Am I Wrong To Rank Tyson Higher Than Holmes?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Azzer85, Aug 8, 2011.

  1. Bill1234

    Bill1234 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,314
    Likes Received:
    499
    Holmes was only down 4 times.
     
  2. El Bujia

    El Bujia Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,744
    Likes Received:
    78
    I'd rank Tyson higher, then again I rank Tyson especially highly as a Heavyweight.
     
  3. anut

    anut Boxing Addict banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    6,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    i feel larry holmes should be ahead of tyson just because of that 7 yrs without loosing is a great feat/.............although if u put tyson of 86 vs holmes of 81 or 82...........i think mike tyson would catch up to larry holmes and tko him or knock him out/ larry holmes considers himself the greatest i do not/
     
  4. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    36,474
    Likes Received:
    11,518
    Something missing here.
     
  5. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    19,654
    Likes Received:
    52
    almost objectively so
     
  6. Sangria

    Sangria You bleed like Mylee Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,021
    Likes Received:
    3,852
    What is missing? His post prison tenure damages his legacy. Do you not agree?
     
  7. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    20,449
    Likes Received:
    51
    Tyson #5 Holmes #6
     
  8. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    52,937
    Likes Received:
    44,798
    I have Holmes 4 or 5 and Tyson 8-10.
     
  9. johnmaff36

    johnmaff36 Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,793
    Likes Received:
    578
    Tyson doesnt rank higher than Holmes IMO. Not a chance. Prime for prime Holmes wins, and pretty decisively too
     
  10. DDDUUDDDEE

    DDDUUDDDEE Undisputed Ambien (taker) Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    23
    I was never really the biggest Holmes fan, and I think H2H Tyson kicks his ass all over again. But I have to respect Holmes legacy and say that P4P he ranks higher than Tyson.
     
  11. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    19,229
    Likes Received:
    257
    Disagree. He would lose some major wins, like Ruddock fo example, wouldn´t win another belts. His resume would be worse, his achievements would be worse, his longevity would be worse. Subjectivly he may be remembered more fondly. Objectivly his standing should suffer.

    Anyway, I´ve got Holmes between 4 and 6 and Tyson at 7.
     
  12. Phys

    Phys Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point. This is a subjective matter. ANd ranking Tyson higher can be justified easily.
     
  13. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,372
    Likes Received:
    473
    THis really is a tough question and i can see why people would rate Tyson ahead of Holmes (altough i don t think that Tyson Holmes result should have anything to do with it).

    I think though that in all fairness, i would have to defer to the longevity answer. Although, at his very best, Tyson was further ahead of his piers than Holmes was his. Realistically, it comes down to whether you value spectacular dominance over longevity.

    If you do rank Tyson higher, then i think that the likes of Liston, Marciano, Sullivan and Jeffries must also be very high, possibly unseating the usually favoured status quo of Louis and Ali.
     
  14. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    28,760
    Likes Received:
    84
    I used to but, now I rank Holmes higher. He's got longevity, 48-0 streak, and then the comeback. Yes, he didn't unify, and possibly took easier greener options toward the end of his title reign. Of course, Tyson has unification and more dominance. But his losses seem to be a little less forgivable.
     
  15. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    27,674
    Likes Received:
    7,654
    Holmes was beter for longer. He established himself as the best heavyweight in the world over a longer time regardless of if he unified the titles. The rivals were D-list compared to Holmes and he beat most of them.

    By the time Tyson came along King had given up on building a superfight rivalry between the champions and the HBO unification tourney was already in process.

    Earlier King waisted ground hoping a rival champion could build intrest for a Holmes superfight but none of the rivals caught on because they could not win title fights. I think they were only kept apart waiting for another champion to be good enough to bring in a super money unification but King was happy enough to promote two champions in the meantime.

    By the Tyson came along the idea had been given up, the titles were going to be unified anyway. He crashed and burned. Tyson is #10 on my list Holmes 4-5.