Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Yes, but the fact that Berbick was still highly ranked (he'd done nothing since Tyson obliterated him) was due to the division being in a poor state. If you were around at the time you know this.

Who ever did though?
There are always more fighters to beat.

 

Yes, but what are you going to give Holmes for NOT being destroyed by Douglas-level opposition in his prime?
This is about how Holmes compares to Tyson.

Tyson fought whoever Don King told him to fight.
He fought Henry Tillman first of all, actually.

Holmes fought Shavers twice. But you ignore the 1st fight because Holmes schooled him so badly.

You mean like Mike Weaver in 1979? Yeah, Holmes was not at his best (excuses, ala Tyson in Tokyo), and Weaver was much much better than his record suggested (like Douglas in Tokyo) ... Holmes found a way to win.

 

At the age of 42 Holmes was being competitive with prime Holyfield, at the age of 30 Tyson was getting his ass kicked by past prime Holyfield.

 

Tyson fought a better calibre of opponent on the whole with his title defences but Holmes had the better career all in all. He defended the title twenty times (off the top of my head) and was still winning against credible opposition when he was way past his best.

 

that's true, but ....

Holmes beat :
Norton
Shavers (twice)
Weaver (who beat Tate, Coetzee, Williams, deserved a win against Dokes 2nd time as well, imo)
Berbick (who beat Tate, Page and Thomas)
L.Spinks
Snipes
Cooney
Witherspoon (who beat Page, Tubbs)
.......................................... and Bavid Bey (who beat Greg Page in 1984)

AND

Tyson managed not to fight Witherspoon at all. Witherspoon was ranked top 5 in 1987-'89.
Tyson couldn't beat Douglas. Douglas was ranked since 1986.
Tyson chose Douglas over his #1 Holyfield, and lost. When he eventually did meet Holyfield, he was beaten up bad.

So, nobody actually cleared out anything.

 

No, I got BOTH the points you were making.
You mentioned a declining Tyson 1999-2000 still be able to KO Spinks.
I said, yes, but a 45 year old Holmes beats Williams and McBride.

I didn't address the Norton and Cooney point.
Norton was KO'd in 1 round by Shavers, so yeah, Tyson should KO Norton early too.
KOing Norton early doesn't make you automatically better than prime Holmes though.

 

Okay, a war-torn, heart condition, slowed-down juicehead, 6-1 underdog.

Tyson got his ass torn up.

 

He never has anything good to say in my book. Hes rude condescending and a key board tough guy who never stepped into a ring in his life. He calls fighters bum's and is extremely disrespectful. No time for that. I asked him not to respond to any of my posts which he still does hence my response.

 

Mikey hit the wall a lot harder and faster than Larry.

 

Objectively NO. Tyson did not have a better career than Holmes. Holmes was undefeated in his prime and was a more successful longer reigning Champion, he even picked up a fantastic late career comeback win over Mercer.

Holmes had the better "career" but if he was truly better or not in the overall sense, depends on your criteria and contextual considerations. That's where you compare matter of victory or competition. But no question, Holmes was a greater success, where as Tyson was largely a disappointment after his unification achievement.