Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

"He hit Tyson with a workmanlike right hand that for an instant immobilized the champion, then followed it with a left hook that caught Tyson squarely. The champion's knees buckled and he backed up"

 

I don't like this line of argument in any situation.

The champion thing is a rather meaningless statistic in this context. I don't believe Tyson's win over Berbick deserves more kudos because Berbick had the WBC title. Holmes had the WBC title when he beat Berbick, so somehow that isn't as good a win? Nonsense.

Regarding top 5 rating. I appreciate RINGs ratings as a gauge of how the wins were perceived at the time, but it mostly boils down to timing. I don't take the ratings literally or hold them to a tight standard. The Truth wasn't actually better against Tyson than Holmes because he happened to be rated higher in 89 after the division was briefly cleared out and nobody else was left. It's not like Williams had a great win that launched him to #2, he just hung around.

If we are taking career vs career, Holmes without question was a more successful fighter. Peak vs peak, I see the argument for Tyson as a more destructive force in his prime, he can be argued as a greater fighter than Holmes without such gymnastics. But a better career? Holmes objectively had a superior run.

And I'll be the first to give Holmes crap for missing/avoiding certain guys. Problem is we are comparing him to Tyson, whom King also steered from certain fighters ...Spoon, Page...etc. I'm a bigger Tyson fan than Holmes by far, but I don't appreciate your knee jerk insults and immaturity. I will avoid further discussion with you.

 

You can be the underdog and still considered a threat. Lewis was a 2-1 favourite, Tyson 8-1 against Holmes.

 

That's the first fight surely? We were talking about the rematch.

 

Not mad. That was a fairly dispassionate comment, actually.

You may tell yourself that you are so disliked here in Classic because you're "edgy and telling the truth" or some such nonsense. But it really isn't more complicated than that you're disliked because you're an idiot.

 

Taking facts for face value while ignoring the underlying details and contexts is just as dishonest as ignoring the facts altogether.