Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Exactly.
I've been accused in the past on this forum of extreme anti-Tyson bias for pointing that exact thing out, which is the opposite of being biased !

 

You're skirting the real issue here, though. Had Holmes changed trainer?

 

1. your response completely ignores my statement. Witherspoon wanted nothing more to do with Don King and his losing to Smith was what he saw as his way out of the relationship. He’s said do himself.
2. Carl Williams’ high rating going into the Tyson fight was largely backed by the close fight he gave an old Holmes. It certainly wasn’t beating Rodney Frazier or Bert Cooper which launched him to that point.
3. Tate falling off the radar after losing to Berbick had nothing to do with his status going IN to the Berbick fight. He was 25 years old. He was a former Olympian. He was highly ranked. And he had lost ONE fight in the closing seconds of championship blight that he was handley winning.
4. Yes it is objectively true. Spinks was regarded as the linear heavyweight champion. He was also days away from his 32nd birthday, fighting at a career high 212 lbs, had been considerably inactive and facing lackluster opposition as of late. And seeing how scared he looked against Tyson THEN immediately retiring afterward lends itself to the idea that it was never his intention to win that match.

5. Tyson was an early bloomer because he was taken out of a juvenile detention center at age 13 and brought under the wing of a world class boxing trainer. Cus D’Mato put a roof over his head, fed him and raised him with the SOLE intention of making a fighter out of him. I don’t think too many fighters found themselves in that unique position when they were that young

 

It's fair enough to say he was past prime against Holy, but so was Holy. And both were still very good and Holy dominated Tyson twice.

It's hardly Jones-Hopkins 2 we're talking about here. It was a very relevant version of Tyson who had just won two belts in as dominant fashion as he ever did and he got his ass handed to him by someone who was seen as washed up.

 

That's nonsense. Norton and then Weaver were probably the best of that era, 1978-'82.
At the time, Cooney had a lot of people saying he was the foremost rival too.
Around 1984-'85 you could definitely argue that Thomas was the best rival, and it is true that Holmes was looking for easier ones. That's like the last year or so of his reign.

Don't come telling me Greg ****ing Page and fat boy Tubbs were the best of the Holmes era. That's clearly BS.

 

You're talking about alphabet belts now.
They mean virtually nothing. Yes, in the 1990s even a palooka like Bruno could manage to pick up a belt.
Holmes entered the HW rankings in the 1970s, when Ali and Foreman were about the only active fighters around who were champions or ex-champions. When the championship meant something.

 

Depends when you say their primes end.

 

Thomas: heroin+rehab, only one defense and then fell off rapidly, multiple bad losses after being beaten by Tyson including a 1st round blowout to Morrison.

Tubbs: an inconsistent fatass who lived to party. Was offered a bonus to be in shape and intentionally stayed fat to be spiteful. Also lost his belt fairly quickly and fell off. Made very little effort to actually win.

Tucker: hand injury and his claim to fame was beating Douglas for a vacant belt. His record and size look impressive, but many opponents are either obscure or complete nobodies. Fell off rapidly after losing the belt and didn't accomplish much else at the world level.

Biggs: his drug problems are well documented and irrefutable. Had a train wreck of a career with multiple losses.

Tillis: serious health/stamina issues, inconsistent training camps, changed trainers a lot, was basically a journeyman who lost more than he won when he stepped up in class and still arguably came close to decisioning Tyson.

Smith: overweight flat footed 1 dimensional guy who clinched every 20 seconds to stall. Was beaten by everyone and their grandma and couldn't manage to put together an impressive string of wins to save his life. Also lost his belt pretty much immediately and couldn't stay in the rankings consistently.

Holmes: damn near 40 coming off 2 losses and inactive for more than a year.

Arguably the only in shape disciplined prime fighters Tyson beat were Williams Bruno and Ruddock. His era was filled to the brim with inconsistent/out of shape guys and drug addicts who lost as soon as they managed to secure a belt or gain a high ranking.

Yes you can do this with other boxers resume, but the point is the 80's was called the lost generation for a reason and it's very hypocritical to make every excuse for Tyson whole ignoring the condition of his opponents.

 

Exactly. Tate was a heavy favourite to beat Berbick, and it was Berbick more than Weaver that ruined Tate.
Berbick beat Tate in 1980 and had 3 more fights (against nobodies) before facing Holmes in 1981. It's crazy to argue he wasn't prime yet. He was 26 years old, had 20 pro fights behind him. He was in his prime, surely.

 

You're talking about the last 4 or 5 months of his reign now, literally.

 

Why on earth do we have to do that?

 

You keep saying that. But it isn't true.
No one you've mentioned was better than the men he beat. one of the guys you mentioned earlier - GREG PAGE - actually lost to 3 fighters in 1982-'84 .... fighters than Holmes beat in 1981-'85.