Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

"Thomas first tried heroin when he was 12 years old and had a $150 a day habit by the time he was 14. He was kicked out of school at 15"

https://www.ringtv.com/553631-best-i-faced-pinklon-thomas/

"He first used cocaine, he said, in 1976. By the time last December when he finally admitted to himself that he needed help, he was free-basing - a process of heating the drug and inhaling it through a pipe, making its effect much stronger."

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/17/sports/for-biggs-durgs-were-the-toughest-fight.html

30 second google search found these results. Both Thomas and Biggs tried drugs long before their fights with Tyson. Biggs in fact did coke after his pro debut and had been messing with other recreational drugs such as weed since he was a teenager. Ditto for Thomas.

Perhaps you should check your facts before talking out of your ass and attempting to insult me.

Nothing I wrote is a lie, however you certainly cannot make the same claim.

 

Yes, and it's factual that Holmes came up in the 1970s and won the WBC title in 1978 when Tyson was about 11 years old.
You completely ignore the fact that Holmes was from the previous era.
Like I said near the beginning of the thread, it's like saying Holmes was greater than Ali based on beating him and common opponents.

 

I think it’s factual to say that Tyson beat Tucker and Ferguson but still lost to Douglas who was beaten by both.

 

You can definitely pick holes in Holmes's resume if you want to.

Yes he has a lot of name fighters on it, but often he did not beat them at the point when they were most relevant, and there was pretty much always a better contender available.

Now whatever you can say about Berbick, Smith, Tucker and Spinks, Tyson beat them when the win mattered the most.

Holmes had the odd close decision along the way, and I don't think that any of Tyson's wins pre Douglas were controversial, and this is where virtually all of the meat on his resume is found.

Now with regard to dominance, the devil is in the detail:

1986

This content is protected

, Champion

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

1987

This content is protected

, Champion

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. Adilson Rodrigues
9. This content is protected
10. Mike Weaver

 

Douglas fought Holyfield because he thought the fight would be easier and Tyson and king were throwing a hissy fit in court attempting to reverse the verdict.

I like how that's the only thing you chose to focus on when it isn't even the main focus of this thread or my post for that matter.

My questions were pretty simple and straightforward, but you seem to have the attention span of a goldfish and the IQ of a rock so I'll ask again: When would it have been the most ideal time for Holmes to fight Tubbs and Thomas? I would like dates.

 

Holmes shouldn't be given a pass. If you want to apply severe standards on Holmes, that's fair.
But it is clear you are totally unprepared to apply the same severe standards to Tyson.

"former champion" doesn't mean ****. Tubbs had two 'notable' wins in his resume going into the Tyson fight, and they both occurred when he was 10 pounds lighter, 3 years before.
Tubbs was unranked by RING for good reason.

 

You can certainly make the claim that Holmes was the better boxer who had the more proven championship reign.

As far as star power and legacy and who had the bigger impact, it's Tyson hands down.

Excellent thread btw

 

If we're looking at wins over top 5 ranked opponents either the year going into the fight or the year of the fight, Holmes beat eight and Tyson five with six wins (Ruddock x 2).

EDIT: Then there were Ocassio and Berbick who weren't top 5 ranked either the year prior to or of the fight with Holmes respectively Tyson, but must have been top 5 when the fight actually took place.

 

He had a more meteoric rise to the top but no Larry had a better career.
Champion longer. More title defences. Didn't get knocked out in his prime.

 

Biggs was always on drugs when he was a pro.
They rushed to make the Tyson fight before Biggs derailed his career because of drugs.

 

Holmes beat Norton when he was most relevant.
Holmes beat Shavers when he was most relevant.
Holmes beat Cooney when he was most relevant.
People seem to forget that guys like Ocasio and Leon Spinks were even highly ranked when Holmes beat them.
Just off the top of my head.
Even at 42 he beat Mercer at his most relevant.

You guys love to play the RING magazine end-of-year rankings games.

Okay.

Holmes beat FIVE names in the 1977 rankings. (in 1978-81)
Holmes beat FIVE names in the 1978 rankings (in 1978-81)
Holmes beat SEVEN names in the 1979 rankings (in 1979-'82)
Holmes beat FIVE names in the 1980 rankings (in 1978-'82)
Holmes beat SIX names in the 1981 rankings (in 1979-'82)
Holmes beat SIX names in the 1982 rankings (in 1979-'83)
Holmes beat FOUR names in the 1983 rankings (in 1979-'85)
Holmes beat FIVE names in the 1984 rankings (in 1979-'85)
Holmes beat FOUR names in 1985 rankings (in 1979-'85)

okay, we are in to the Tyson era now ....

Holmes beat THREE names in 1986 rankings (in 1981-'84)
Holmes beat FOUR names in the 1987 rankings (in 1979-'85)

 

I think the arguments put forward for Tyson's superiority over Holmes have been absolutely eviscerated on this thread.
No need to prolong this mismatch now.

 

As I stated already. My post was in response to someone saying Tyson had 3 losses to in his prime. The latter 2 were "NOT" in his prime. Whether Holyfield was or wasn't had absolutely nothing to do with my point which is why I didn't bring it up.

 

The obvious counter, would be to argue that these guys were never all that good.

Norton and Shavers, were men who had not been the best or brightest of their era, who had managed to outlast the men who were.

Cooney you could argue was jut a manufactured fighter.

Spinks is only relevant at heavyweight because he beat Holmes, so the logic becomes circular.

Then you have men like Weaver and Witherspoon, who were top contenders, but Holmes gets them at the wrong time.

But he still somehow never seemed to end up fighting the current #1 contender.

He did not unify the belts, and allowed alternative title claims to run concurrently.

Tysons Rampage might have been brief, but he stamped his authority on the division, in an altogether more decisive manner.

I think what would be telling, would be to compare the number of ranked contenders that Tyson beat in four years, to the number that Holmes beat in eight.

 

Fair enough.