Most likely to knockout George Chuvalo

[Ambling Alp]

>>>Do you really think that a Tyson fight with a well prepared, active, 31 yo Holmes would have looked anything like the fiasco held in 1988?<<<

Absolutely, but unlike Shavers and Snipes it wouldn't have taken Tyson 7 rounds to put Holmes down and out and also Snipes and Shavers could not do anything with Holmes after they put him down. Most of that had to do with Holmes, but then again Shavers, nor Snipes were not Tyson, who after putting Holmes down once would have went in for the kill, just like he did when they fought, but unlike the others Tyson would be successful. Tyson had the style, power and speed to always give Holmes nightmares in the ring. Holmes could punch pretty well, but he did not have the kind of power to keep a prime Tyson off of him as Tyson had a very solid chin and could handle what Holmes had to offer. And for the record, Holmes was very, very well prepared for his bout with Tyson. No, I see a bout against the Holmes of 1981 going pretty much the same way that they're actual bout did!

Holmes was 38, but he did not show the wear and tear that some fighters show when they age. No, Holmes was still pretty sharp at 38 and as we seen a few years later, Holmes was still able enough to put it all over a top ten heavyweight in Ray Mercer.

No one has ever done to Holmes what Tyson did, which it certainly was not Holmes in his prime, but it was a Holmes who was very capable and crafty and not the worn-out, shot old man that some, seemingly intelligent, people like to make him out to be in order to lessen Tyson's actual accomplishments in the ring!

Wow, where to begin?

Holmes was very very well prepared for Tyson. Really? He hadn’t fought in 19 months. You must not think that fighters have to actually fight to stay sharp. And the fact he was 38 makes it much more difficult to shake off the rust. Doesn’t it?

The Holmes that fought Ray Mercer had been VERY active leading up to that fight, not having been retired and sitting around for 19 months. Plus the slow footed, one dimensional Mercer is made to order for anyone with a jab.

Holmes was not the worn out, shot old man… Well, intelligent people are able to look at a 19 month layoff for a 38 year old Holmes and understand that he could not possibly have been very sharp for the fight. At least intelligent people that know something about boxing or just about any other physically demanding sport.

I left the best for last.

You mention the Shavers and Snipes KD and say that if they could do that then certainly Tyson could, and he could finish job. Well then, if Buster Douglas could trash a 23 yo Tyson, then certainly a prime Holmes could as well? But whenever anyone brings up the beating that Tyson took from Douglas, all we hear is that he wasn’t the same fighter, and that he was past his prime. At 23 without a long layoff, he was shot. And here I am explaining that Tyson’s win over a 38 year old inactive Holmes doesn’t really mean much. Doesn’t this argument seem pretty silly?

And whether or not Holmes had the power to keep Tyson off of him is probably irrelevant. Do boxers always need power to keep one fighter “off of them”? Most likely Holmes would have done the same thing to Tyson that Douglas did. Jab followed by a straight right and then clinch. Douglas wasn’t a big hitter either, but it sure did work well. Oh, but I forgot. Tyson was 23 and well past his prime. Of course, he looked much sharper in the first few rounds against Douglas than he did against Bruno a efw fights before.

Tyson KOing an inactive, 38 year old Holmes means nothing. Or maybe age and activity don’t mean anything in boxing? Maybe Leon Spinks could have beaten up a prime Ali the same way he did the older Ali.

I agree totally with you about Holmes and Tyson. It's sad that you even have to bother to explain this.

[The Great John L]

I agree totally with you about Holmes and Tyson. It's sad that you even have to bother to explain this.

Yeah, that took way too much energy.

[Flump]

it gets embarassing having to agree with Jaclem as often as I do, but I imagine he has simply been reading my old contributions and achieving a wisdom that few can compete with. And Chuvalo is about as an "immovable object" as boxing has ever produced.


