Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

No, it's objectively and demonstrably true. Holmes was both champion and undefeated for far longer than Tyson.

It took Holmes 49 fights, aged 35, to lose for the first time, in a close decision.

After 48 fights, aged 31, Tyson had lost three times, each conclusively.

Both Holmes and Tyson were the dominant force in the division at their respective peaks, that doesn't mean they didn't face adversity or have tough fights, it's because they had won every fight they ever had. That dominance lasted a lot longer for Holmes than for Tyson.

Put another way, that is also demonstrable, Holmes was ranked as the #1 HW in the world for a lot longer than Tyson.

These are all facts, your arguments are all based on your feelings ;-)

 

That’s cause Holmes fought weaker opposition in his prime.

 

I haven't changed my definition on anything. I consider that Holmes dominated for a period at HW, just as I consider that Joe Louis did. That doesn't mean they didn't face adversity at any point during that time.

The ring ranked Holmes #1 at HW from 1979 until Sept 1985 when he lost to Spinks, i.e. around 6-years.

Tyson was ranked #1 at HW from June 1988 when he beat Spinks until Feb 1990 when he lost to Douglas, i.e. less than 2-years.

If the term dominance isn't to your liking, then let me use a statement that can not be disputed:

Holmes remained unbeaten for longer than Tyson, both in terms of number of fights (48 vs 37) and in terms of time elapsed from pro debut (12.5-years vs 5-years), and was ranked by the Ring as the #1 HW in the world at least three times as long as Tyson was.

The above paragraph is why collectively this Classic Forum ranks Holmes #3 all time & Tyson #9 all time, at HW:

This content is protected

 

I disagree Tyson beat the better opposition. Of McGrain's top 100 x HWs, both beat 6. Not all were peak versions of those opponents, but most were in or close to prime, with the 38-year old Holmes that Tyson beat being the most notable and extreme exception. After Holmes, Norton & Witherspoon were the highest ranked opponents either beat, on that particular list.

In this instance not losing is important, because Tyson losing meant he was the #1 HW in the world for less than 2-years, whereas Holmes was #1 for around 6-years. Like it or not, time spent as "the man" in the division matters to most when ranking fighters from an historical perspective.

 

I agree with your conclusion but let's not treat the classic survey as a Bible please. The classic forum also ranks Ricardo Lopez top 10 in a division he never fought at if memory serves me correctly.

 

I didn't claim that survey should be considered a bible, nor do I think it should. My own lists differ in each of the original 8 weights divisions & P4P.

I think that survey is a reasonable source to indicate who this forum ranks higher out of Holmes & Tyson, though.

Furthermore, I think citing collective views in something inherently subjective, where neither can definitively disprove the other, is a reasonable way to attempt to conclude the debate. i.e. "Ok, I think one thing & you think the opposite, here's where the consensus stand".

Fair point on Lopez, it was that same series of surveys that had him 10 all time at Fly:

This content is protected

That's where the additional info Rummy provides is useful. 3 out of the 24 voters ranked Lopez in their top 15 Flyweights of all time, whereas Obha, who came 11th, had 18 votes. So, you can tell that a small number of voters have ranked Lopez very highly, which had a disproportionate impact on the outcome when applying the scoring criteria that Rummy used.

If memory serves me correctly, several of the voters commented on the thread that Flyweight was the weight division they knew the least about & it was the division they were the least confident in ranking. I suspect HW is the division most of those voters were most knowledgeable on. Regardless, I don't think the peculiarity that saw Lopez ranked 10 on the Fly survey, is relevant to the respective standings of Holmes & Tyson in the HW survey, which is a reasonable indicator as to how posters on this site rank them, imo.

 

I don't care for your views on the matter & you don't care for mine. That leaves us to defer to the majority view, which aligns with mine.

 

Wow, that logic is poor, even for you, and that really is saying something.

That's like me saying "You think Mayweather is a greater p4p fighter than Tommy Hearns, so do the majority and therefore it's an indication of how badly you want to fit in". Thankfully, I understand that correlation is not the same as causation.

If your assessment on the respective careers of Holmes & Tyson is as effective as your assessment on why I rank Holmes above Tyson, then it's no wonder you're so far off the majority view.

My own list is both different to & pre-dates the list in the survey I posted a link to.

Not only does Fury not have anything like the quality or quantity of defences that Holmes did, he wasn't ranked #1 by the Ring Magazine (my citing of who's ranking is what you were referring to) in 2018, 2022, 2023 or thus far in 2024.