BoxRec

At the age of 39, Holmes lost to undisputed champion Tyson.
At the age of 39 Tyson lost to Kevin McBride, champion of nothing.

To compare a 39 year old Holmes to a 21 year old Tyson directly is not very logical.

As for the WBA title, Holmes tried to get a fight with Tate, but he priced himself out of the fight and wouldn't fight in Louisville. Tate instead got knocked out by Weaver, who Holmes TKO'd the year before, in Tate's first defense. If there wasn't enough money there vs Tate there certainly wouldn't have been enough vs Weaver. Why fight a capable, dangerous but undistinguished opponent for the same price tag when Zanon and LeDoux beckoned? Almost every heavyweight champion since John L Sullivan has stepped over at least one worthy opponent because the money wasn't there. Homes was champ for 7 years. Tyson was champ for just over 2 years. If Holmes seemed less dominant, it's just because we saw him near his peak, facing the best opposition around, for much longer. Also young Tyson fought guys who were TALL. Guys who were used to being able to keep an opponent off with the jab. Of course this strategy doesn't work very well against someone with blazing hand speed like Mike had in his early 20's. As soon as that hand speed lessened a bit Mike didn't look very dominant at all. Literally one dimensional. Any heavyweight under 6 foot is pretty much finished at 32. Mike also had very limited endurance. Tyson scored exactly 3 stoppages after round 6 of a fight. Holmes has 17!

Holmes is an all time great and his loss to Tyson doesn't hurt his legacy any more than Ali's loss to Holmes.

>>>To compare a 39 year old Holmes to a 21 year old Tyson directly is not very logical.<<<

What's not very logical is to try to pretend that Tyson did not just simply destroy Holmes...39, or not, but I always thought that Holmes was 38, not 39!!!


>>>Holmes is an all time great and his loss to Tyson doesn't hurt his legacy any more than Ali's loss to Holmes.<<<

Nor does losing to McBride effect Tyson's legacy, who himself is an all-time great as well!!!

ultimately i believe that Holmes awkward style detracts from his achievemnts..... he was certainly not as pretty to watch as the accepted greats......didnt really have a one punch Ko capability.....wasnt as silky with his combos...and used to nullify opps with an unplayable ramrod jab...

and yet altho ascetically unpleasing so many of his fights were thrillers...

and Larry is right up there with Joe Louis the way he took a full Snipes thunder bolt....a full Shavers sledghammer AND GOT UP!!!

look at those two fights ....he didnt just get up and maul and grab desperatly like a klitchko would ..NO he got up and he carried on fighting when about 90% of most boxers in history would have still been flat on their backs

LARRY HOLMES LEGEND

Holmes...a legend...I don't know...

Holmes an all-time great, most certainly!

barry wrote:>>>To compare a 39 year old Holmes to a 21 year old Tyson directly is not very logical.<<<

What's not very logical is to try to pretend that Tyson did not just simply destroy Holmes...39, or not, but I always thought that Holmes was 38, not 39!!!


>>>Holmes is an all time great and his loss to Tyson doesn't hurt his legacy any more than Ali's loss to Holmes.<<<

Nor does losing to McBride effect Tyson's legacy, who himself is an all-time great as well!!!

To take any notice of Holmes loss to Tyson is the same as reading much into Tysons loss to Mcbride... though its interesting that Holmes went out fighting against Tyson while Mike gave up against Mcbride....
prime Holmes vs Tyson would have been a completely different fight to what happened when they fought in 88...

