Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

I think Mike is a freaky great fighter and have huge admiration, he's in my top 10 ATG heavies but..

Buster and Holy are the big foils here imo.

I'm not convinced Tokyo Douglas could even beat the Holmes that fought Holy. While we're on this subject...

43 year old Larry was actually ahead on my card halfway through his Holy fight and gave a more than good account of himself throughout. A 30 year old Mike got owned twice...hell in the first fight he was getting beaten around the ring so bad the ref had to stop it.

I sympathize with so many of the points my dear friend @NoNeck brought up, in fact one of the most charming attributes he has is to be able to write things very challenging. But for some reason unbeknownst even to me, I must make my points when it comes to Holmes. Larry was stupendous in his prime, I just wish he'd taken on some of the tougher competition (though, to really fly my ballhugging banner high, I think he would have beat Dokes, Thomas, and Page anyway).

 

Their ranking is based on a number of factors. Not just their claim to being undisputed.

There's no way you can logically rank Wlad higher than Holmes.

He can't possibly be a top 5 HW of all time.

A top 4-5 HW, cannot lose 3 times to non great fighters, whilst being in their 20's.

 

Yes, he can. The level of dominance throughout the 10 year stretch puts him right up there.

 

Tyson unified two belts ten years after winning the title, and beat Golota fifteen years after.

Larry got flatlined by Tyson about ten years after winning the title, and was losing to Holyfield and McCall near fifteen years after.

if we’re going to do the age discrimination thing, then Nick Wells was beating the crap out of Holmes while Tyson ruled the world at the same age.

 

Yeah Tyson had a better career, But Larry also predicted that Tyson would “self destruct” and that’s exactly what happened in the later stage of Tysons career.

 

It absolutely does not.

Not with those losses.

Not without any prime ATG wins to compensate.

How can the 4th best HW that we’ve ever seen, lose to 3 non elite guys in their 20’s?

It’s not possible.

You can’t just rank him on his dominance, without applying context.

Again, it was a weak era, where he had a great opportunity.

It’s not logical to think that he could have dominated like that in a stronger era, such as the 90’s.

 

How many did he lose during his title reign? You can pick and choose whatever criteria you want but the important thing is to be consistent with it. Forcing others adhere to your criteria is dumb though

 

All of this is nonsense without context.

This has all been discussed earlier on in the thread.

Tyson unified the titles at 30, against two B level guys.

There’s nothing wrong with a 38 year old Larry getting flatlined by a prime Mike.

A 38 year old Mike couldn’t beat 2 fighters who were literally non world level guys.

Larry losing to a prime Evander in his 40’s, means nothing.

Mike couldn’t beat a past prime Evander when he was 30.

 

He defeated 15 Top 10 guys over the course of his career. Only Ali, Louis and Holmes defeated more and Lennox defeated the same amount. If you want to nitpick, we can say Lennox can't be Top 5 cause he was one shotted twice in his career by underdogs. Joe Louis and Larry Holmes ruled over weak eras too, so? Does this disqualify them from being Top 5? Of course not. Rocky and Tyson ruled in a weak era too, but couldn't maintain it for as long as Wlad.

 

He had a more exciting prime.

I wouldn’t say he had a better career.

 

Not to mention from a purely H2H perspective his reign was arguably way harder to dominate then Louis's or Holmes

 

I’m not forcing anyone to do anything.

My criteria is always consistent.

It’s not who was the most dominant.

Who was my favourite.

I simply rank under traditional ranking criteria.

Looking at 5 main factors, as well as others.

You’re talking about a title reign in a weak era.

His brother retiring gave him the opportunity to be the man.

Before his title reign, he lost 3 times to non great fighters whilst he was young.

Yet that’s your 4th best HW EVER, on the grounds that he was dominant?

Against who??

David Haye?

Povetkin?

Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe had dominant reigns.

Yet they were both incredibly weak.

 

@Loudon

Leaving the whole top 5 discussion with the other posters aside would Wlad make your top 10 (6-10) or would he be lower than that for you?

 

Nah. Only Ali and Louis have case for the GOAT of HW. But he would be a candidate for number 3 spot, which is taken my Holmes now in my ranking. I also have Lennox at 4.