Better resume Holmes vs Tyson (Common Fighters)

You don't need to wait until you experience the best patch of your career to reach your prime. Archie Moore once stated that Charley Burley was the only man who truly beat him in his prime. But Moore was beaten in the 1940s and his best years were in the 1950s. Let us not forget Wladimir Klitschko's losses to Puritty, Sanders and Brewster before 2005. I would argue that Lennox Lewis's best patch also happened after he was past his prime.

Once again, if Smith is a novice for having fought only 15 times, why can't Joshua be the same when he faced Martin? The truth is that Smith wasn't a novice when he fought Holmes, that Bruno fight was the start of his prime. You could very well argue that he was in his prime until the Tyson fight, but saying he wasn't in his prime when he fought Holmes is silly.

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/mike-tyson-had-a-better-career-than-larry-holmes.669560/

 

I don't see how this is even debatable honestly you're going off track giving me all these other irrelevant examples which don't further your argument.

It's quite simple Smith was a novice with very little to no experience at world level when he fought Holmes how can he be considered more in his prime ? wouldn't logically his prime be when he's at his highest ceiling of his career which was the best win streak of his career vs Tyson ? i don't see how logically you think a 15 fight inexperienced Smith is more in his prime than a more experienced Smith who was a champion coming off the best set of wins he had in his career.

"Smith who was a champion coming off the best win streak of his career" -------> "A 15 fight inexperienced Smith"

I don't see how that doesn't make logical sense to you.

 

How are my examples irrelevant? I said Joshua was 15 fights old when he fought Charles Martin. By the logic given by you, Joshua was a '15 fight novice with very little to no experience at world level'. You see it does not work like that. Both Joshua and Smith earned their title shots with one win each against a rising prospect. And I am saying it again - I never said Smith wasn't in his prime when he fought Tyson. Exactly when his prime ended is up for debate.

If you read my earlier examples rather than dismissing them as irrelevant, you would note that Wladimir Klitschko was on a great run beating Chagaev, Ibragimov, Povetkin and Pulev from 2008-2014. So, was that his prime?

 

There's a major difference firstly Joshua had the backing of good matchmaking from his management because he was a star based on being an Olympic champion. He was brought along nicely against British level opposition/fringe contenders and then faced probably one of the weakest belt holders in Heavyweight history in Charles Martin.

Bonecrusher didn't have such luxuries he had to face James Broad in his first professional fight who was a highly rated amateur who had knocked out Marvis Frazier in the amateurs. Bonecrusher was then fighting literal nobodies for the most part after that and then was brought to England as an "opponent" for an upcoming Frank Bruno in which Bruno was expected to win. And for 9 rounds Bonecrusher played his part as the "opponent" as Bruno was beating him handily in which he was expected to do until Bonecrusher scored a miracle come from behind KO after losing every round. Then Bonecrusher had to face an ATG in Larry Holmes in which was well out of his depth in regards to experience and fighting at world level.

So no there's literally no comparison Bonecrusher had hit his highest ceiling of his career and was more experienced coming into the Tyson fight hence he was more in his prime vs Tyson it's quite simple.

 

The reason why bonecrusher did not have the same privileges as Joshua is because he was never as good as Joshua. And this is why he ended up achieving very little when compared to Joshua. The point is that Bonecrusher was not a novice in his 16th fight.

You are again confusing the highest ceiling of career with prime. Let me once again state it - a fighter need not be in his prime when he hits his highest ceiling. Klitschko and Lewis both proved it. Lewis from 1999-2004 defeated Holyfield (arguably twice), Tua, Grant, Rahman, Tyson and Vitali. He lost once to Rahman (he had also lost to McCall in his prime). That was his best run. But he wasn't in his prime but rather was nearing the end of his career.

 

Ok mate a novice Bonecrusher in his 15th professional fight with virtually no experience at world level was at his absolute peak/prime compared to the Bonecrusher who was a champion coming off the best performances of his career.

 

Again, you are speaking words that I did not utter. I never talked about absolute peak at all. I said that Bonecrusher's prime began with the Bruno fight, and it can be debated as to when it ended. I made it very clear multiple times.

 

You said Bonecrusher was in his prime vs Holmes and you claimed its debatable Bonecrusher was in his prime vs Tyson which is false.

It's quite simple the difference between the two scenarios is night and day and should be quite simple to understand.

Bonecrusher was considered in his prime vs Tyson based on his purple patch in regards to his recent performances and becoming a champion. The Bonecrusher vs Holmes was considered an inexperienced novice who got his shot after losing every single minute of every round against a green Bruno until he pulled out a miracle KO in the last round.

Which scenario sounds like Bonecrusher was more in his prime ? Simple answer.

And BTW most 80s Heavyweights don't have a "prime" they were inconsistent but Bonecrusher's highest ceiling/purple patch was is his recent form coming into the Tyson fight and that is a fact.

 

You are repeating the same thing over and over again. You have a totally misguided definition of prime. I will make it clear for you. Prime of a fighter isn't the phase when he attains his maximum success, it is the phase when his capabilities are at it's maximum. Things like experience or exposure do not decide prime. A fighter can attain his apex in his prime or outside of it.

If you do not agree with this, then there is nothing left to discuss.

 

You don't have to make anything "clear" for me and i think you're the one that's "misguided".

There's nothing to suggest Bonecrusher was in his "prime" vs Holmes other than some mental gymnastics that you've conjured up. Where as there is strong arguments to suggest Bonecrusher had reached his prime vs Tyson.

It's quite simple when a fighter has the best performances in their career they're considered in their"prime". Bonecrusher was coming off the most noteworthy performances of his career hence he was considered in his prime i don't know how much more simple it can be than that.

For example Hopkins may of been at his "physical peak" vs RJJ but he certainly wasn't in his "prime" so you're wrong experience can definitely make difference to whether or not you're in prime.

I think you've got "physical peak" mixed up with "prime" two totally different things.

 

It is not mental gymnastics when you can support an argument with examples and evidence. If we take the best run of a fighter as prime, then we have Ali beating Norton (twice), Frazier (twice) and Foreman between 1973 and 1975. Are you suggesting that Ali was in his prime during this time? Virtually nobody will agree with you.

 

Again another irrelevant comparison that virtually has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Ali's peak/prime is considered to be in 1964/1967 he was also an established world champion. In 1970s Ali was past his prime but still had good wins in the era but you could see he was physically he was not quite the same fighter he was in the mid to late 60s.

What that has to do with a novice Bonecrusher against Holmes i don't know, there's nothing in Bonecrusher's prior performances or in regards to the eye test that Bonecrusher was in his prime vs Holmes so that's not "evidence" at all. But there is evidence Bonecrusher was in his prime coming into the Tyson in regards to his recent performances becoming champion and being more experienced.

Which means my case is stronger than the case you're putting forward i feel like you're reaching with this Bonecrusher argument quite honestly.

 

That Ali beats every zero am experience fifteen fight heavyweight in the history of the division.