Holmes-Spinks II.

[Mintcar923]

Yeah, but he'd stopped opponents before with an accumulation of punches, so Holmes probably thought he could do that to Spinks. I guess Spinks was too elusive.

Yes, much too elusive as this was an older Holmes with less speed and reflexes. It wouldn't be completely out of the question that a young prime Holmes would wear down and stop Michael as he did Leon. But, Michael would definitely be more difficult for him...

[Anthony342]

It was easy to see that Holmes was rapidly declining in the Williams and Bey fights. You could tell that the end of the road for him was near. The Holmes who fought Cooney handles Spinks with relative ease.

I agree and yes, the end was near. That's why I think if Holmes had won two more and gone to 50-0, he would've probably retired much sooner, as that seemed to be his primary goal, unless he would've then wanted to win 4 more and break Joe Louis' title defenses record, but in his fights, there were always talks of Marciano's record, so I believe Holmes would've retired at 49 or 50-0, if he could've gotten to that point.

[Sugarj]

I agree and yes, the end was near. That's why I think if Holmes had won two more and gone to 50-0, he would've probably retired much sooner, as that seemed to be his primary goal, unless he would've then wanted to win 4 more and break Joe Louis' title defenses record, but in his fights, there were always talks of Marciano's record, so I believe Holmes would've retired at 49 or 50-0, if he could've gotten to that point.

Lets look at it from another angle....there is no way that Holmes would have walked away with a 50/0 record!!!

If Holmes had beaten Spinks first time around and equalled Rocky's record......who would he have boxed for the mythical 50 and 0 in 1986?

There was no shortage of challengers, however.....if he were to have boxed say a Tim Witherspoon again and then retired you can bet that the boxing world would say he retired because he was scared of meeting Mike Tyson in a unification bout.

A Holmes vs Tyson unification fight in 1987 would have been the biggest fight since Ali vs Frazier 1. Bigger than Tyson vs Spinks! The meeting of two eras, 2 undefeated champions. There is no way that Larry Holmes being Larry Holmes would have walked away from that match.............the money would have been astronomical, and Larry has alot of time for money!

If he had beaten Spinks, he'd have ended up finishing the 80s with a 50/1 record.......then he'd have made the same 90s comeback that he actually did.

[Anthony342]

Maybe, but do you think he would have continued to fight as long as he did? So, he probably fights Tyson to unify the title again. Why didn't Holmes fight for the WBA belt and unify the title? I know he won the Ring title belt to become lineal champion. So if he beats Spinks, he probably defends his titles a few more times and then fights Tyson, who would've been WBA and WBC Champion in that case.

Also, why did Holmes relinquish the WBC title belt after beating Scott Frank, before fighting Marvis Frazier? And in terms of title defenses, I think it should be separately recorded separately when a fighter holds one piece of a title and the Ring belt or undisputed title. Like, for instance, Holmes had 20 defenses after becoming WBC Champion, but 12 as The Ring heavyweight champion, so shouldn't those count more, because then, at that point, he was lineal heavyweight champion? It would seem to be more fair to fighters of the past, who had one title belt to fight for and not 2-4 to choose from.

Another example would be Tyson. He has 9 total title defenses, but 6 as undisputed champion and 2 as Ring and lineal Heavyweight Champion. Shouldn't they be broken up that way? That's how I usually do it, anyway.

[Sugarj]

Maybe, but do you think he would have continued to fight as long as he did? So, he probably fights Tyson to unify the title again. Why didn't Holmes fight for the WBA belt and unify the title? I know he won the Ring title belt to become lineal champion. So if he beats Spinks, he probably defends his titles a few more times and then fights Tyson, who would've been WBA and WBC Champion in that case.

Also, why did Holmes relinquish the WBC title belt after beating Scott Frank, before fighting Marvis Frazier? And in terms of title defenses, I think it should be separately recorded separately when a fighter holds one piece of a title and the Ring belt or undisputed title. Like, for instance, Holmes had 20 defenses after becoming WBC Champion, but 12 as The Ring heavyweight champion, so shouldn't those count more, because then, at that point, he was lineal heavyweight champion? It would seem to be more fair to fighters of the past, who had one title belt to fight for and not 2-4 to choose from.

Another example would be Tyson. He has 9 total title defenses, but 6 as undisputed champion and 2 as Ring and lineal Heavyweight Champion. Shouldn't they be broken up that way? That's how I usually do it, anyway.

Holmes has always operated with a money first policy; he hated Don King's percentages and I gather that he was only too happy to support the IBF due to the lower sanctioning fees back then. Tyson would have still met Berbick & Bonecrusher for the WBC & WBA belts, then he'd have had Holmes in his headlights.

I don't think Larry had the motivation to unify the titles in the mid 80s, everyone knew he was the true linear heavyweight champion and the man to beat. But in 1986 if Larry had remained undefeated the reputation of Tyson would be hanging over Holmes like a big rain cloud.

There would have been too much money for Holmes to say no.......and he wouldn't have beaten Tyson at that point (granted though, the 1986 Holmes who met Spinks second time round would have done rather better than the ring rusty example did in 1988!).

And yes, if he had met Tyson in 1986 or 1987.......and lost, he'd have still made his 90s comeback (which was financially very lucrative for him).

If by some miracle he'd have outpointed Tyson in 1986, then, just then he might have retired for good! But he surely wasn't capable of that in 1986, even over a fight set for 15 rounds.

[Anthony342]

Ah I see. And that's why I come here. To learn. And now I just learned something about one of my all-time favorite heavyweights, Larry Holmes.

As lucrative as it was, a lot of those fights I found hard to watch, especially the Bonecrusher rematch and Butterbean.

[Sugarj]

Ah I see. And that's why I come here. To learn. And now I just learned something about one of my all-time favorite heavyweights, Larry Holmes.

As lucrative as it was, a lot of those fights I found hard to watch, especially the Bonecrusher rematch and Butterbean.

I quite enjoyed a few fights of his comeback. Granted there were a few walkovers, but the Mercer, Holyfield and McCall fights were more entertaining than anything we've seen in the heavyweight division since Lewis vs Vitali.

[Scott9945]

As lucrative as it was, a lot of those fights I found hard to watch, especially the Bonecrusher rematch and Butterbean.

I'm grateful that I wasn't able to see those two fights when they happened. Sure as hell no reason to watch them now.

[Panthershock]

I agree and yes, the end was near. That's why I think if Holmes had won two more and gone to 50-0, he would've probably retired much sooner, as that seemed to be his primary goal, unless he would've then wanted to win 4 more and break Joe Louis' title defenses record, but in his fights, there were always talks of Marciano's record, so I believe Holmes would've retired at 49 or 50-0, if he could've gotten to that point.

Larry Holmes used to have a section on his website where you could post a question and he would personally respond.

My question was about retiring if had broken Marciano's mark.

He emphatically said no. If the money was still there, he was sticking around

[Sugarj]

Larry Holmes used to have a section on his website where you could post a question and he would personally respond.

My question was about retiring if had broken Marciano's mark.

He emphatically said no. If the money was still there, he was sticking around

Confirmed then, the Tyson fight was always going to happen......