HOWEVER.....wasnt Chuvalo really sort of heading for the canvas with George Foreman and he would have ended up hitting the deck if his corner hadn't stepped in? Does anyone have that fight to be viewed? My memory is not the razor sharp Polaroid of yesteryear, and barry I don't usually take issue with you but wouldnt that mean that all you really needed was the brute power of a Foreman to get this done?

However if George was fully upright and in no danger of tipping but his corner was simply concerned about the flush shots he was taking then I stand corrected. Were his feet firmly under him at the time? I just can't accurately recall.

Foreman hurt Chuvalo with a left hook and he wobbled into the ropes but regained his footing quickly, Foreman then had him pinned in a corner and pounded him until a combination of Chuavlo's corner and Arthur Mercante stopped the fight.

Chuvalo seemed to be on steady legs and was trying to counter but was bleeding and taking flush shots. It would have taken a lot more I'm sure to put him on the deck. The left hook was right on the button whilst Chuvalo was also throwing a punch, if that didn't put him on the deck I'm not sure what would have done.

Chuvalo protested bitterly at the stoppage.

[DoubleM]

Yea, I'd say Louis would have the best chance. He had legitimate one punch knockout power; but he threw those punches in combinations, and very accurately.

Liston as well. He had heavier hands than Louis, wasn't as fast though, but he was also pretty accurate. Infact, his punching display against Wayne Bethea is one of the most precise I've seen. Can't imagine Chuvalo standing up to those shots for very long - remember, Bethea was a tough guy as well.

[barry]

Sad thing is…as the actual facts of the issue point out...you are not correct...as with anything...that's your opinion, and not a very well thought out opinion…mostly just plain bias toward Tyson, but you can say that Holmes was an old man who was basically a “one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest,” but I think I'll go on what he accomplished even several years after Tyson knocked him out...which was considerable!!!

He not only beat a top ten heavy, but an "OLDER" Holmes took Holyfield 12 rounds, but I bet you probably think the Holmes who fought Holyfield was better than the one that was knocked out by Tyson….that would be typical!

Any argument about Holmes being unprepared is silly!!! If ever there was a professional fighter Holmes was it and to think that he would not come in prepared for arguably the biggest fight of his career would simply just be ignoring the actual facts about Holmes. And for the record...Tszyu and Trinidad came back after two years off and destroyed opponents, so sorry...the 19 months might sound like a good argument to some, which it might be if it was an argument for a new fighter, but a veteran who had been fighting for 15 years...it holds very little weight…Holmes was a true professional who came in to ever important bout well prepared and if you don’t think so you should do a lot of reading about Holmes leading up to his bouts, especially the one against Tyson.

Four years after Tyson destroyed him Holmes gave Holyfield a good fight and showed what a true professional heavyweight can do...against the right opponent...though as I stated earlier...Tyson would always be a nightmare for Holmes whether he was 50, 38, or 25 years old and the fact that Tyson did knock Holmes out rather easily holds more weight than someone trying to argue that Tyson couldn't do it to the same fighter...after all...he already did and the rant about Holmes being so unprepared...well the bouts with Mercer and Holyfield pretty much debunk that...though you can make up some more fantasies about it, but remember...the FACT of the situation has already been proven...Tyson can and did handle a well prepared, older Holmes…something that Holyfield could not do against an even older Holmes, but I’m sure you will come back with something fictional like Holmes was better prepared against Holyfield!

I just noticed that you did try to make excuses for the Holmes that fought Mercer saying that he was better prepared...typical and then you talk about Douglas and a 23 year old Tyson, which has not one thing to do with the topic, but it is also typical of someone reaching...no matter how much fantasy you might try to make up and imagine about Tyson not beating Holmes the facts are the sealer...Tyson destroyed Larry Holmes...something that Ray Mercer and Evander Holyfield could not do...hell, but then again no other fighter has been able to do it either...except Tyson...now if you want to present some actual facts that would counter solidly I would be more than glad to hear them, but I'm not wasting my time with any more fantasy-opinions that show total bias against one fighter, who did knock Holmes out, while making excuses for another who couldn’t…the facts of the issue back my view, whether you like it, or not, or whether you agree with it, or not…nothing fictional about what I have said other than that Tyson could beat a younger Holmes…that is opinion, but it is an opinion that is based on actual facts that happened and not wishes of what would have happened!

