Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

It's a big thing that Holmes never had those lows. It's not like he was always in tip top shape and well prepared either. He was 33 when he likely thought Witherspoon would be just another day at the office, but even though he got a rude surprise he pulled off the win. Against Spinks he couldn't, but he was 35 by then and still competitive (should have won the rematch according to me and most others).

 

Good post. Not least the last part.

 

He was laying on the canvas and people had to take mouthpiece out of his mouth. He looked like Tyson in Douglas fight, not knowing where he was. I know you're trolling, but you makeself looking more and more like fool bro.

 

despite this, Octavio could have stopped it and Tyson would have had one more punch until the end of the round... the important thing is that the story that Tyson broke down when it was bad is a myth. He fought to the end against Douglas, Holy 1, Danny Williams and Lewis. He was injured with Tucker, Razor, Bruno 1 and won. He lost all rounds against Botha and knocked him out

 

We don’t know if he’d have knocked out James.

But at least you’ve acknowledged the loss.

 

Ruddock was never better than Ray Mercer.

And Mike beating Bruno in their rematch, wasn’t better than Larry’s win over Mercer in his early 40’s.

 

Yeah, it’s not nice to hear Larry speak like that.

I never liked what he said about Rocky. But I can understand that, as he felt so under appreciated.

 

I thought Douglas looked out, period against Holy. He was done.

He looked pretty damn spry during the Tyson count.

I sometimes need to write this for anyone new or relatively new: No Neck is not a fan of Holmes or Foreman, and you can't change his mind.

 

That’s a really great question actually.

In a Time Machine fight, then sure.

For example, if I could choose the version of Larry who’d beaten Ray Mercer, where I put him against the versions of Mike who lost to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.

If I could do that, then I’d be certain that Larry would have beaten him.

But in reality, where I obviously couldn’t do that, where they’d had to have met where they were both still active, from the same year, then I’m really not sure.

Again, it’s a great question.

IMHO, the versions of Mike up to Evander, even including Evander, would have been too much for Larry in his 40’s.

A late 90’s version of Mike, vs a late 90’s version of Larry, then I’m really not sure.

After that, it’s even harder.

Could the early 00’s version of Larry have beaten the early 00’s versions of Mike, who’d been badly beaten by Lennox, but who beat Etienne?

Larry was in his 50’s when he beat Butterbean in the early 00’s.

 

I’m not trying to rewrite history.

Sure, when he was coming up, Ruddock may have been highly respected and held in high regard.

However, we now have the benefit of looking back at everything.

Jeff Lacy was once held in high regard.

He was the ‘Mini Mike Tyson’ etc.

He was built up as a wrecking machine by many.

But again, we now have the benefit of being able to look back and make a fair assessment.

Donovan Ruddock was not as good as, or better than a prime version of Ray Mercer.

 

Honestly brother I don’t think I’d agree (entirely) but I’m glad you’re building a case for it, probably more fun then another Is X underrated thread or did Y hit hard or really hard not that those can’t be fun.

 

Better resume than Holmes. Better resume than Dempsey. Better resume than Marciano.

 

I couldn’t care less where they were ranked.

And you can be as sarcastic as you like.


Read carefully:

We now have the benefit of being able to LOOK BACK at their entire careers.


Ray Mercer PROVED that he was a better fighter than Donovan Ruddock, irrespective of where they were once ranked around the same period.

Do you understand that?


Jeff Lacy was once ranked ahead of Carl Froch.

Ricky Hatton was once ranked ahead of Manny Pacquiao.


This is just typical you, comparing numbers.

Comparing numbers whilst not applying any context.

Also, in 1992, Ruddock was only one place ahead of Mercer. And by the following year, he wasn’t rated at all.

So are you going to take those 92 and 93 rankings into account as well?

Or are you only interested in the ones that suit your agenda?


At the end of the day, an early 40’s version of Larry Homes beat Ray Mercer, who was just coming off of a spectacular knockout over Tommy Morrison.

Tommy Morrison beat Donovan Ruddock.

Lennox Lewis also destroyed Ruddock, yet Mercer almost beat Lewis around 4 years later.


Larry Holmes beating Ray Mercer in his 40’s, was better than a 25 year old Mike having beaten beating Ruddock, as well as the 30 year old versions of him who beat Bruno and Seldon.


Ray Mercer was just a better fighter than Donovan Ruddock.

Do a poll.

Or we can start a thread and see what everyone else thinks.