Larry Holmes was he really over the hill vs Tyson

[Dynamite76]

Holmes never quit in the center of the ring!! Holmes never bit a fighters ear so he could be DQ instead of being KO'd. Buster Douglas trained to beat Tyson by backing him up once he got his punches landing and using his upper cut to do the damage. He trained for it and made it happen. No excuses!! Tyson beat an old Holmes those are the facts but he beat him. Tyson got destroyed by Douglas a guy who wasn't supposed to finish on his feet but they knew if you can back up Tyson he'd get lost, he did!!'I place Douglas and Tyson at the same level, two men when everything is going their way can perform at a high level but when the waters get ruff they don't have the character to face the waves, so they drown! Ray

Interesting analysis!

[Cardinal Buck]

You compare Vitali coming back to fight Samuel Peter to Larry Holmes coming back to fight prime Mike Tyson!

I despair..............

Even 1988 Holmes would have toyed with Samuel Peter!

You walked into my trap, actually. I agree that 88 Holmes would beat Sam Peter. You were trying to make some sort of lame excuse about inactivity and conditioning limiting Holmes' performance against Tyson. No, actually Mike Tyson is the one who limited Holmes' performance. 38>42.

[Sugarj]

You walked into my trap, actually. I agree that 88 Holmes would beat Sam Peter. You were trying to make some sort of lame excuse about inactivity and conditioning limiting Holmes' performance against Tyson. No, actually Mike Tyson is the one who limited Holmes' performance. 38>42.

Such arrogance and childishness coupled with a complete lack of logic and intelligence!

You haven't set a trap. You made a fool of yourself by comparing Vitali's comeback against Sam Peter to Holmes's comeback against prime Tyson.

Any version of Holmes between 1988 upto 1992 would surely be too much for any heavyweight since the retirement of Lennox Lewis, barring the two Klitschkos. The guy was still a class act. Just because you agree that he'd beat Sam Peter means nothing. Sam Peter wouldn't be top 10 at any point in the 1980s (and the 80s weren't even that celebrated an era barring Holmes and Tyson!).

1988 Mike Tyson was one of the most lethal heavyweights in history. He was vastly superior at that point to any heavyweight in the division. He cannot be compared to Sam Peter in any way.

Holmes's inactivity and lack of conditioning would surely have affected his performance against Tyson. To deny that is simply foolish!

I've said in several posts in this thread that it wasn't a winnable fight for Holmes at that age. I said in a previous post that I thought that 1980-1982 Holmes would have had a chance. I also said that I feel that Holmes was a better fighter a year into his 1991/92 comeback than in 1988.

I also in previous posts said that 1988 Holmes was at least as good as other Tyson opponents such as Berbick, Tubbs and Bonecrusher......all logical.

Whats all this 38>42 nonsense? Have you watched many Holmes fights in his comeback. The guy who fought Mercer and Holyfield looked better, more active, sharper, than the guy who met Tyson. It makes sense, he had lots of activity that year and was more ring sharp.

Most would agree that the 1973/1974 Ali who won the return with Norton, the return with Frazier and beat Foreman was better than the rusty shell that beat Quarry and Bonavena three and four years previously. Activity really counts!

Just to cheer you up as you are obviously a Tyson fan.....Tyson was brilliant that night. He was brilliant from 1986-1989! It'd have taken the best Larry Holmes ever to beat him that night.

[Sugarj]

And one more thing to consider Cardinal. How do you think the comebacking Vitali at what? 37 would have done against 1988 Mike Tyson if it were the first fight of his comeback?

I'm not convinced he'd have been any more effective than 1988 Holmes.

Remember too that Vitali's comeback was not a rushed two month training camp......and that Vitali retired in his prime, not after 2 decision losses after a slow but steady decline.

Food for thought?

[StarshipTrooper]

And one more thing to consider Cardinal. How do you think the comebacking Vitali at what? 37 would have done against 1988 Mike Tyson?

I'm not convinced he'd have been any more effective than 1988 Holmes.

Oh but Sam Peter is the bigger better version of Tyson and Frazier combined :rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9:

[Sugarj]

Oh but Sam Peter is the bigger better version of Tyson and Frazier combined :rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9:

Silly me for forgetting that. Ha ha

[StarshipTrooper]

Silly me for forgetting that. Ha ha

What's really hysterical is some of those hardcore Klitlickers have actually said **** like that :hahahaha9:

Poet

[Sugarj]

What's really hysterical is some of those hardcore Klitlickers have actually said **** like that :hahahaha9:

Poet

They haven't just said it, they've actually believed it. Ha ha

[StarshipTrooper]

They haven't just said it, they've actually believed it. Ha ha

:rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9:

[Sugarj]

:rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9: :rofl9:

I'm Weeping.....