Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

You’re a lost cause.

 

You're welcome to start as many threads as you like arguing minority views. Just don't be surprised when you're educated as to why they're minority views.

No one gets in the top 10 of all time based on being ranked the 9th best fighter in the world as Tyson was in 2002 or ranked #10 as Tyson was in 2003. Fighters get ranked in, and ordered within, the top 10 of all time, predominantly based on:

1) Quality of opposition beaten - both beat 6 fighters on Mcgrain's top 100 HWs of all time, with the only opponent that was way past prime being one of Tyson's - broadly even between Tyson and Holmes.

2) Losses during physical prime - clear advantage to Holmes.

3) Time spent as #1 in the division - clear advantage to Holmes.

I'm not trying to convince you to my way of thinking, I know that would be futile, I'm just trying to explain to you why the majority rank Holmes higher.

 

1. I didn't invent the predominant criteria people apply to guide their all time rankings. They vastly predate my time ranking boxers.

2. Whoops. Ali was that shot when Holmes beat him I wasn't counting him as one of Holmes wins from McGrain's top 100 list. Not that it makes any difference, but now you've helped me realise that oversight, i can see that Holmes beat 7 fighters on that list to Tyson's 6. Leon Spinks does not feature. FYI, they are:

#1 Ali -Holmes win (Ali was shot)
#7 Holmes - Tyson win (Holmes was way past prime)
#22 Norton - Holmes win
#34 Witherspoons - Holmes win
#55 Thomas - Tyson win
#63 Ruddock - Tyson win
#64 Berbick - both
#68 Mercer - Holmes win
#73 Weaver - Holmes win
#76 Spinks - Tyson win
#90 Tucker - Tyson win
#95 Cooney - Holmes win

Holmes beat 3 in the top 50 and Tyson 1, though obviously neither versions of Ali nor Holmes that were beaten resembled the fighters whose work got them ranked so highly. Of the prime or near prime opponents beaten, Holmes beat the highest ranked 2, and by quite a distance.

I'm not addressing any of your opinions because I don't respect your opinion. Besides, I agree for a short period Tyson was about as good as any version of Holmes and discussions along the lines of Tyson did better against that mutual opponent, whilst Holmes did better against this, oh but lets factor in age, activity, etc. would be a rabbit hole of futility. There are examples that benefit both.

As you no doubt hold my opinion in the same regard I do yours, and to avoid pointless debates on tiny details that are largely immaterial to their respective standards, I've limited my contribution to our exchange to either facts or citing the rankings of third parties.

 

This is hilarious from someone who compares stats and ignores lots of context, in order for things to try and fit their narrative.

 

Rahman beat Lennox with a tremendous punch, which he deserves credit for.

And that was a monster win.

That win over Lennox could be argued to have been better than any win by either Mike, Evander, Holmes, Foreman, Vitali and Wlad etc, etc.

But that’s not how we rate guys.


We don’t rate guys on single wins.

Otherwise James Douglas would be a HW ATG.


What we do, is we apply context.

We look at their ability.

We look at their whole careers.

That’s what we do.


Frazier has a win over a 1971 version of Ali.

Yet nobody rates Frazier higher than Lennox Lewis.


There was nothing remotely special about Hasim Rahman.

Again, he gets credit for beating Lennox, who was caught napping.

But apart from that and his win over Corrie, he lost to every other top level guy that he ever faced.

He had many losses.

Overall, he was a C class HW.

 

Bulletproof?

Haha!

 

How you’ve got the nerve to type this is truly staggering.

1. They’re not all facts.

2. You only apply context when it suits you.

3. You are completely incapable of being objective.

You twist all of the facts and the stats to suit.

I’ve addressed all of your post.

Yet for the last 2 days, you’ve been trying to tell me that a guy like Ruddock was on another level to Ray Mercer.

The only positive things from your posts, is the sheer entertainment that they bring, due to your pure desperation in trying to get things to fit your biased narrative.

You’ll go to any depths to get the answer that you want.

The twists and the turns that you go through would impress a F1 driver.

 

I won't lie to you, I haven't read all of your OP. It's very lengthy, on first glance is littered with opinion and I have zero regard for your opinion.

It also contains the statement - "good for you. Have a cookie and pat yourself on the head" - as an argument in response to Tyson losing to Douglas in his prime being detrimental to his ranking relative to Holmes. How very factual and insightful. That statement alone invalidates any credibility the post should be afforded, but rather seen as your usual biased nonsense.

I think McGrain is unbiased and conducts more research into his rankings than anyone I know. I disagree with the exact ordering of every list of his I've ever seen, but I have significantly more respect for them than any assessments of yours, and I'm confident that will be true of every poster familiar with the two of you. See how that works?

 

I'm sure he could provide multiple lists from others that include top 100 fighters of all time, top 100 heavyweights and top 50's for every conventional division or thereabouts.

But just to put it out there he's only brick walling and stalling to get this thread to 50 pages at some point upon which he will announce it is at 50 pages among other life changing comments. He believes personal 50 page threads validate him on some way tho half of them are him running around in circles of denial goading others into posting ad infinitum.

God I'd love to see McGrain shut the thread at 49 pages

We'd have to have an RUOK day!

 

He caught Lennox with a great punch.

But at the end of the day, it’s HW boxing.

It doesn’t mean that he was a great fighter.

It doesn’t even mean that he was better than all of the guys who Lennox beat.

Because that’s not how things work.

Otherwise, he’d be better than Evander etc.

Again, you rate a guy on his whole career, where you apply context and take everything into account.


James Douglas is not a top 10 HW of all time because he beat Mike in 1990.

Again, it doesn’t work like that.


Again, Rahman deserves credit for his great punch against Lennox. But at the same time, he was a career C level guy who lost to every other top level HW he fought.

He was never a couple of notches above Mercer.