No Valuev was the worst title holder ever! We know you're just a Tyson hater so stop the ****. Tyson in his prime was a great fighter. He unified the division for the first time in a long time. He won the lineal title in a first round KO win over Spinks. He beat Berbick in 2 rounds and won decisions over Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker. Great wins. Spinks was a great fighter mind you.
Eh???? You've got your dates and fact mixed up badly. Berbick didn't win any title against Ali. In fact he won his title about 5 years AFTER his fight with Ali when he outpointed Pinklon Thomas. Holmes was both rusty and past his best, however Tyson is still the only man to stop Larry, nobody else came close afterwards and around 7 years later Holmes lost a debatable decision against a certain Mr McCall, doing far, far better than McCalls previous opponent, Lennox Lewis.
Spinks There a was a lot of people who were accusing Tyson of ducking Spinks, i think Ring Mag had Spinks as their champ. Holmes was a good win. Nobody knocked Holmes out like Tyson did Holmes went on to school Ray Mercer, the same Mercer, Lewis had a disputed decision with
Holyfield being shot is a load of **** Holyfield went on to beat Moorer and then had a disputable decision against LL Tyson was getting schooled by Botha in his very next fight
Spinks Before anyone says Spinks was a blown up light heavy with no chance, try to remember what other light heavies did in their bids to win the heavyweight title. Tunney beat Dempsey twice Conn lasted 13 rounds and came thisclose to besting Louis Archie Moore dropped Marciano in the 1st before succumbing in the 10th Ezzard Charles extended Marciano and gave him all he could handle. Spinks beat Holmes twice Michael Moorer beat Holyfield Roy Jones pasted John Ruiz Tyson-Spinks was the biggest heavyweight clash since Ali-Frazier. Spinks had never been down before and many boxing insiders, including Muhammad Ali, picked Spinks to win.
Berbick won the WBC title against undefeated Pinklon Thomas, the same Thomas who was considered the best heavyweight, better than Larry Holmes and ranked in the Ring's top 10 pound 4 pound rankings. And I disagree with a heavyweight's prime being 30. Every fighter ages differently.
I've got a few of Spinks big LHW fights and of course his fights with Holmes and Tyson. And while Spinks had decent power at LHW he was really a natural CW(although there was no lustre in the division at the time). But had Spinks campaigned at that weight and gotten serious gift decisions over Holmes, I might not give him so much ****. I think H2H Spinks is almost as good as Mormeck or maybe even Adamek, but he's not better at any wieght than either of the two. Holmes OTOH did get a gift decision over Witherspoon, but it was a fight he was completely unfocused for and judging Larry's previous wins, and his accomplishments after the Tyson fight, it's difficult to say that Holmes is not Mikes best win. I've said it before and I'll say it again......Holmes is just one of maybe 10 fighters throughout history that would be a top 3-5 in any era, and Tyson completely destroyed him.
On paper, yes, and according to boxrec, yes, but it was a media who absolutely hated Larry Holmes for NO good reason that allowed for the judges in those fights to give Spinks credit for scoring while being completely beaten. Those fights were the equivolent of Wlad v Haye and Vitali vs Byrd(less the RTD). Even trying hard to find a way to give Spinks rds.......you still gotta admit Larry was robbed X 2.
Not a bad shout. Arguably the most talented opponent he faced in his reign. Wouldn;t say it's the victory that defines him, but certainly a good scalp to have on his resume.
Second fight...probably. But the first fight wasn't a robbery at all imo. Spinks gave Holmes fits with his pesky in and out style that evening and made the fight close enough where a decision either way would have been warranted.