Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

JohnThomas1 · Jun 23, 2021

Unforgiven said: ↑

That's a fair call (although I think Witherspoon's win over the quite highly-touted Mike Williams was decent).
Thing is, hardly any of Tyson's opponents around this time had great form going in, yet the line is "They were highly rated by RING" or "they were ranked at the time".
Click to expand...

He was still fighting the best.

JohnThomas1 · Jun 23, 2021

Unforgiven said: ↑

I'm not a supporter of immediate rematches, unless the fight is close or controversial. Why should dethroned champions jump the queue when contenders are already waiting. I'm happy for them to go straight into an eliminator (such as Dempsey did with Sharkey, for an example).

Holyfield had 5 heavyweight fights. I think 3 of those were wins over top 10 ranked RING contenders. At least 2 of those were wins against top 5 ranked RING contenders. All were stoppage wins. He'd earned his shot.

Actually, from what I understand, the common knock on Bowe is that he should have fought his #1 Lennox Lewis after defeating Holyfield.
Click to expand...

Holyfield deserved his shot but Tyson earned some filler too.

Probably but i have no drama with him fighting Holy. We all know he wasn't overly keen for Lewis!!!

JohnThomas1 · Jun 23, 2021

Unforgiven said: ↑

Tyson missed Holyfield because Don King wanted to put him in with his own fighters for a couple more fights, fighters who happened to be regarded as easier fights too.
Those are the circumstances.
Of course, Tyson wasn't choosing anything. King did that. Tyson fought Douglas because King picked Douglas. And he lost.

This was happening just 3 years or less from Tyson winning his first WBC belt. It was happening from about a year or so from Tyson winning the lineal title. Tyson was 23.
King actually wanted to put him in with Jose Ribalta again around this time, but that wouldn't fly with HBO.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to dig into it but i don't doubt you.

JohnThomas1 · Jun 23, 2021

Unforgiven said: ↑

Holmes beat 5 of the men featured in the end-of-year 1978 rankings. (RING)
Holmes best 7 of the men featured in the end-of-year 1979 rankings.
Holmes beat 5 of the men featured in the end-of-year 1980 rankings.
Holmes did not lose to any of them.
I don't have the monthly rankings.
I listed all the years earlier.

Tyson is arguably more impressive because he beat 8 men RING ranked in end of 1986 (7 of them in the years 1987-'89).
But he was also KO'd badly by one of them.
People look at that list and say "look he cleaned out" ..... but the guy at #7 beat his head in when he got around to him.

I'm 100% with you guys in saying Tyson did an impressive job on the division and beat a ton of ranked men but the way he's been contrasted with Holmes (who people assume didn't fight the best fighters of his era) just doesn't hold up.
We can find several ranked fighters Holmes beat, we can find several ranked fighters Tyson 'missed' for several years. I think I've shown that clear as day in this thread.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong i have Holmes ahead of Tyson i just find Holmes gets a tad blown up and Tyson the opposite. I still have Holmes high on my list.

JohnThomas1 · Jun 23, 2021

Man_Machine said: ↑

I was going to say, I couldn't see how Tubbs did anything worth a Ring Rating, post the Witherspoon loss, by early '88. He did nothing for the remainder of '86; dropped out of the ratings altogether, by end of '87, because he'd fought no one of consequence, while other fighters were surpassing him.

Glad to see some confirmation of that point, because I had him has unrated in The Ring, by my records.
Click to expand...

Confirmation is always good no matter what side of the ledger it falls on. Facts are good.

he grant · Jun 23, 2021

NoNeck said: ↑

Let's dispel this myth since Holmes is treated like royalty around here.

A. Their common opponents during their reigns are as follows
1. Berbick--destroyed by Tyson, W15 by Holmes
2. Bonecrusher--UD for Tyson, late TKO for Holmes
3. Williams--KO1 for Tyson, competitive decision for Holmes
4. Spinks--KO1 for Tyson, 2L's for Holmes
*Thomas--Destroyed by Tyson, Holmes didn't want it.

