Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

first of all I’m not crucifying Holmes. I’ve defended him throughout this thread and you can go back and see it for yourself. But the criticisms that he ducked or ( if it makes some feel more comfortable ) passed over some of the better challengers are valid. Secondly he didn’t just relinquish the WBC title over some promotional dispute. He was “ stripped “ of it because he failed to face a mandatory challenger which supports my point. As for Thomas being ranked #7 by a non governing publication at the time, who cares? He was considered by many as one of the most talented young heavyweights out there. He beat Tim Witherspoon - a fighter who Holmes barely got by. By the end of 1984 Pinklon Thomas had the WBC title and a 25-0 record. Holmes instead fought Bonecrusher smith who none of the sanctioning organizations had in their top 10. Then Carl Williams and David Bey who were both still prospects. Then spinks who had never stepped in a heavyweight ring....

Be honest.... who would you have rather seen him fight ?

 

#3 is fair. I think you could comfortably have him anywhere from 3-8 or so and debate it well. Ali and Louis stand above the rest by miles.

I agree there's not much space between Holmes and a host of others. There's elements of his reign that bring him back just like most everyone else as evidenced in this thread.

Tyson, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Lewis and co are certainly hard to rate. Marciano, Liston, Holyfield.

Agree many Tyson fans are irritating.

 

Holmes and Dokes were kept apart from the start. Dokes was steered to the WBA title to sate him. You can say Holmes missed Dokes but you can't say he ducked him as such.

 

This point has merit. Holmes was obviously the best champ and the guy considered by the people to be top dog but unlike Tyson and numerous others he never acquired that other title.

 

To maintain context it has to be said Young was extremely highly rated when Ocasio beat him twice. Whether Young was declining or it was one of those rare styles are everything matches i don't know as Ocasio really wasn't much chop at all. Maybe a little of both. Young was certainly a very very light hitter so that helped. None the less Ocasio did indeed deserve and earn his shot.

People forget that in his fight before Holmes Ken Norton beat Young in a very very close fight where plenty thought Young won. It was no robbery but close enough to garner some varied opinion. Ocasio beat Young straight after this.

 

He's a good'un for sure.

 

The point of the matter here, the be all and end all is - Holmes stated after their fight he would never give Witherspoon a rematch. I have the post fight or day after comments somewhere in a mag. On top of this not much later he said he wouldn't be fighting the liked of Page, Thomas etc.

It doesn't matter what they were or weren't doing, Holmes was never going to fight them. He said it multiple times and he sure as heck backed those words up.

Witherspoon and the like get downplayed yet here Holmes was fighting easy beats like Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier straight after. It's comedy gold. Those two couldn't carry Witherspoon's jockstrap.

 

Great post and a very well stated nutshell. I assume the above sort of points is why McGrain, who sure as hell knows a thing or two about rating fighters says you can go either way.

While i disagree mainly because of the Douglas loss i can see the building blocks on which the opinion is built.

 

I agree Holmes Is a bonehead, and not that great a fighter. I rank Shavers as his top win because Shavers was a remnant of that great 70’s era. The era of the early 80’s was poor too and Holmes took advantage by beating a lot of scrubs while ducking Gerrie Coetzee on account of “apartheid” a lame excuse. At least Tyson fought the best out of the bunch I rank Pinky and some of the others as quality contenders. And Razor Ruddock was no joke.

 

And this is 100% the crux of it. All sorts of gyrating and shaping is performed to show why guys like Page, Thomas, Witherspoon and co didn't deserve a shot and here is Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, Bonecrusher and others fighting Holmes. It's absurd. It's really that simple. Maybe you had to live and breath boxing at that time with no big bias to truly understand, or even have any semblance if an idea.

 

Also many people thought Witherspoon and a couple others beat him,, Holmes scraped by barely

 

"who cares" that he was only ranked #7? This whole entire thread has been about the ranking of Tyson and Holmes' opponents, "facts over feelings and context" has been the main driving point of the discussion.

Plenty of guys are "highly regarded" at any given time. Adam Kownacki was highly regarded and people were even claiming he could whoop Wilder and Joshua's asses and then he got demolished by a C level guy like Helenius. The public hyping up a new prospect doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things unless they are truly deserving of a shot because of ranking and/or an outstanding resume. Thomas did NOT have an outstanding resume in 83 prior to fighting for the vacant belt. He was a young undefeated guy, yet, but as I pointed out he was only ranked #14 in 82 and then was ranked #7 in 83. His ONLY noteworthy win was James Quick Tillis. That's it. His best win did not come until 84 when he fought for the VACANT belt that Holmes got rid of months prior. He had looked good against Coetzee but that fight was a draw. The rest of his resume was against guys with losing records or hardly any fights at all and the only recognizable name is fringe journeyman Leroy Caldwell who lost almost anytime he stepped up.

So if we're not going off of rankings and resume, what are we basing this argument around? I don't get it.

If beating Tillis and Caldwell makes Thomas resume waaay better than Bey, Williams, Spinks, or Smith, then be my guest. 25-0 sounds nice on paper until you actually look at who he beat. "Talent" and the "eye test" means nothing without a resume.

I already agreed that could have been an interesting bout and would have been more competitive then the above mentioned fighters (other than Spinks), but again, not sure the logic in expecting a champion to fight for a belt he had just dropped 6 months prior. Never happened in the history of boxing to my knowledge.

 

Well there it is. I tried to play devil's advocate but if Holmes flat out said out his own mouth that he wouldn't fight those guys it's pretty damning.

Pretty strange considering he got in the ring with Tyson, Holyfield, and Mercer at an even older age.

In regards to Tyson's resume vs Holmes, you'd have to give Tyson more credit for overturning more stones in the division and leaving no doubt that he was #1 for his brief prime. The only thing you can hold against Tyson is that it took him forever to fight Holyfield who was in fact his mandatory and paid Lewis step aside money. That, and the fact he lost to a nobody like Douglals who was beaten by a man Tyson beat. In contrast Holmes did not lose in his prime and was consistent for a longer period of time. He also was far more successful at an older age and wasn't getting thrashed by guys like Danny Williams. Apples and oranges.