Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

You can start by giving a proper answer to the Douglas fight.


Now I’m in the camp who believes that Mike 100% took him lightly, where he just went through the motions.

Personally, I don’t believe that he was anywhere near 100%, either mentally or physically.

I also believe that had he have gotten the opportunity, he’d have beaten him in a rematch.

Of course it can’t ever be proven, but that’s my opinion.


However, you can’t just reply with a sarcastic comment.

The loss hurts Mike’s resume to a degree.

Nothing like that happened to Holmes.

So even if you agree with my opinions, you have to factor it to their entire careers.


It’s why I have Larry ahead overall.

Now again, I give Mike a lot of credit for his win over Larry.

That loss for Larry was embarrassing.


However, when it was bad for Mike, it was really bad:

The embarrassing loss to Douglas.

The beat down by Evander and the DQ.

The beat down by Lennox.

The two losses to two Euro level HW’s.


Those things didn’t happen to Larry.

The only thing you could say, is that Larry never faced the great Lennox. So we don’t know how he’d have fared against him.

But those cons are very damning for Mike when you put both of these guys head to head, under the microscope.


Now you can absolutely say that the losses to Lennox, McBride and Williams aren’t really that relevant, as Mike was shot by then.

I could certainly go along with that for sure.

But then you’ve got to give Larry huge credit for never enduring anything like them.


Like I said, it’s a very interesting debate.

 

Larry Holmes never lost a non-title fight. 6 losses, all title fights.

Also, while Evander Holyfield beat both of them, Holmes was competitive and was at no point hurt or in danger of being stopped -- also, Holmes looked like the real thing that defeated him in that bout was age. If Holmes had been 33 and not 43, I think he'd have won; I'm not sure Tyson would ever have beat the HW version of Holyfield. For whatever common opponents mean (which I tend to think is not much). I also think he'd have looked far better against Lewis than Tyson did (mainly because Lewis is going to box with a guy who wants to box and who he doesn't see as a KO threat).

I will say, though, that I like Tyson far more as a retired guy than Holmes. Any time Holmes pops up on podcasts or whatever, all he does is talk **** about how everyone else sucks and he'd have whooped them all, talk ****/complain about the guys who beat him. Tyson, conversely, praises current fighters, praises others, especially the guys who beat him. As a retired champ, Tyson is more of a credit to the sport than Holmes is, even though the roles were totally opposite during their careers (yeah, Tyson brought in a massive fanbase during his career, but Holmes avoided all the self destructive issues that Tyson had, was far more the consummate professional).

 

It’s nothing to do with being retired, mind. Holmes has been that way since he came out of the womb. My 5-year-old would be embarrassed to call some of Holmes’ arguments against other fighters (& in favour of himself) his own.

 

We don’t know if he could have been a top 2 HW even if he’d have kept his focus.

Yes, Mike unified belts after. But apply context.

It was against Bruno and Seldon.

Saverese and Etienne etc, were Euro level fighters.

The only thing of substance that Mike did in the 90’s, was beating Ruddock and Bruno.

Yes, Larry didn’t do much, but he beat Mercer in his 40’s.

Mercer was better than anyone Mike beat in the 90’s and 00’s.

I never penalised Mike for being undisputed at an early age. That was a fantastic achievement.

Again, Mike had a much more spectacular and impressive prime. But it was only 5 years. After the early 90’s, he was a lesser fighter. And in the late 90’s and early 00’s, Mike was shot, at the same time that Larry was still an elite fighter.

Again, what Mike did early, isn’t enough to eclipse everything else.

 

Tyson never "walked thru the fire" to win a fight..."Tyson never came from behind to win a fight"...and Tyson never got up off the deck to come back to win a fight...

 

It was spectacular and impressive, but it was really only (barely) 1986 to 1989. He was noticeably slipping even against Bruno, and he was most obviously in a decline against Douglas and Ruddock.

I read above how Mike never came off the floor to win, etc. I used to be steadfast about those points. However, look at the beatings he endured against Douglas and Lewis. He kept coming back for more, for as long as he could; certainly against Lewis he could have quit after a few rounds. He just lost, it happens. But I assert he went out on his shield, Mike had heart.

I hear again and again how poor Holmes' competition was (during a 20 fight defended, seven year title). Is anybody really going to posit that the heavyweights from 1987 to 1989 were much better? Not to my eyes. There weren't any ATG contenders during Holmes' reign, and there weren't any during Mike's.

 

That's a humorous thought. Is there a point where they could have had a rematch that Larry could have won?

 

As a rule, he didn't have to, don't punish him for domination, but it would have been enough for Octavio Meryan to count out Douglas. Tyson was injured with Tucker, Ruddock, Bruno 1. He fought until he fell completely with Holy 1, Lewis, Danny Williams (he missed Danny's jaw by a millimeter right after he had scored a dozen clean blows to the head himself).

 

Buster would have never been counted out. If the ref counted faster, Buster would have stood up faster as he was completely aware ready to get up at 9.