Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

I sense a Wlad discussion spilling.

 

Problem is how Wlad would have done in another era is totally speculation that we could do with any fighter in history and Vitali can't really be granted a totally hypothetical career he never had either which he sometimes does.

I agree the losses Wlad is probably what puts Wlad below Holmes though. I think that's the main difference maker in that comparison.

 

I’m not giving Vitali a hypothetical career.

I’m just saying that if Vitali hadn’t got injured and been out for a good few years, then Wlad wouldn’t have acquired all of the belts and had a reign as long.

There’s no way he can rank over Larry.

 

Neither quite managed to go undisputed anyway. So Wlad didn't beat Vitali but Holmes didn't manage it either.

For me I probably rate it as Holmes 3-5ish and Wlad 6-7ish IMO.

 

Wlad was undisputed when Vitali retired and WBC was vacant.

 

If Ali never got Parkinson’s, Holmes would’ve been no more than a contender.

 

It says I commented on this thread but I don't remember replying.

My thoughts are....

Tyson rates as the number 1 Heavyweight of the 80s because he went undefeated in that decade 37-0 with 10 world title wins whilst also unifying the belts.

Holmes of course had the losses to Spinks x2, and Tyson himself in the 80s. So I don't see a case for Holmes rating above Tyson strictly in the 80s.

But if you combine Holmes's 70s resume I think he edge's Tyson based on quantity and a longer reign.

I think all in all Tyson rates above Holmes in the 80s as the number 1 Heavyweight.

But Holmes's overall reign from the 70s & 80s gives him the edge over Tyson.

But I can see an argument for Tyson because he unified the belts unlike Holmes. Plus Tyson has a dominant win Spinks who dethroned Holmes and obviously Tyson beat Holmes aswell.

 

Ali had already slowed down considerably by the mid 70’s.

A completely different fighter to the one pre-exile.

 

Because of Parkinson’s.

 

Ali was 8 years older than Holmes, he ain’t beating a peaking one.

 

Holmes came to prominence 10 years after Ali’s prime.

A late 70’s version of Ali would always have been a less mobile fighter.

Holmes would never have just been a contender.

Not under any circumstances.

 

Does it matter why Ali declined? Whether it was from Parkinson's, being punched by most or the hardest punchers ever list, or his near 2 decade career; surely all that matters is his noticeable decline, right?

 

You're using hypotheticals to pretend that Wlad, at one point, wasn't the only heavyweight with belts on his waist, whereas Holmes failed to even try for two at once in the 80s.

If Teofilo Stevenson went pro....

 

You don't know that. You're assuming Vitali beats Wlad and the guys Wlad beat, which is only your opinion, giving him a hypotethical legacy to dismiss Wlad's real legacy.

 

I haven’t pretended anything.

The landscape was completely different when Larry reigned.

Completely different circumstances.

Also, Larry tried to fight Coetzee, but the fight kept falling through. It was almost made 2-3 times

Pondering how Stevenson would have done is not the same thing as what I’ve spoken of.