Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

It does when you look at the resumes, not the hypothetical H2Hs.

 

Yes, & that’s why I have to go with Holmes. Significantly longer at the top & that counts for a lot. It would be one thing if Tyson lost the belt like Foreman did, after a short reign & to another great champion. That would mitigate matters somewhat…but to lose it to Douglas, & never recover it…you gotta go Holmes in this discussion IMO.

 

BTW how do you guys rank the greats? Because different people use different criteria. Achievements, who beats who, or a mix of both?

I go only by achievements. Who beats who is, IMO, a separate discussion.

 

Achievements and extrapalating those achievements in view of relevant context, to make an estimation of how good each fighter was, in and around their prime, relative to the era in which they competed.

I completely disregard predicted outcomes in fantasy fights between fighters who competed in different eras.

 

Thomas was ATG material that was ruined by drugs.

 

Nope, but I get why you're trying to paint it that way, you got anihilated in your own thread like Jay was on his own song by Eminem, lol.

 

It rather depends upon what you like.

However Holmes clearly brings strong arguments to the table, in terms of depth of opposition, and sheer longevity.

There is resume based argument that goes thus:

1-2 = Louis/Ali (fight it out among yourselves).

3 = Holmes

4-10 = They usual suspects, including Tyson (fight it out among yourselves).

I am not entirely sold on the argument of Holmes as a lock for 3, but it stacks up on the numbers.

 

Lennox > Ali > Louis = Holmes > Usual suspects, by this metric.

 

Not sure how you would get Lewis to #1 by any metric, but I digress.

 

I missed this thread the first time around.

It’s actually one of your most interesting ones.

However, the same issues always arise with these posts/threads that you create.

No matter what the subject, it’s always the same.


The issues are:

1. You’re not objective.

2. You love comparing stats/numbers.

3. You don’t apply context.


Now both of those guys were great.


Mike’s pros:

His prime was spectacular.

He beat most of his top level guys absolutely emphatically.

He became the youngest ever champion, and the undisputed champion by his early 20’s.

He beat Larry with absolute ease, where he was the only guy to ever knock him out in a 75 fight career, which spanned over 20 years.

He beat their common opponents far more emphatically.


Mike’s cons:

He never beat a prime ATG.

He lost to Douglas badly.

He lost over 5 years of his career due to his prison sentence and his bans.

He was a much lesser fighter post Douglas, where he lost to Evander before getting DQ’d in the rematch.

He and King swerved Lennox in the mid 90’s, where after the losses to Evander, he gave Mike lots of low level opponents who were easy stylistic match ups for him.

He lost heavily to Lennox.

He was washed up in his mid 30’s, where after a hammering to Lennox, he lost back to back fights against 2 Euro level guys who weren’t ever world level fighters.


Larry’s pros:

He was one of the most skilled HW’s of all time.

He was very dominant during most his prime.

He had great longevity, where he could still hang with great HW’s into 40’s, where he could beat a very good HW like Ray Mercer.

Apart from against Mike, he never suffered any humiliating losses to any other great or any lower level fighters.


Larry’s cons:

He never beat a prime ATG.

He lost to Mike emphatically.

As you’ve noted, he seemed reluctant to give certain rematches.


So I guess what it comes down to, is:

What is your complete criteria?

How much emphasis do you put on Mike’s spectacular win over Larry?

How much emphasis do you put on Mike’s lack of longevity and the ugly end to his career?


Just touching on some of your points:

Like yourself, I do give a lot of credit to Mike for knocking out Larry with ease. Because he was the only guy to ever do it. So that has to count for something. Especially as Larry went on to beat a very good like Mercer at the start of the following decade. However, Larry has said that he’d told King that he couldn’t beat Mike, but that he took it because the money was just too good for him to turn down. Yes, he hadn’t been out of the ring for an absolute age. However, he was in his late 30’s, where he was a similar age to where Mike was when he lost to Williams and McBride, and he’d had 50 fights.

I take into account that Mike beat their common opponents far more emphatically.

Although he’d lost interest by the time of the Douglas fight, you cannot just dismiss that loss with a sarcastic comment like above. Unfortunately, that loss is very relevant when discussing both of their careers, where they’ve both been put under the microscope. The loss hurts Mike’s resume a lot.


Overall, this is how I see it:

Personally, I would say that Mike had the better prime.

However, I would say that Larry had the better overall career.


Why?

Because he was more consistent.

He was more professional.

He had more fights.

He he had much more longevity.

He didn’t suffer the embarrassing end of career losses that Mike endured.


Even though that Mike’s prime was better, and that he easily beat Larry when they fought, for me, it’s not enough.

Five years at the top from 1985-1990 isn’t long enough.


Larry Holmes should be ranked higher.