Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Yeah those were great wins lol. Better then most of Holmes wins or Louis wins if you're being objective.

 

You mean if he hadn't lost to them?

 

I think he meant if he didn't lose to Purrity and Sanders.

 

I get it now.

 

I’d love to know what criteria you guys are using here.


We can talk about Lennox’s losses.

They’re nowhere near as bad.

Only one happened when he was young.

The other happened when he was about 36/37.


There’s nothing wrong with losing. It happens. We know this. However, the circumstances are hugely important.

There’s nothing wrong with losing way past prime or when you’re shot. Or if you’re really young, and it’s just the odd time.

But Wlad’s losses do him enormous harm.

Because it happened 3 times.

Against 3 non elite guys.

And all whilst he was in his 20’s.

That’s huge.


Joe Louis getting knocked out by a young Marciano doesn’t hurt him.

Roy Jones getting knocked out by Green and Lebedev doesn’t hurt him.

They were embarrassing and hard to watch, but they don’t hurt him.


Again, Wlad’s are huge. Due to his age. The opponents. The amount of times they happened.

That didn’t happen to any other great HW.

Then he had no prime ATG wins, and he wasn’t the most skilled HW of all time either.

That’s why he ranks lower than Lennox.


You guys are obsessed with dominance, without looking at the circumstances.

Forget his dominance. Just look at his resume. His best group of wins.

They are no better than the best wins of either Lennox or Larry.

His ability wasn’t on another level.

He didn’t have greater longevity.

He also had the opportunity that they didn’t have. A much easier road. And his brother helping him.

It doesn’t matter if he has more official title defences etc. Again, not when you apply context.


My main criteria is:

Overall ability
Overall resume
Best wins
Accomplishments
Longevity

Just standard, traditional ranking criteria.


You are putting way too much emphasis on his title reign.


Regarding Louis, yes, his resume and reign wasn’t great either. But he’s ranked higher on his overall ability and for the fact that he doesn’t have awful losses when he was young.


Regarding Rocky, he wouldn’t be anywhere near my top 5.

He didn’t have great technical ability. His resume was very weak. He fought in one of the weakest eras of all time, and he didn’t have great longevity.

 

How was it WAY HARDER to dominate than Larry’s??

 

Larry didn't have to fight SHWs constantly, didn't fight any southpaws and Povetkin and Haye are better H2H then anyone Holmes beat tbh

 

This just seems like selectively choosing which losses matter and which don't while also ignoring the CONTEXT of Wlad's losses you know thing you always go crazy about.

 

I have no issue with him being in anybody’s top 10 really.

But IMHO, people ranking him top 4 are delusional. And when you ask them why, they’ll say because he reigned for 11 years.

So what.

Joe Calzaghe reigned for 11 years.

It means nothing without context.

Also, his reign/accomplishments, is only looking at one factor out of many others.

 

Number 3??

 

But they weren’t great wins were they.

What was great about beating a former CW who barely did anything at HW??

 

I know you feelings on top 5 so I left that aside.

 

How many SHW’s did Wlad during his actual reign?

Who were they?


Were Povetkin and Haye better than Norton and Witherspoon?


You also said “Way harder”


No. You’ve grossly exaggerated that.