Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Yes it is opinion-based, which is why the words ‘in my view’ appear. The entire question of the thread is asking for an opinion. In my opinion it’s not impressive if you beat someone who gives up voluntarily, as Spinks did - in my opinion.

 

I see pure, lucid terror in his eyes & a Razzie-worthy attempt to fall into the ropes. If you see differently, that’s your business. I’m unimpressed.

 

I see the 1980s Heavyweights as:
first half: Larry Holmes
WBA chaos
second half: Mike Tyson
more WBA chaos until Tyson beat Smith
A bit of WBC chaos until Tyson beat Berbick
A sprinkle of Michael Spinks during the middle years.

 

I think the Spinks win perhaps gets a bit undersold. That often happens with wins that are so utterly dominant that you cant't believe the guy on the wrong side is any good.

Sure, there were other HWs at the time that would have given him a better fight probably, but Spinks was a legit top HW and Tyson just steamrolled him. I'd have to put that above a very hard and close win over a fading Norton.

 

The thread wasn't a question it was put forth as a statement. There's isn't a single question mark in about 1000 words.

You said Spinks plainly feigned injury. What injury did he get?

 

It can certainly get undersold. I would have no problem with it slipping above the Norton win. Of course Holmes did improve a bit thereafter.

 

Please, is it really a coincidence that Spinks came out injured and scared on the very day of the biggest fight of his career against the biggest rival of his career? he didn't do it in his 32 previous fights where there was no shortage of good or very good rivals. He wasn't scared by Larry Holmes in his HW debut where he might have thought he would hit a wall like Holmes' previous 46 rivals who weren't LHW. He only did it with Tyson. Maybe Tyson has something to do with it? If you are condemned to domination, it makes no sense. Tyson crushed the linear champion, considered the strongest rival in all of boxing at the time, what could he have done better? get knocked down and knock Spinks down harder? lose and win in a rematch like Holyfield did with another LHW Moorer? pointing out Spinks' mental defeat is like pointing out Tyson's mental defeat in 1997 and forgetting that both Tyson in 1988 and Holy in 1997 walked into the ring looking like a million bucks and real champions, of which there have been several in the entire history of boxing. Too bad they didn't get someone like Frazier in 1971 when he fought Ali at MSG.

 

I’m speaking to his “falling” into the ropes as though he couldn’t stand up. The close up shot of him looking at the ref doesn’t for a second to me look like anything other than a stone cold terrified fighter. I can’t put more stock in a win like that than Holmes having to dig deep over fifteen rounds for an opponent who, while ageing, was a great stylistic foil & who had far better big-game experience.

It’s not Tyson’s fault, but that doesn’t mean I’m about to credit him by default, either. It’s not more impressive than Holmes’ performance vs Norton, & neither is his career.

 

Post video evidence of a fight everyone has seen? LOL. YouTube it yourself. Are you implying you’ve never watched the fight?

 

Shouldn't Tyson get credit for paralyzing his opponents with fear?

 

Yes he should. But more than the hard fifteen rounds Holmes fought against Norton, where he had to dig deep against an actual live opponent who fought hard & pushed him all the way? Tyson didn’t even break a sweat against Spinks.

 

I wonder if Mike's performance against Ruddock could be considered. I mean in particular the second fight, where Mike took many unbelievable, near-Lewis level shots and kept coming. I highly suggest to anyone to watch that fight again, Mike proved he had both chin and heart imo.

 

Did you catch his eyes rolling in the back of his head on replays?

Pure, unadulterated lucid terror from the future star of Speedzone!!