"But NoNeck, they were old for Tyson and Holmes was past prime when he fought them."
--This is a convenient set of excuses, of which Holmes is granted many.
1. Berbick was coming off the best win of his career for Tyson and held a belt. Berbick was 18-1-1 for Holmes and had done nothing of note except beat a past-it Tate. Edge Tyson.
2. Bonecrusher was coming off the best win of his career against Witherspoon and held a belt for the Tyson fight. He was close to a novice for Holmes. Edge Tyson.
3. Williams had beaten Berbick in an eliminator and Rouse and Ferguson in the couple years preceding the Tyson fight. Williams was little known for the Holmes fight and got his number called because he was dropped by Quick Tillis. Edge Tyson.
4. Spinks was the lineal heavyweight champion for the Tyson fight, not old, and entered the ring as a 4-1 underdog against a peak version of Tyson. Spinks entered the ring as a moving up light heavyweight against Holmes and entered the ring as an underdog (source for odds needed). Edge Tyson.
1a. Holmes was prime for Berbick.
2a.--4a Holmes had started to age, but Bonecrusher, Williams and Spinks were all cherry picks in comparison to the other challenges out there, such as a seasoned Witherspoon and Pinklon Thomas.

B. Mike Tyson knocked out Larry Holmes
"But Noneck, Holmes had a two year layoff and wasn't as good as when he beat Mercer."
--This is also false. Holmes fought Tyson I year and 9 months after losing to Spinks, meaning he wouldve been training just 1.5 years after losing to Spinks. This is a common layoff for elite heavyweights, especially aging ones, and I do not need to dig for similar examples.
--I asked for examples of fighters coming back in their forties and being better than in their thirties, and received no valid answers except for a guy who came back after a decade off in his late thirties, which does not provide a similar example.

"But Noneck, Holmes still would've beaten Tyson if Holmes were prime."
--Holmes got dropped like a sack of **** by Snipes and Shavers during his prime with the same shot Tyson landed.

C. Quality of title defenses
--Tyson made ten solid ttitle defenses. I think they all were top 5 in the division according to the Ring except Seldon, who was 6 (due to Tyson being top 5) Bruno, who was top ten, and Biggs, who was highly regarded Gold medalist and top ten.

This basically a lean cut of beef, no fat sticking out.

- -Holmes successfully defended against top tenners Evangelista, Occasio, Shavers, Leroy Jones, Zanon, LeDoux, Berbick, Cobb, Witherspoon and top fivers Weaver, Cooney, and Bey.

When I look at this line-up it stands out to me that Holmes was habitually fighting easy touches and the competitive matches like Witherspoon and Williams were due to overlooking green opponents, no rematches given. Weaver and Cooney were, for the most part the only intentionally difficult fights.

D. Title winning efforts.
--Tyson beat Berbick, Bonecrusher, Bruno, Seldon, and Tucker for titles, and won the lineal belt against Spinks. Holmes beat a last legs Norton who didn't actually win a belt in the ring and took lineal against a Parkinsonian Ali.

No analysis needed here to determine which is more significant.

E. Nontitle wins
Ruddockx2, Stewart, Golota, Mathis Jr, Botha, Marvis, Mitch Green, Ribalta, Ratliff>Shavers, Mercer

"But NoNeck, Tyson lost to Douglas in his prime."
--Good for you. Here's a cookie and a pat on the head.

Conlcusion: Mike Tyson deserves to be ranked ahead of Larry Holmes.
Click to expand...

We also compare how both performed in their mid thirties ..

Unforgiven · Jun 23, 2021

JohnThomas1 said: ↑

He was still fighting the best.
Click to expand...

They were all reasonable opponents.
Even the likes of Bruno was reasonable.

Unforgiven · Jun 23, 2021

JohnThomas1 said: ↑

Don't get me wrong i have Holmes ahead of Tyson i just find Holmes gets a tad blown up and Tyson the opposite.
Click to expand...

That might be true in some cases.
But in the OP to this thread, I think it was the opposite.