FACT...Mike Tyson destroyed Larry Holmes...FACT...Ray Mercer was beaten by an older Holmes...FACT...Holyfield could do very little with an even older Holmes.

As I said, present some facts and I'll continue...and for the record...it took very little energy for me to present my stance...now if I were making things up it may have been energy-depleting, but facts are easy!

[The Great John L]

Sad thing is…as the actual facts of the issue point out...you are not correct...as with anything...that's your opinion, and not a very well thought out opinion…mostly just plain bias toward Tyson, but you can say that Holmes was an old man who was basically a “one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest,” but I think I'll go on what he accomplished even several years after Tyson knocked him out...which was considerable!!!

He not only beat a top ten heavy, but an "OLDER" Holmes took Holyfield 12 rounds, but I bet you probably think the Holmes who fought Holyfield was better than the one that was knocked out by Tyson….that would be typical!

Any argument about Holmes being unprepared is silly!!! If ever there was a professional fighter Holmes was it and to think that he would not come in prepared for arguably the biggest fight of his career would simply just be ignoring the actual facts about Holmes. And for the record...Tszyu and Trinidad came back after two years off and destroyed opponents, so sorry...the 19 months might sound like a good argument to some, which it might be if it was an argument for a new fighter, but a veteran who had been fighting for 15 years...it holds very little weight…Holmes was a true professional who came in to ever important bout well prepared and if you don’t think so you should do a lot of reading about Holmes leading up to his bouts, especially the one against Tyson.

Four years after Tyson destroyed him Holmes gave Holyfield a good fight and showed what a true professional heavyweight can do...against the right opponent...though as I stated earlier...Tyson would always be a nightmare for Holmes whether he was 50, 38, or 25 years old and the fact that Tyson did knock Holmes out rather easily holds more weight than someone trying to argue that Tyson couldn't do it to the same fighter...after all...he already did and the rant about Holmes being so unprepared...well the bouts with Mercer and Holyfield pretty much debunk that...though you can make up some more fantasies about it, but remember...the FACT of the situation has already been proven...Tyson can and did handle a well prepared, older Holmes…something that Holyfield could not do against an even older Holmes, but I’m sure you will come back with something fictional like Holmes was better prepared against Holyfield!

I just noticed that you did try to make excuses for the Holmes that fought Mercer saying that he was better prepared...typical and then you talk about Douglas and a 23 year old Tyson, which has not one thing to do with the topic, but it is also typical of someone reaching...no matter how much fantasy you might try to make up and imagine about Tyson not beating Holmes the facts are the sealer...Tyson destroyed Larry Holmes...something that Ray Mercer and Evander Holyfield could not do...hell, but then again no other fighter has been able to do it either...except Tyson...now if you want to present some actual facts that would counter solidly I would be more than glad to hear them, but I'm not wasting my time with any more fantasy-opinions that show total bias against one fighter, who did knock Holmes out, while making excuses for another who couldn’t…the facts of the issue back my view, whether you like it, or not, or whether you agree with it, or not…nothing fictional about what I have said other than that Tyson could beat a younger Holmes…that is opinion, but it is an opinion that is based on actual facts that happened and not wishes of what would have happened!

FACT...Mike Tyson destroyed Larry Holmes...FACT...Ray Mercer was beaten by an older Holmes...FACT...Holyfield could do very little with an even older Holmes.

As I said, present some facts and I'll continue...and for the record...it took very little energy for me to present my stance...now if I were making things up it may have been energy-depleting, but facts are easy!

This is very sad. I just thought that there was perhaps just a glimmer of hope that you could actually be reasonable and simply bow out of this, but self delusion seems to rule your personality. Either that or you simply enjoy wasting your time with defenseless arguments. 38 year old coming off of 19 months of inactivity. In your world that isnt a fact.

