Better resume Holmes vs Tyson (Common Fighters)

You missed a few.

Larry Holmes fought Jesse Ferguson, Brian Nielsen, Jose Ribalta so did Mike Tyson.

Holmes beat both Ferguson and Ribalta by decision he lost to Nielsen via controversial decision.

Without looking at boxrec....I believe Tyson stopped Ribalta in 10, Ferguson in 6, and Nielsen in 6 aswell I believe.

 

Tyson has the better list of opponents faced, but he lost to the biggest names. His first five years were scintillating, but his career went on for another fifteen years (active for most of those years) & badly under-achieved thereafter. Holmes has it won, especially considering his second career.

 

While looking at common opponents and the margin or mode of victory, you also need to answer a few other questions:

1. Was Holmes/Tyson in his prime when he faced the common opponent?

2. Was the opponent in his prime when he faced Holmes/Tyson?

3. Are both Holmes and Tyson knockout artists? Do they have similar fighting styles?

 

Carl Williams: Holmes was past his prime when he faced Williams. Tyson was in his prime. Williams was in his prime when he faced Holmes. With Tyson, it is debatable.

James Smith: Holmes was past his prime when he faced Smith. Tyson was in his prime. Smith was in his prime when he faced Holmes. With Tyson, it is again debatable.

Trevor Berbick: Holmes was arguably in his prime when he faced Berbick. Tyson was also in his prime. Berbick was in his prime when he faced Holmes. With Tyson, it is once again debatable.

Michael Spinks: Holmes was past his prime when he faced Williams. Tyson was in his prime. Spinks was probably a bit past his prime when he faced Holmes. With Tyson, he was clearly past it.

Evander Holyfield: Holmes was way past his prime when he faced Holyfield. Tyson was past his prime. Holyfield was in his prime when he faced Holmes but well past it when he faced Tyson.

I don't consider Frazier, Ribalta, Ferguson and Nielsen to be noteworthy opponents. But in every case except against Frazier, Holmes was way past his prime. Tyson was only past his prime in the case of Nielsen. But so was Nielsen.

 

very valid points, very wrong conclusions.
1. On what do you base the fact that Berbick was in worse shape against Holmes than against Tyson? In my opinion it's the other way around, Berbick had the best period in his career with Tyson, in general he was quite a long-lived boxer who stayed in good shape for a long time, and with Tyson he was at the top, with Holmes it is debatable.
2. On what do you base the fact that James Smith was better with Holmes, moments earlier he had achieved success in life and seemed to be at the top. Even though UD lost against Tyson and against Holmes, Mike won more decisively
3. Carl Williams.. same question as above
4. Spinks - totally agree, but how far was Spinks beyond peak? Is there a bigger difference between his peak than between the course of the fight with Holmes and Tyson? the same question applies to Williams
5. Ribalta and Ferguson are very good victories for Tyson. In the fight with him they were peak, in the fight with Holmes they were very past prime, Holmes was also past so they can be omitted
6. Nielsen was effectively irrelevant
7. Tyson also dominated Holmes. He was at his peak and Holmes was past prime but the same goes for Marciano-Louis, Ali-Liston, Holmes-Ali, Lewis-Holy, Fury-Wlad. Regardless, each of these fights is valuable and important

 

1. I assume that this was written in response to my post. Please note that I used the word 'prime' and not 'in good shape'. And this is the reason I said 'it is debatable' with Tyson in the first three cases. Did you consider Holmes's shape when he fought Berbick, Smith and Williams?
2. With regards to 'how far was Spinks beyond peak'? Well, considering that Spinks was fighting top ranked contenders since 1980 in the light heavyweight division and had unified that division in 1983, I would say he was way beyond it. If the discussion is about prime, he was a bit past it as I mentioned in my earlier post.
3. While stating that Holmes was also past it when he fought Ribalta and Ferguson, you say they can be omitted, but the extent to which the three fighters were past their respective primes is not something you take into consideration. Holmes wasn't just past it against these guys, he was WAY past it. So, those guys had an advantage with respect to career stages. With Tyson, this was not the case.
4. Why is Nielsen 'effectively irrelevant'? Let me guess, because Tyson was past his prime? It only doesn't count when Tyson is past it, doesn't it? Tyson and Nielsen were both in their mid-thirties when they fought each other. Holmes was in his mid 40s. Again, a big disadvantage for Larry. Ribalta counts, Ferguson counts, but Nielsen does not count, great logic!
5. You say Holmes-Ali is valuable and important. Then why are Tyson-Williams and Tyson-McBride not important? Oh, because Tyson was shot, correct?

