Originally Posted by knockout artist
Tyson's win over Holmes means very little. Anyone arguing otherwise is a fool. If he beat a 1981 prime Larry Holmes that would have been an amazing achievement. Beating the fat old coming out of retirement for a payday Holmes doesn't mean you beat an ATG
dino - Holmes jab may be better than Wlad's, but there isn't much between them. Wlad's jab is certainly not 'massively inferior'.
If you dont rate Tysons win over Holmes you're a hater, its as simple as that. Out of everybody Holmes fought he said he would never fight Tyson again.
4 years after Tyson, Holmes beat Mercer, an undefeated , olympic gold medalist who had just ko'd undefeated Tommy Morrison. Holyfield was ko'ing fighters left right and centre but had trouble with Holmes over 12 rounds.
He was just one point short of beating MaCall who had just knocked out Lewis in 2 rounds, 7 years after the Tyson fight.
To say Mike's win is not an accomplishment is just plain stupid and ignorant.