I'm done. You may continue to look foolish, if you wish.

Very sad.

[Taylor]

Could Shavers have K.Od Chuvalo?.I don't know.Considering Tex Cobb took everything Shavers had.Did Cobb have a better chin than Chuvalo?.Was Shavers loosing his touch by the time he got to Cobb?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Holmes was not young when Tyson stopped him. He was well past his best. He must have been pushing 40. An early 80s Holmes would have provided Tyson with a much more difficult fight.

that doesnt change the fact holmes was still a formidable fighter when he fought tyson despite his advanced age. 4 years latwr holmes would go on to beat ray mercer and give a prime holyfield a tough fight.


tyson was the only man to ever knockout larry holmes. hell, holmes even in his 40s and 50s was never knocked out. he was damm near impossible to knockout.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

good post barry. look barry isnt saying that was a peak holmes( it clearly wasnt), all hes saying is that holmes was still a dangerous formidable fighter when he fought tyson and his success post tyson shows he was nowhere near a shot fighter when he fought mike.


- this was the biggest fight of holmes career. of course he trained hard for the tyson fight. if he didnt then shame on him for not coming in the best shape possible for the most important fight of his career. knowing holmes character, im sure he trained hard and came in prepared like his other fights.



tyson didnt struggle with holmes at all, this leads me to doubt whether even a prime holmes could ever deal with tyson.


holmes had a major flaw in being susceptible too huge right hands(even in his prime) and tyson had one of the best!

[bill.lockhart]

Knock out George... not bloody likely.
He was the toughest their ever was.
I would like to see anyone stand up to him, in a fight to the finish.
He was a man of great character. Just look at the tragedy he has
experienced in his own personal life. He has used it to benefit kids all over North America.
This is one tough mother, brother. A finer gentleman you won't find.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

>>>Do you really think that a Tyson fight with a well prepared, active, 31 yo Holmes would have looked anything like the fiasco held in 1988?<<<

Absolutely, but unlike Shavers and Snipes it wouldn't have taken Tyson 7 rounds to put Holmes down and out and also Snipes and Shavers could not do anything with Holmes after they put him down. Most of that had to do with Holmes, but then again Shavers, nor Snipes were not Tyson, who after putting Holmes down once would have went in for the kill, just like he did when they fought, but unlike the others Tyson would be successful. Tyson had the style, power and speed to always give Holmes nightmares in the ring. Holmes could punch pretty well, but he did not have the kind of power to keep a prime Tyson off of him as Tyson had a very solid chin and could handle what Holmes had to offer. And for the record, Holmes was very, very well prepared for his bout with Tyson. No, I see a bout against the Holmes of 1981 going pretty much the same way that they're actual bout did!

Holmes was 38, but he did not show the wear and tear that some fighters show when they age. No, Holmes was still pretty sharp at 38 and as we seen a few years later, Holmes was still able enough to put it all over a top ten heavyweight in Ray Mercer.

No one has ever done to Holmes what Tyson did, which it certainly was not Holmes in his prime, but it was a Holmes who was very capable and crafty and not the worn-out, shot old man that some, seemingly intelligent, people like to make him out to be in order to lessen Tyson's actual accomplishments in the ring!

Wow, where to begin?

Holmes was very very well prepared for Tyson. Really? He hadn’t fought in 19 months. You must not think that fighters have to actually fight to stay sharp. And the fact he was 38 makes it much more difficult to shake off the rust. Doesn’t it?

The Holmes that fought Ray Mercer had been VERY active leading up to that fight, not having been retired and sitting around for 19 months. Plus the slow footed, one dimensional Mercer is made to order for anyone with a jab.

Holmes was not the worn out, shot old man… Well, intelligent people are able to look at a 19 month layoff for a 38 year old Holmes and understand that he could not possibly have been very sharp for the fight. At least intelligent people that know something about boxing or just about any other physically demanding sport.