>>>To take any notice of Holmes loss to Tyson is the same as reading much into Tysons loss to Mcbride<<<

Other than the actual FACT that Holmes still had quite a bit left in the tank, as he would prove a few years later by beating a few ranked fighters and then taking Holyfield to the wire...the Tyson who fought McBride was as shot as a fighter can be...big difference between that Tyson compared to the 88 Holmes...which most people seem to be able to realize...trying to compare the Holmes of 1988 to the Tyson of 2005 is just...well...plain silly, again, as most people realize!

barry wrote:>>>To take any notice of Holmes loss to Tyson is the same as reading much into Tysons loss to Mcbride<<<

Other than the actual FACT that Holmes still had quite a bit left in the tank, as he would prove a few years later by beating a few ranked fighters and then taking Holyfield to the wire...the Tyson who fought McBride was as shot as a fighter can be...big difference between that Tyson compared to the 88 Holmes...which most people seem to be able to realize...trying to compare the Holmes of 1988 to the Tyson of 2005 is just...well...plain silly, again, as most people realize!

But its silly to take much notice of Holmes performance against Tyson when he'd been out for almost 3 years, was 38 and had only trained for 6 weeks!...most people would agree to this, you cant get into fighting shape at 38 with just 6 weeks training in 2 years. When Holmes fought Holifield he had some fights under his belt and was far fitter, same against Mccall and Mercer. The Holmes that fought Tyson would never have beaten Mercer or lasted the distance with Holifield.
Joe Frazier would have been a much tougher fight for Holmes than Tyson...

One thing people miss with Tyson is that he couldnt fight on the inside... if he didnt have room to throw his punches he would get frustrated... he never knew what to do when he got tied up etc...

I thought Tyson had some skill on the inside, if nothing else he always had his devastating uppercut, a punch that seems to be a lost art with todays heaveyweights. He always used this punch with great effect.

kick asner wrote:I thought Tyson had some skill on the inside, if nothing else he always had his devastating uppercut, a punch that seems to be a lost art with todays heaveyweights. He always used this punch with great effect.

His infighting was largely limited, especially compared to the likes of Marciano and Frazier... very strange considering Mikes 'height' ....

Holmes in his prime vs Tyson in his prime ?

It's a no brainer

Holmes stops Tyson in the middle rounds.

Tyson would have never gotten inside Holme's jab, or have been able to cut off the ring even a couple of years before they actually fought.

The Holmes that fought Tyson would never have beaten Mercer or lasted the distance with Holifield.

thats ur opinion. facts speak for themselves

Barry, I don't see any justification in counting fighters losses past their prime. Holmes prime ended circa 1983. Great fighters who fight on two long can suffer numerous losses to guys they would have been expected to easily beat at their best.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

The Holmes that fought Tyson would never have beaten Mercer or lasted the distance with Holifield.

thats ur opinion. facts speak for themselves

Like how Abe Simon KO'd Jersey Joe Walcott when Walcott was 26 years old? Yep, facts speak for themselves.

Simon KO 6 Walcott

Do you remember saying Brockton how at 34 Jimmy Ellis was shot when he was knocked out by Shavers and at 28 Quarry was shot when he was knocked out by Norton?

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

The Holmes that fought Tyson would never have beaten Mercer or lasted the distance with Holifield.

thats ur opinion. facts speak for themselves

Like how Abe Simon KO'd Jersey Joe Walcott when Walcott was 26 years old? Yep, facts speak for themselves.

Simon KO 6 Walcott

i really dont see what the relevence is. silkov is implying a 4 years older holmes who hadnt fought in 4 years is better than the holmes who fought tyson.


this is strongly disagree with

kick asner wrote:Do you remember saying Brockton how at 34 Jimmy Ellis was shot when he was knocked out by Shavers and at 28 Quarry was shot when he was knocked out by Norton?

all fighters prime differently.


wilredo benitez was washed up at age 26, but archie moore was in his prime at 35 years old. or was suddenly wilfredo benitez in his prime at age 26?


get the point? all fighters age differently. ellis was pretty much washed up when he fought shavers in 73.


quarry was very battle worn, overweight, late sub and clearly past his prime when he fought norton at age 29. quarry was a early bloomer....he primed when he was young therefore his prime ended when he was younger.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

kick asner wrote:Do you remember saying Brockton how at 34 Jimmy Ellis was shot when he was knocked out by Shavers and at 28 Quarry was shot when he was knocked out by Norton?

all fighters prime differently.


wilredo benitez was washed up at age 26, but archie moore was in his prime at 35 years old. or was suddenly wilfredo benitez in his prime at age 26?


get the point? all fighters age differently. ellis was pretty much washed up when he fought shavers in 73.


quarry was very battle worn, overweight, late sub and clearly past his prime when he fought norton at age 29. quarry was a early bloomer....he primed when he was young therefore his prime ended when he was younger.