Bokaj · Jun 23, 2021

JohnThomas1 said: ↑

Don't get me wrong i have Holmes ahead of Tyson i just find Holmes gets a tad blown up and Tyson the opposite. I still have Holmes high on my list.
Click to expand...

I have Holmes at nr 3, but closer to the ones behind then ones ahead. And I don't think there's that much space between him and Tyson. Overall it think it's hard to rank Tyson, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Lewis etc. They all have different things going for them and against them.

Tyson and Holmes are probably a bit easier to compare since they both dominated fairly average eras with no real standout wins - Tyson in more spectacular fashion but Holmes for longer and his first loss coming at 35.

Tyson and for example Marciano or Foreman are tougher imo. Even Tyson and Lewis isn't clear cut.

I really rate Tyson, but I just get annoyed by the Tyson fans on here. Reacting to their hyperbole might probably make me seem like I rate Tyson less than I do.

NoNeck · Jun 23, 2021

he grant said: ↑

We also compare how both performed in their mid thirties ..
Click to expand...

We also compare how both performed in their early twenties….

And you do that for Benitez, right Historian/Filmaker?

NoNeck · Jun 23, 2021

JohnThomas1 said: ↑

To be fair Dokes was managed by King's brother and there was never any plan at all to match them. Holmes was nearing retirement and the plan was for Dokes to win the other title in the meantime to satisfy him.

I never put Dokes on the avoided by Holmes list because no-one ever aimed at it.
Click to expand...

What about the early 80s?

NoNeck · Jun 23, 2021

Unforgiven said: ↑

You really are being a bit slow to understand basic things.
Don King didn't have a firm control of the heavyweight alphabet belts when Holmes was in his prime.
Arum had the WBA. Arum and King were bitter rivals.

Don King and HBO announced they were going to unify all the belts in 1985 and started promoting all heavyweight title fights as part of "the tournament". King had control of WBC and WBA by then, and Spinks's promoter Butch Lewis was brought on board (until they bailed out, when King had the IBF rankings tied up anyway, so Tucker and Douglas could fight for the belt).
It's boxing politics.
Tyson wasn't even a factor when King and HBO decide to unify, but his rise was meteoric and they brought him into to face Berbick.

If you think a 19 year-old Mike Tyson was saying "hey, how about me unify the belts? Can someone arranged that please" and then everyone lined up the fights and said "go for it, Mike", you obviously weren't around at the time and you can NO CLUE how boxing business works.

All credit to Tyson for establishing himself as the champion.
But don't act like Holmes was in the same position. Holmes's reign came along when Ali left the sport and promoters were using the alphabet organizations to SPLIT the title. It was an opposite situation.
By the time Tyson came around the fans were sick of split titles, King had control, and the way to make money was to build up the unification.

THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS, by the way.
Click to expand...

This has exactly nothing to do with why Holmes should be placed ahead of Tyson.

NoNeck · Jun 23, 2021

Unforgiven said: ↑

What's that supposed to mean?
Holmes entered the rankings in 1977, won the title in 1978.
Tyson entered the rankings in 1986, won the title at the end of the same year.
You talk as if they are contemporaries.
Holmes's era was coming to an end around 1984, he lost to Spinks in 1985.
Holmes is 17 years older than Tyson.
Holmes had defended the WBC title sixteen times before 1984, over a year before Tyson turned pro.

What's so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Holmes fought in Alphabet City but neither unified nor fought most of the best in his era.

NoNeck · Jun 23, 2021

mr. magoo said: ↑

This is incorrect. Both Holmes and Dokes were being promoted by the King family and it was never their intention to put the two together, as Dokes was being groomed to be Larry’s eventual replacement and they didn’t want him having a loss to an older predecessor
Click to expand...

What about 1980?

NoNeck · Jun 23, 2021

Bokaj said: ↑

Here's the big lover of facts again. So it isn't a fact that Ocasio was highly ranked when he met Holmes - because he was small?
Click to expand...

He indicates a lack of depth and that Larry could cherry pick no hopers out of the bottom half of the top 10. Ocasio would be fortunate to see the top ten in cruiserweight today.

Log in or Sign up

Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

NoNeck Pugilist Specialist