I left the best for last.

You mention the Shavers and Snipes KD and say that if they could do that then certainly Tyson could, and he could finish job. Well then, if Buster Douglas could trash a 23 yo Tyson, then certainly a prime Holmes could as well? But whenever anyone brings up the beating that Tyson took from Douglas, all we hear is that he wasn’t the same fighter, and that he was past his prime. At 23 without a long layoff, he was shot. And here I am explaining that Tyson’s win over a 38 year old inactive Holmes doesn’t really mean much. Doesn’t this argument seem pretty silly?

And whether or not Holmes had the power to keep Tyson off of him is probably irrelevant. Do boxers always need power to keep one fighter “off of them”? Most likely Holmes would have done the same thing to Tyson that Douglas did. Jab followed by a straight right and then clinch. Douglas wasn’t a big hitter either, but it sure did work well. Oh, but I forgot. Tyson was 23 and well past his prime. Of course, he looked much sharper in the first few rounds against Douglas than he did against Bruno a efw fights before.

Tyson KOing an inactive, 38 year old Holmes means nothing. Or maybe age and activity don’t mean anything in boxing? Maybe Leon Spinks could have beaten up a prime Ali the same way he did the older Ali.

I agree totally with you about Holmes and Tyson. It's sad that you even have to bother to explain this.

please alp, stop trying to make it look like barry doesnt know wut hes talking about. hes forgotten more about boxing history then u will ever know.


barry's opinion about holmes-tyson is no more crazy than u believin machen and glass jaw folley would beat a archie moore.

[theone]

When Sugar Ray Robinson came back from retirement in 1955, he was obviously suffering from severe ring rust. He didnt look too good in a few of his comback fights, losing clearly to Tiger Jones and getting a very lucky decision against Castellani.
By the time he got to Olson, 7 fights into his comeback he was back to championship form. Not in his prime form, but good enough form to be champion. If Robison had fought someone like Fullmer right away, he would have resembled a shot fighter.

Although Holmes wasnt out of the game as long as Robinson, he was older, and didnt exactly ease himself back into things by fighting the absolute best fighter in the division at that time.

By the time Holmes faced Holyfield, Mercer etc, he had his sea legs back so to speak. He was nowhere near the level he was at in his glorious prime, but he was good enough to be competitive.

[Ambling Alp]

Wow, where to begin?

Holmes was very very well prepared for Tyson. Really? He hadn’t fought in 19 months. You must not think that fighters have to actually fight to stay sharp. And the fact he was 38 makes it much more difficult to shake off the rust. Doesn’t it?

The Holmes that fought Ray Mercer had been VERY active leading up to that fight, not having been retired and sitting around for 19 months. Plus the slow footed, one dimensional Mercer is made to order for anyone with a jab.

Holmes was not the worn out, shot old man… Well, intelligent people are able to look at a 19 month layoff for a 38 year old Holmes and understand that he could not possibly have been very sharp for the fight. At least intelligent people that know something about boxing or just about any other physically demanding sport.

I left the best for last.

You mention the Shavers and Snipes KD and say that if they could do that then certainly Tyson could, and he could finish job. Well then, if Buster Douglas could trash a 23 yo Tyson, then certainly a prime Holmes could as well? But whenever anyone brings up the beating that Tyson took from Douglas, all we hear is that he wasn’t the same fighter, and that he was past his prime. At 23 without a long layoff, he was shot. And here I am explaining that Tyson’s win over a 38 year old inactive Holmes doesn’t really mean much. Doesn’t this argument seem pretty silly?

And whether or not Holmes had the power to keep Tyson off of him is probably irrelevant. Do boxers always need power to keep one fighter “off of them”? Most likely Holmes would have done the same thing to Tyson that Douglas did. Jab followed by a straight right and then clinch. Douglas wasn’t a big hitter either, but it sure did work well. Oh, but I forgot. Tyson was 23 and well past his prime. Of course, he looked much sharper in the first few rounds against Douglas than he did against Bruno a efw fights before.