The undisputable fact is that Holmes was the older guy in all of those fights. And with Tyson, it was always the opposite case. With the lone possible exception of Trevor Berbick, there wasn't a single fight in the above list where Holmes was in his prime, not even one. Whereas in the case of Tyson, the only one where he isn't in his prime is the Nielsen fight where Nielsen himself is past it. But you call it irrelevant. How convenient.

 

Holmes stopped Smith, he didn't win by UD. Stoppage win is more decisive than UD.

 

the one that comes out most favorably for Holmes here is Holyfield. He looked much better against Holyfield than Tyson did.

 

Themostoverrated
1.everything indicates that Berbick and Tyson had a peak, on what basis do you think it was the other way around? the same question applies to Williams, Smith. Is it because they fought Tyson that you have to think that they were past prime, even though there was no indication of this before the fight with Tyson? the same goes for Spinks. He had the best weight in HW, good age, looked very good at the weigh-in. Why do you think it was paste?
2. Yes, Tyson was almost always younger. Do you think that 20-year-old Spinks, 20-year-old Berbick, 20-year-old Lewis, Holy, Buster, Holmes would have a better chance against 20-year-old Tyson? please check them out
3. You can consider Nielsen important, you can even claim that if Danny Williams had been born earlier, he would have become the youngest champion, beating Holmes, Spinks, Berbick and the rest. It's your opinion and it's ok for me, but we won't verify it

 

I think this list, perhaps more than anything else, highlights how the stages of a boxer's career and their boxing style can influence their match results.

 

1. Read my post again - I said that Berbick, Williams and Smith being in their prime is debatable. I did not say they were past their primes. In Spinks's case, he was indeed past it, and you agreed.
2. We never know how 20-year-old Holmes, Lewis or Spinks would have fared against a 20-year-old Tyson because they weren't given the privilege of fighting for the heavyweight title. So, that is purely hypothetical. I don't see how it is relevant to the topic.
3. I do not know what Danny Williams being born earlier has to do with the discussion. I said Nielsen was important if you consider Ribalta and Ferguson to be important. As they were all journeymen. I gave the Danny Williams example to counter your Ali-Holmes example. If Holmes defeating the corpse of Ali counts, then Danny Williams and Kevin McBride (two bums) should be given credit for beating shot Mike Tyson.

 

I don't understand some of your examples.

How was Smith in his prime vs Holmes ? And not against Tyson ? Smith was a mere novice when he fought Holmes with only 15 fights who only got his shot after scoring a miracle come from behind KO against a green Bruno after losing every round. Bonecrusher was a champion when he fought Tyson and was coming off the best win of his career vs Witherspoon.

Again how was Berbick in his prime vs Holmes but not vs Tyson ? Berbick was a champion coming off the best win of his career vs Thomas when he fought Tyson.

 

I said Smith and Berbick being in their primes is debatable. I did not dismiss the possibility entirely. Calling Smith a novice by mentioning that he fought only 15 times would be incorrect. Anthony Joshua also had 15 fights before he won his first title.

 

It's not debatable at all you're just wrong honestly.

Smith was a nobody prior to facing Bruno and he lucked out with a miracle come from behind KO vs Bruno and was in way over his head vs Holmes with little to no experience at world level.

Smith was far more experienced when he fought Tyson and was going through a purple patch in his career with wins over Weaver, Bey, Ferguson, and a stand out win vs Witherspoon.

So it makes 0 sense that you think a novice in Bonecrusher with 15 fights is in his prime vs Holmes compared to a more experienced Bonecrusher against Tyson who was on the best win streak of his career and coming off the best win of his career.

As for Berbick again vs Tyson he'd been undefeated for 3 years and was coming off the best win of his career vs Thomas again it makes 0 sense why Berbick would not be considered in his prime vs Tyson.