Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

If you're going off RING magazine end-of-year annual ratings:

Holyfield was #1 in 1988 and #2 in 1989. (in 1989 they have champion at #1, so Holyfield still effectively #1 contender)
(and #2 behind Tyson .... Spinks was champ ... in 1987)

Dokes was #5 in 1988 and #3 (effectively #2) in 1989.
Witherspoon was #4 in 1987, #4 in 1988, #5 (effectively #4) in 1989.
Rodrigues was #8 in 1987, #3 (effectively #2) in 1989.

Bruno was unranked in 1987, unranked in 1988, unranked in 1989.
Holmes was unranked in 1987, unranked in 1988.

Tyson managed to miss the RING magazine leading contender Holyfield and fight unranked Bruno, #2 Williams, and Douglas (who was outside RING's top 5) instead.
He managed to miss everyone in RING's top 5 at end of 1989.
He managed to miss Witherspoon who was top 4 three years straight.

For example.
So what is your point ?

Well, digest those facts I just laid out.
I'm happy to speak to you in your own language. You speak of RING magazine rankings to 'expose' Holmes weakness. But there it is. Tyson was fighting guys like Bruno who RING didn't even rank, while Holyfield and Witherspoon sat on the shelf.

 

^^^ still not answered this.

 

Ok... it’s a FACT that mike Tyson lost to Kevin McBride. Hey!! I kinda like that !!

 

Thread

 

I'd like to add that according to his own autobiography Thomas was addicted to Heroin since he was a young teenager NOT after he fought Tyson

 

it seems Tony Tubbs is unranked at the end of 1987 RING rankings too.
Tyson fought him in March 1988.
Straight after fighting unranked 38 year old inactive Holmes.

FACTS.

 

No your wrong..read his autobiography

 

it was a requirement to be unranked to get a shot at Tyson !!!

 

No... he just took a full year off after losing to Spoon then prior to fighting Tyson fought three journeyman, one of whom took him the distance and floored him.

 

Bruno was unranked by RING magazine in 1987, 1988, Tyson fought him in February 1989.
when you want to critcize Holmes, you want to talk hard facts.
When someone shows the same can be done with Tyson, you want to bring in 'context'.
"England offered", "away fight" .... who cares.
we're talking about champions missing the best of the era.
You picked some of the best Holmes missed. I showed you some of the names Tyson missed.

Ruddock KO'd Dokes, yes. But Dokes was ranked higher when Tyson was champion.

Holmes beat two men who KO'd Tate, but you don't want to hear that.
Holmes beat three men who beat Page, but you don't want to hear that.
Holmes stopped a man who KO'd Coetzee, but you don't want to hear that.

Now Dokes is mentioned (Tyson missed him) and you're saying "But Tyson beat Ruddock who beat Dokes".
Double standards on your part, clearly.