Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Enter Bruce Seldon.

Seldon and Mercer share two opponents in Ocasio and Ferguson. Seldon outperformed Mercer by miles in these fights.

Seldon also did what Mercer didn’t do in winning a major title. He did it against Tucker, a guy who likely would’ve given Mercer major problems and been about even money against, even only because he was aging.

Seldon’s punch resistance was crappy, as evidenced by the quick stoppage against Bowe and come from behind loss to McCall. But his boxing ability and jab were world class; he only lost to Tubbs on the cards and was dropped in the first round of that fight.

I’ll go so far as to say that Seldon was on Mercer’s level—better boxing ability but worse punch resistance—-and put together a similar win column.

But nobody gives Tyson any credit for beating him because he won so easily. The truth is that Seldon would’ve give. Hell to guys like Jimmy Young and Chris Byrd, possibly beating either, and Tyson deserves credit accordingly.

This is a microcosm for what happened over and over with Tyson’s opponents while the critics are quick to wax poetic about George Foreman’s struggle jobs against Moorer and Briggs (L).

 

Probably the most consolidated grab of vacant belts in history, in that case. All for beating a 5’11, 187 pound, 42 year old man.

Still better than the way Holmes supposedly gained lineage though.

 

Holmes loved a cash grab. It was never about lineage.

 

He could’ve fought Dokes, Coetzee, or Page instead. He could’ve unified. He didn’t.

 

Never happened.

 

He did it for the money and the money only.

 

This content is protected