You would have to say that a 38 year old Holmes who had not fought in two years was not in his prime. The only thing that brought Larry out of retirement was Don King knocking on his door and asking Holmes if he would be interested in making four million dollars. So he took this fight on the spare of the moment. Any of Holme's subsequent fights that he won or made a good showing in he also was not in his prime for. He was just that much better than the Ray Mercers of the world where he could still beat them in his forties.

of course holmes was not in his prime vs tyson. but fact is tyson did something no one ever did to holmes, he dominated holmes and knocked larry out cold. consider the fact holmes 4 years later shutout ray mercer and gave holy 12 tough rounds, this is a solid mark on tysons legacy and shows u what a true puncher a prime tyson was. no one stopped larry old or young, but tyson did it with ease. evander had a lot more trouble with a older holmes than tyson did with holmes.

Another thing I just realized about Holmes' record. All but one of his losses was against an undefeated champion. Of course Spinks was LHW champ not HW and Nielsen was only IBO champ. But still DAMN! McCall had 5 losses but had just come off of his KO of Lennox. Undefeated until the age of 35 is pretty impressive when compared against even the elite of heavyweight history.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:of course holmes was not in his prime vs tyson. but fact is tyson did something no one ever did to holmes, he dominated holmes and knocked larry out cold. consider the fact holmes 4 years later shutout ray mercer and gave holy 12 tough rounds, this is a solid mark on tysons legacy and shows u what a true puncher a prime tyson was. no one stopped larry old or young, but tyson did it with ease. evander had a lot more trouble with a older holmes than tyson did with holmes.

This thread is really not about Tyson, he only entered the topic of discussion on the basis does Holme's loss to him detract from Larry's legacy. Myself and others say no due to Holme's advanced age, inactivity, and lack of preperation time. Now if you want to say that it ads something to Tyson's reseme I don't have a problem with that, but I don't see it as an accurate indicator as to the outcome if both men would have fought in their primes.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:of course holmes was not in his prime vs tyson. but fact is tyson did something no one ever did to holmes, he dominated holmes and knocked larry out cold. consider the fact holmes 4 years later shutout ray mercer and gave holy 12 tough rounds, this is a solid mark on tysons legacy and shows u what a true puncher a prime tyson was. no one stopped larry old or young, but tyson did it with ease. evander had a lot more trouble with a older holmes than tyson did with holmes.

And Kevin McBride's destruction of Tyson is solid mark on McBride's legacy.

And certainly Lewis spanking of the well prepared Tyson is a VERY solid mark on Lewis's legacy.

And...

Tyson was well prepared, but too old against Lewis who was also well prepared, but too old as well.

Holmes was knocked out in the amateurs by Nick Wells. He was probably chronologically closer to his prime at that point than he was in the Tyson fight.

I have somewhat differing views on the Tyson-Holmes fight. I don't consider it a great win for Tyson, considering Holmes long lay off and no tune ups...BUT...up until that time NOBODY gave Tyson a harder fight than what Holmes did.

Had Holmes have not thrown back his right hand and got it held between the ropes, it could have went a few more rounds, maybe even the distance. It was purely Holmes experience and instincts that kept him going, and his skills, though rusty, was keeping him very much in the fight.

I'd consider this to be a better win for Tyson than Mike's win over Spinks, considering Spinks was already ducking challengers and breaking down physically and wanted to retire...and of course...Holmes came to fight, Spinks came to lose.