Tyson KOing an inactive, 38 year old Holmes means nothing. Or maybe age and activity don’t mean anything in boxing? Maybe Leon Spinks could have beaten up a prime Ali the same way he did the older Ali.

I agree totally with you about Holmes and Tyson. It's sad that you even have to bother to explain this.

please alp, stop trying to make it look like barry doesnt know wut hes talking about. hes forgotten more about boxing history then u will ever know.


barry's opinion about holmes-tyson is no more crazy than u believin machen and glass jaw folley would beat a archie moore.

I'm not going to talk about Archie Moore anymore; you don't listen to it anyway.
I didn't mean to rip Barry personally; I just think in this case he is way off base.

You really think that Tyson's win over Holomes was a big deal becasue holmes was formidable? That fight doesn't measn anymore than Marciano's win over Louis, Holmes win over Ali, Kevin McBrides win over Tyson.

Holmes obviously declining as early as 1984 when he was given decision he didn't deserve against Carl williams. Watch the Michael Spinks fights with Holmes, he was nowhere near the fighter he was in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Then to compound it, Holmes went 19 months before fighting Tyson. Watch the tape, does that really look like a formidable fighter that Tyson beat in 1988?

Pointing to Holmes later better showings against Holyfield, Mercer, Bruno etc is deceiving. He wasn't coming off a huge layoff then. Holmes had 5 tuneup fighters before he beat Mercer, and fought Holyfield 4 months later. Again watch the tapes. It was nowhere near the prime Larry holmes that fought Mercer and Holyfield, but he was certainly better than he was against Tyson.

Beating Holmes wasn't a big deal for Holyfield and it shouldn't be regarded as anything special for Tyson. (To his credit, Tyson has said as much so).
If Holmes would have been active for the 19 months before he fought Tyson, he would have performed better than he did. He may won a few rounds, perhaps even went the distance against Tyson. But he wouldn't have won. He was way past his best.
He was 38 years old and hadn't had a dominating victory in several years. holme's days a formidable fighter were long gone when he fought Tyson.
You can't draw any conclusion from the Tyson-Holmes as regarding to what would have happened if they were both in their primes.

Holmes being susceptible to right hands isn't exactly a new theory. Every fighter who ever fought Holmes tried to doit and only a few times did he he get in trouble. Even then he survived the storm and came back to win.
What happend if Holmes hurts Tyson? Tyson never came showed he come back and when in that situation.
It would have been a totally different fight if Holmes was at his best. Tyson would have had much more trouble getting to Holmes. He would have had to deal with Holmes jab, which was far better than Buster Douglas jab that Tyson couldn't handle.

[Ezzard]

I agree totally with you about Holmes and Tyson. It's sad that you even have to bother to explain this.

please alp, stop trying to make it look like barry doesnt know wut hes talking about. hes forgotten more about boxing history then u will ever know.


barry's opinion about holmes-tyson is no more crazy than u believin machen and glass jaw folley would beat a archie moore.

I'm not going to talk about Archie Moore anymore; you don't listen to it anyway.
I didn't mean to rip Barry personally; I just think in this case he is way off base.

You really think that Tyson's win over Holomes was a big deal becasue holmes was formidable? That fight doesn't measn anymore than Marciano's win over Louis, Holmes win over Ali, Kevin McBrides win over Tyson.

Holmes obviously declining as early as 1984 when he was given decision he didn't deserve against Carl williams. Watch the Michael Spinks fights with Holmes, he was nowhere near the fighter he was in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Then to compound it, Holmes went 19 months before fighting Tyson. Watch the tape, does that really look like a formidable fighter that Tyson beat in 1988?

Pointing to Holmes later better showings against Holyfield, Mercer, Bruno etc is deceiving. He wasn't coming off a huge layoff then. Holmes had 5 tuneup fighters before he beat Mercer, and fought Holyfield 4 months later. Again watch the tapes. It was nowhere near the prime Larry holmes that fought Mercer and Holyfield, but he was certainly better than he was against Tyson.

