Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Tyson defended against Tubbs and Bruno, two fighters Witherspoon beat.
I don't even regard Bruno as a legit top 10 contender at the time.
Bruno was a second-rater. Nice muscles but he couldn't really fight.

 

Holmes and Tyson both dropped belts instead of facing their mandatory. And while Tyson shouldn't be accused of ducking Dokes and Witherspoon they were probably about as good as anyone he beat during his first reign.

 

1-tyson did not get in the ring with Douglas for a 2nd time. They tried to have the verdict overturned in court so that Tyson could remain champion. Don king even tried to argue Douglas was still under his contract. It was a big mess and it boiled down to damage control and not wanting to give Douglas credit. To this day, Tyson says out his own mouth Douglas received a long count and cannot accept the loss.

As for Holyfield, yes Tyson got in the ring with him. And then what happened? He bit him and got himself disqualified. No I'm not going to give him credit for that bull****.

2-my time line is not wrong. Thomas won the belt over Witherspoon in 84, a guy Holmes had already beaten. He defended his belt against weaver in 85 a guy Holmes had already beaten. He lost in 86 to Berbick, a guy homes had already beaten. He did nothing to really separate himself from the rest of the division and was only fighting once a year.

In 84 Holmes beat smith, 85 he beat two undefeated fighters bey and Williams back to back then fought spinks. He then fought spinks in a rematch in 86. Attempting to avenge a loss is cherry picking? Facing young undefeated guys is cherry picking? Again, Thomas fell off in 86 losing to a guy Holmes had already beaten. In 87 holmes was retired and 36 years old when Thomas got his ass kicked by Tyson. When was this fight supposed to happen?

In 84, 85, and 86, what was tubbs doing?

He fought guys who had records like Jerry Williams 4-7-0, Miller 2-12-0. He beat smith in an eliminator, a guy holmes had already beaten, beat page, and then lost his first defense to Witherspoon just like every other inconsistent underachiever in the 80's. When was the ideal time for Holmes to fight Tubbs? I'll wait.

 

That's not what you said in the first part of your statement.
You said that: "Tyson beat a probably worse version of Holmes than Lewis did of Tyson."
Which is not true at all. After losing to Tyson, Holmes went on to fight 2 more times for the world title going the distance both times, against a prime Holyfield and McCall. By comparison, Tyson lost to 2 bums after Lewis.

 

The slick counter punching he had while he was with Rooney.

 

Simple, dominance and quality of wins, over numbers and longevity.

He is strong on every metric that Holmes is weak on, and vice versa.

 

Yeah, I said that and haven't changed it.

Holmes was 38 and came straight out of retirement. He hadn't beat a worthwhile opponent for almost 3 years.

Tyson had a very good win and performance over Golota about 1,5 year prior and was seen as a legit threat to Lewis. Yes, he tailed off quickly, but looked better going in.

 

Again - he countered everything Bruno threw. That is the definition of slick counter punching.

 

It's ironic that Tyson is being praised for giving Ruddock two fights after he lost the title, when it's a matter of record that Tyson pulled out of the November 1989 scheduled defence against him, and they opted for Douglas instead.
Holyfield was #1, Ruddock was the first choice, they had second thoughts, so second choice Douglas was decided on .... and Tyson still got his ass whupped.

Tyson fought Ruddock in 1991 twice because Don King had lost his hold on the title and Holyfield was taking big money fight with Foreman. He'd already matched Tyson with Tillman and Stewart, a couple of 1 round jobs, and he then signed Tyson up to a big pay-per-view deal with Showtime and they weren't allowing him any more knockover jobs.
That's the actual story there.

I give Tyson credit for those wins. Those are good wins.

 

Yep. Holmes wasn't a ranked opponent. Not in anyone's top 10 at the time. Not in any of the alphabet rankings either.

In fact, there was a debate at the WBC annual convention in London at the end of 1987 where they debated whether or not they could even sanction it.

 

Ok so Witherspoon was full of shlt, spinks was prime at 32 and Cooney despite being basically retired was a great win for spinks?
Have a nice day

 

I think Unforgiven broke that down nicely, but I'll make a try as well:

Quality of wins are fairly even. Berbick and Smith are among Tyson's best wins and Holmes also beat both. Norton, close but that is the next point, and Cooney are otherwise as good wins as any I can see from Tyson. I don't see difference in quality of opp.

In terms of dominance, with the exception of Norton, Holmes clearly beat everyone he faced in his prime. Yes, he didn't blitz guys in the first three rds typically, but there were no controversy about his results between Norton and Witherspoon (and those weren't that controversial either, only close). So, yes, Tyson was spectacular but Holmes rarely left any doubt about who the better man was as well. And we should take into account that Holmes losses were generally close as well. Even his loss at 42 to a prime Holy was closer than 30 year old Tyson's to past prime Holy. So Tyson was more spectularily dominant in his wins, but also more dominated in his losses. I don't know if this is even a plus for him.

Then you have their match-up with each other which I find about as relevant as Charles-Louis or Marciano-Louis.

Everything else goes in Holmes favour. Unbeaten in his prime. More defences and more wins against ranked opp as well as better longevity.

 

How has Tyson got better quality wins?
His best wins are like Berbick and Tubbs, Spinks, Tucker, etc. .... Holmes has several wins like that, at least.

How is Holmes less dominant? Holmes had some close fights along the way but he thrashed a lot of good fighters too, and lost his title on a close fight. But Tyson was beaten up badly when he lost.

 

Um , a threat to Lewis?
He was the underdog, you do realize that?