Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Yeah, Tangsted was an odd choice. I guess he was European champion. Quick look at Boxrec and he has wins over Joe Bugner, Lucien Rodriguez and Alfredo Evangelista.

 

In, or very near to, the prime of his career, he was very arguably beaten by…Tim Witherspoon.

 

I would reccomend watching that fight again. Tim gave it away in the last rounds.

 

You seriously think he could take the Ali of the Williams fight? Anything Holmes had, pre-exile Ali had more of. And I'm sorry, I saw nothing in the Tyson fight to think that any version of Holmes would have had a shot -- he was running the same basic gameplan that Douglas and Lewis did, but lacked the power they had, and I think the lack of that big power dooms him.

 

I think a prime Holmes vs Williams Ali would be a terrific fight to watch, with Ali winning a close decision.

Jab against jab, right hand against right hand. It would have been a fascinating fight.

 

That wasn’t my point.

 

This is probably the best post of the thread from you.

“Enter Bruce Seldon….”

Ha!


What’s next?

“Enter Francois Botha”?


First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with my previous post. So I don’t know why you’ve even posted it. But nobody is going to be making threads saying how impressive it was that Mike beat Bruce Seldon.

Regarding Mercer, (who you now seem to have an obsession with) Seldon was no better.

And no amount of twisting and turning is going to prove otherwise, saying things like Mercer didn’t win a major belt like Seldon did.

It’s just nonsense. It’s nothing more than circumstances. Seldon won a vacant belt against an ageing Tucker. Yes, Mercer only won the WBO which was lightly regarded at the time. But he gave Evander a good fight. He almost beat Lewis. He beat Morrison.

Ray Mercer was a very good fighter.

He could have won a major title under different circumstances.

Circumstances/luck certainly play a part.

You know that.

For example, Charles Martin held a major title at one point. Something that Mercer never did. So what does that mean? It means absolutely nothing. John Ruiz also held a major belt. As many other lesser HW’s did. Seldon was in the right place at the right time. And the reason why people don’t talk about Mike’s win over him, is because it wasn’t really noteworthy.

And the whole point of me initially mentioning Mercer, is that Larry beat him when he was in his early 40’s. Which again, was at an age that Mike was long since retired, as he was no longer capable of fighting.

So that was a top win for Larry.

Mike couldn’t even compete with a guy like Mercer at that age.


Regarding Foreman and Briggs, you could argue that Briggs was on Seldon’s level, if not better. Also, many people think that George was robbed, and we have to remember that George was nearly 50 at the time.

Think about that for a second.

A 48 year old HW.

A guy who’d had 81 fights.

Mike was done in his 30’s, with 20 odd fights less.

So like I always tell you, apply context.

 

This is a prime example of your debating methods.

Sometimes, the circumstances are important to you.

And at other times, they aren’t.

 

I love Joe, but he doesn’t have a great resume.

 

You’ve quoted me by mistake.

 

Apologies Loudon.

 

You’d have been better off just not replying at all.