Funny, I recently rewatched the Holmes fight. I recall there being very little hype for that fight and few gave Holmes a shot.

But looking back, I wonder why that is. I mean, obviously Holmes was past his prime but he was not terriably so. A lot of people thought he won his last fight against Spinks so he had never been defeated in a convincing manner.

So we are left with an aging, somewhat past his prime HOFer with top-level HW boxing skills vs a young KO artist. I would've thought there would be more than a few thinking Larry could pull one out.

But Tyson's rep at the time was off the charts unbeatable. And dominate he did. Larry had maybe 30 seconds of dancing and outjabbing Tyson. The rest was all Mike.

Tyson's career ended badly but people forget how dominant he was. Well, we do remember but often we qualify that with the notion that he no competition. No Hearns to his Hagler. But maybe he did have competion, namely a HOFer Holmes and and an undefeated Spinks. He was just so good we assumed they were worse at the time than they were.