Larry Holmes was he really over the hill vs Tyson

[Cardinal Buck]

He was also fighting Ray Mercer and not prime Mike Tyson.

[Sugarj]

To put Holmes' weight into perspective, he was 225 (according to boxrec). That's two pounds heavier than he was in the Spinks rematch and 8 pounds lighter than he was against Mercer. So he couldn't have been in such poor condition. It was probably a bigger problem that Tyson punched him in the head.

He wasn't in the best 'ring' shape though......and to be honest his body didn't look in as good cosmetic shape as he did vs Spinks 2 or even Mercer despite what his official weight was. No one in history would have been able to beat prime Tyson at 38 years of age, with 2 years out of the ring and a 2 month preparation.....even with the odd bit of roadwork and sparring in between.

Lets face it.....1988 Holmes wasn't going to beat Mike Tyson. 1991/92 Holmes wouldn't either. But I do think the Holmes of 1992 was better than the Holmes of 1988, he was more ring sharp and probably a shade fitter. I'm sure that the Holmes who faced Mercer would have lasted more than 4 rounds.

[Ray Corso]

Ali came in at 217lbs against Holmes!! What does body weight have to do with being ready to fight hard for every round. Way to much time spent on weights and heights in the Heaveyweight division, its an "open class"! To think a great fighter at 195 to 215 can't beat a slightly above average man who is 6'6" 250 is ridiculous.
If two men of equal talent meet and the size difference is alot then the taller man who can impose his will using height should have an advantage just as the shorter man will do well if he can get past the reach and remain inside scoring there.
Then theres the "size of the fight" not the "size of the Dog" factor!
Common Boxing sense! Ray.

[Cardinal Buck]

^your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine (other than pointing out that a man with Parkinson's and on amphetamines couldn't fight well) if you are, in fact, responding to it.

[Cardinal Buck]

He wasn't in the best 'ring' shape though......and to be honest his body didn't look in as good cosmetic shape as he did vs Spinks 2 or even Mercer despite what his official weight was. No one in history would have been able to beat prime Tyson at 38 years of age, with 2 years out of the ring and a 2 month preparation.....even with the odd bit of roadwork and sparring in between.

Lets face it.....1988 Holmes wasn't going to beat Mike Tyson. 1991/92 Holmes wouldn't either. But I do think the Holmes of 1992 was better than the Holmes of 1988, he was more ring sharp and probably a shade fitter. I'm sure that the Holmes who faced Mercer would have lasted more than 4 rounds.

This thread inspired me to watch the fight again yesterday. Basically, this is what I saw: Holmes was doing pretty well for the first 4.5 rounds. He wasn't winning, but he was gaining momentum and landing right uppercuts and straight rights (he also looked to be in decent condition for a guy who's never been ripped). The turning point was when he walked into a massive right from Tyson in the 4th. This is actually a different fight pattern than what most of Tyson's opponents went through. Most got systematically broken down if not taken out really early. Holmes was hanging in for a little while before getting his bell rung. So I don't really buy the conditioning excuse. He just lost and, like others have said, he was past prime but still good.

[Sugarj]

This thread inspired me to watch the fight again yesterday. Basically, this is what I saw: Holmes was doing pretty well for the first 4.5 rounds. He wasn't winning, but he was gaining momentum and landing right uppercuts and straight rights (he also looked to be in decent condition for a guy who's never been ripped). The turning point was when he walked into a massive right from Tyson in the 4th. This is actually a different fight pattern than what most of Tyson's opponents went through. Most got systematically broken down if not taken out really early. Holmes was hanging in for a little while before getting his bell rung. So I don't really buy the conditioning excuse. He just lost and, like others have said, he was past prime but still good.

He was still a good heavyweight, just a bit rusty and not quite in 12 round shape. Obviously he was never a Ken Norton type physique wise, but he didn't look great at all against Tyson, looked softer than he did a few years later. His timing was a little off too. Pretty much what you'd expect.

He had some very nice moments, but lets face it.....he was one of the best heavyweights ever, with only two disputed decision losses on his record. He'd have done better with a couple of tune ups and a three month training camp. He wouldn't have won, but he could have done better with a different buildup.

He was nothing like as good as he was in the Spinks return (for the first six rounds of that fight he looked superb. He was unlucky to lose the decision in many people's opinion). If he'd have carried on fighting, a Tyson fight in 1987 would have been better.

[Cardinal Buck]

Yeah, I mostly agree. What I don't agree on is the conditioning part. I think he was about as fit as against Mercer and I don't think his conditioning ever became a factor in the fight. I also think the ring rust might be a little overstated. I feel like Tyson is the variable that made him really look crappy...same for a lot of Tyson's opponents.

[Sugarj]

Yeah, I mostly agree. What I don't agree on is the conditioning part. I think he was about as fit as against Mercer and I don't think his conditioning ever became a factor in the fight. I also think the ring rust might be a little overstated. I feel like Tyson is the variable that made him really look crappy...same for a lot of Tyson's opponents.

Larry was no fool. He'd have trained as hard as he could for Tyson, but he had only two months to train for the match. He'd have come in as fit as he could given the time.

It doesn't matter that he may have kept up the odd bit of roadwork or sparring in his two year layoff. He was in nothing like the sort of shape he needed to be in to last 12 rounds with prime Tyson. You cannot become a world class athlete in 8 weeks, especially when you're 38. How can you say that the ring rust was 'overstated'? He hadn't been in a fight for two years and here he was at 38 coming in against one of the most lethal heavyweights in history in his absolute prime!! Just because he showed some savy and landed a few punches doesn't mean that he wasn't rusty. He wasn't anything like as good as he was two years previous. Sparring is no real substitute for actual fighting.

When it comes to a two month training camp all you can do is get your weight down a bit and become a little more ring sharp. You aren't going to make an amazing athletic improvement. Ring conditioning is more than just fitness regardless; absorbing punishment to head and body, pacing yourself, being defensive when hurt and under pressure are all things that he wouldn't have had much time to work on.

Larry was clearly trying to slow the pace from the start. He didn't have much confidence in his ability to sustain a decent workrate. He got nailed after starting round four on his toes and looking impressive for a bit. As soon as he got tired from the energy expenditure he went flat footed and got caught with that beautiful one-two from Tyson.

He would have been much fitter for Ray Mercer. Mercer was his 6th fight in 10months. He'd was ring sharp again and surely in better ring shape than for Tyson.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good win for Tyson. 1988 Holmes was at least as good as Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs or Trevor Berbick. But there was no way that 1988 Holmes was as good as 1986 Holmes or 1992 Holmes. 1980-1982 Holmes may have had a good shot at winning the fight....

[Cardinal Buck]

The gap between the Spinks fight and when Holmes started training again was only like 1.5 years. There are plenty of guys who've come back from that kind of a layoff and still been successful at a high level. There have been plenty of champions with activity levels that are only slightly better than that. I don't buy that he was better in 92 than 88. Not even a little bit.

[BKM-]

He was past his prime but people exaggerate it and take too much credit away from Tyson's KO victory over him IMO.