Beating Holmes wasn't a big deal for Holyfield and it shouldn't be regarded as anything special for Tyson. (To his credit, Tyson has said as much so).
If Holmes would have been active for the 19 months before he fought Tyson, he would have performed better than he did. He may won a few rounds, perhaps even went the distance against Tyson. But he wouldn't have won. He was way past his best.
He was 38 years old and hadn't had a dominating victory in several years. holme's days a formidable fighter were long gone when he fought Tyson.
You can't draw any conclusion from the Tyson-Holmes as regarding to what would have happened if they were both in their primes.

Holmes being susceptible to right hands isn't exactly a new theory. Every fighter who ever fought Holmes tried to doit and only a few times did he he get in trouble. Even then he survived the storm and came back to win.
What happend if Holmes hurts Tyson? Tyson never came showed he come back and when in that situation.
It would have been a totally different fight if Holmes was at his best. Tyson would have had much more trouble getting to Holmes. He would have had to deal with Holmes jab, which was far better than Buster Douglas jab that Tyson couldn't handle.

Alp is on the money. It's also been said that Holmes had 2-3 weeks to prepare for the fight.

Tyson looked better than Holmes against common opponents because his style was so exciting and so devestating BUT this should not be confused with him being a better fighter. The same thing can be said about Holyfield. Tyson looked better against common opponents but was crushed by Evander.

[The Great John L]

please alp, stop trying to make it look like barry doesnt know wut hes talking about. hes forgotten more about boxing history then u will ever know.

Nobody was questioning barry’s boxing knowledge. However, there’s a difference between knowing a lot of facts and being able to use those facts in a logical manner, and several of barry’s statements in this thread are completely illogical.

First barry seemed to actually imply that Holmes was young when he fought Tyson.

… while he was still young Tyson just eat him up.

I think that’s what he was saying, although it’s possible he meant something else with this statement.

Then he implied that 38 wasn’t old for a fighter.

Holmes wasn't young, but he was not old either!!!

And of course when I pointed out that the age wasn’t as important to the discussion as the fact that Holmes had retired and had been inactive for 19 months prior to fighting Tyson, barry basically said that the inactivity was irrelevant.

So while barry may have read more newspaper articles than anyone here, I don’t think that makes him more intelligent than everyone else. He probably possesses more knowledge of boxing history, but that doesn’t mean he’s more intelligent.

Holmes being susceptible to right hands isn't exactly a new theory. Every fighter who ever fought Holmes tried to doit and only a few times did he he get in trouble. Even then he survived the storm and came back to win.

And that right hand that Shavers KD him down with was just about the only solid punch Shavers landed in their two fights. And Snipes didn’t land much else either.

[Ezzard]

And that right hand that Shavers KD him down with was just about the only solid punch Shavers landed in their two fights. And Snipes didn’t land much else either.

Very true, although sometimes a puncher's best chance os to feign an off night and hope to land the one career punch...

[Broncano]

Just wanted to add that it is a myth that Chuvalo was never knocked down. Watch the Bonavena fight and see how the ref incorrectly rules a slip a perfectly clean KD.

[granberry]

. . .

FACT...Holyfield could do very little with an even older Holmes.

. . .

Maybe Holyfield should have butted Holmes like he did Tyson (twice).

.

[The Great John L]

Just wanted to add that it is a myth that Chuvalo was never knocked down. Watch the Bonavena fight and see how the ref incorrectly rules a slip a perfectly clean KD.

Did you mean to say a perfectly clean KD that was ruled a slip?

[Broncano]

edit: "referee rules a slip what was a a perfectly clean KD"

..there, my hands are not as fast as my mind is

[Cap]

Chuvalo was easily the toughest guy ever to step in the ring. At his prime, he also was able to block or deflect a lot of punches. He said himself, that no one could have taken all the punches the press said he took and lived. Chuvalo was a human tank, and the man was never born who could knock him out. I still say that if Chuvalo had been in his prime when he fought Foreman, he could have knocked him out. Foreman said after the fight that George had clocked him with one of the hardest shots he'd ever taken. Chuvalo knew what he wanted to do in there that day, but he couldn't always make his body do it.

