a 42 year old easier than he did.

[Controversial]

A shot fighter can't fight for one round never mind 3. He will see openings but will be unable to take them. He will get hit flush with punches that he used to be able to block, slip, or ride with. It is beyond ridiculous to say he will be good for a few rounds, then fall to pieces. You need to understand the difference between a fighter being shot, and simply being unable to perform as well as he did a few years previously.

Similarly you need to understand the difference between a fighter being active, and being inactive. Using Leonard in the Hagler fight is a piss poor example, because he TALKED about fighting Hagler for 5 years before he actually found the cajones to get in with the guy who though far from shot, had regressed from his destructive best. Or to put it another way Marvin had gone from a monster Middleweight to a slightly above average fighter. Anyone who believes Leonard would have fought the 82 - 84 version of Hagler, probably still believes in father christmas.

You said a fighter is "either in his prime or not, there are no degrees". Sounds like you need understand what your typing before contradicting yourself.

[Controversial]

A shot fighter can't fight for one round never mind 3. He will see openings but will be unable to take them. He will get hit flush with punches that he used to be able to block, slip, or ride with. It is beyond ridiculous to say he will be good for a few rounds, then fall to pieces. You need to understand the difference between a fighter being shot, and simply being unable to perform as well as he did a few years previously.

Similarly you need to understand the difference between a fighter being active, and being inactive. Using Leonard in the Hagler fight is a piss poor example, because he TALKED about fighting Hagler for 5 years before he actually found the cajones to get in with the guy who though far from shot, had regressed from his destructive best. Or to put it another way Marvin had gone from a monster Middleweight to a slightly above average fighter. Anyone who believes Leonard would have fought the 82 - 84 version of Hagler, probably still believes in father christmas.

You said a fighter is "either in his prime or not, there are no degrees". Sounds like you need understand what your typing before contradicting yourself.

Correct. My mistake I should have written either a fighter is shot or he isn't. At the time neither Lewis or Tyson were shot. Neither were at their peak, but to claim one was further down the road towards being shot is nonsense.

How is it nonsense to say one has faded more than the other?

[Controversial]

Correct. My mistake I should have written either a fighter is shot or he isn't. At the time neither Lewis or Tyson were shot. Neither were at their peak, but to claim one was further down the road towards being shot is nonsense.

How is it nonsense to say one has faded more than the other?

Define faded, and the circumstances which cause the fading particularly between 2 guys of the same age, and a similar number of fights. At the time Lewis had had 42 fights to Tyson's 51, Lewis is 9 months older than Tyson.

Again you seem to be confusing Tyson's attitude with his capability. If he was as " faded " as you claim he wouldn't have been able to blow a guy away inside a round 8 months after Lewis, now would he? Though no one would call Etienne a world beater his record was no worse than some of Tyson's earlier victims. It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up, not giving a shite anymore, is not the same as being shot. In the Williams and McBride fights Tyson just couldn't be bothered to fight for the money he was more than willing to sign up for.

Similarly Lewis just couldn't be bothered to take the Rahman fight in South Africa seriously, and funnily enough he got KO'd as well. It isn't one set of standards for one, and different set for the other.

Because Tyson's lifestyle ruined him, all the drink, drugs, partying took its affect on him over the years. And yes your right he didn't give a shite anymore either. Lewis looked after himself and never really looked like he had lost something even at a late age. I said early Tyson was there for the money against Williams and McBride. He had no desire left, he was a good 20lbs over his best weight. When I say he was a 3 round fighter I meant Tyson was still a danger for 3 rounds but after that he was pretty much spent. He wasn't a world class fighter anymore and the fact he lost to McBride and Williams proves how past it he was.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Tyson/Williams was a good fight. I won money on that and McBride.

[Controversial]

You stick to your opinion, and I'll stick to mine.

Suits me.

[keithmoonhangover]

My chholdhood hero Larry Holmes wasn't at his best, but Tyson is one of the only boxers in history that would have stopped him that night.