Cap

[granberry]

Chuvalo was easily the toughest guy ever to step in the ring. . .

Cap

Yeah, Battling Nelson was a sissy.

[granberry]

Chuvalo knew what he wanted to do in there that day, but he couldn't always make his body do it.

Cap

I know that I wanted to run as fast as a racehorse

and make a standing high jump of over ten feet,

but I couldn't always make my body do it.

[dempseyfire]

please alp, stop trying to make it look like barry doesnt know wut hes talking about. hes forgotten more about boxing history then u will ever know.


barry's opinion about holmes-tyson is no more crazy than u believin machen and glass jaw folley would beat a archie moore.

I'm not going to talk about Archie Moore anymore; you don't listen to it anyway.
I didn't mean to rip Barry personally; I just think in this case he is way off base.

You really think that Tyson's win over Holomes was a big deal becasue holmes was formidable? That fight doesn't measn anymore than Marciano's win over Louis, Holmes win over Ali, Kevin McBrides win over Tyson.

Holmes obviously declining as early as 1984 when he was given decision he didn't deserve against Carl williams. Watch the Michael Spinks fights with Holmes, he was nowhere near the fighter he was in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Then to compound it, Holmes went 19 months before fighting Tyson. Watch the tape, does that really look like a formidable fighter that Tyson beat in 1988?

Pointing to Holmes later better showings against Holyfield, Mercer, Bruno etc is deceiving. He wasn't coming off a huge layoff then. Holmes had 5 tuneup fighters before he beat Mercer, and fought Holyfield 4 months later. Again watch the tapes. It was nowhere near the prime Larry holmes that fought Mercer and Holyfield, but he was certainly better than he was against Tyson.

Beating Holmes wasn't a big deal for Holyfield and it shouldn't be regarded as anything special for Tyson. (To his credit, Tyson has said as much so).
If Holmes would have been active for the 19 months before he fought Tyson, he would have performed better than he did. He may won a few rounds, perhaps even went the distance against Tyson. But he wouldn't have won. He was way past his best.
He was 38 years old and hadn't had a dominating victory in several years. holme's days a formidable fighter were long gone when he fought Tyson.
You can't draw any conclusion from the Tyson-Holmes as regarding to what would have happened if they were both in their primes.

Holmes being susceptible to right hands isn't exactly a new theory. Every fighter who ever fought Holmes tried to doit and only a few times did he he get in trouble. Even then he survived the storm and came back to win.
What happend if Holmes hurts Tyson? Tyson never came showed he come back and when in that situation.
It would have been a totally different fight if Holmes was at his best. Tyson would have had much more trouble getting to Holmes. He would have had to deal with Holmes jab, which was far better than Buster Douglas jab that Tyson couldn't handle.

Alp is on the money. It's also been said that Holmes had 2-3 weeks to prepare for the fight.

Tyson looked better than Holmes against common opponents because his style was so exciting and so devestating BUT this should not be confused with him being a better fighter. The same thing can be said about Holyfield. Tyson looked better against common opponents but was crushed by Evander.

I agree.

Tyson knock out Chuvalo within 3 rounds?? Give me a break . . .if he's not knocking out Mitch Green he's sure as hell not knocking out Chuvalo . . .

[yancey]

Hi everyone, new guy here.

As far Chuvalo never going down, does anybody think Chuvalo would have been able to stay on his feet against Frazier or Foreman if the fights had gone on?

Frazier chopped Chuvalo to bits and the quick stoppage because of the eye very early in round 4 in effect enabled George to keep his "no knockdowns" record.

Same story with Foreman.

No way Chuvalo could have gone 12 rounds with those two and not been put down.