Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Selectively choosing?

No.

I’m simply applying common sense.


It doesn’t really need explaining does it?

If a shot fighter gets knocked out, it doesn’t harm his legacy.

If a fighter gets knocked out by a great fighter, it’s not that harmful for his legacy.

If he gets knocked out the odd occasion, it’s not that harmful.


Again, Wlad got knocked out 3 times.

Three times to non great fighters.

Whilst he was in his 20’s.

That was huge.


Surely you can see the vast difference in circumstances??

If he’d been knocked out by prime versions of Louis, Lewis and George, no issue.

But it was against Purrity, Brewster and Sanders. And he had to get his brother to avenge the Sanders loss.


Yet that is your 4th greatest HW of all time, because of his dominance against a load of B level guys in a weak era, where he had huge physical advantages over them??

Really??

 

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

 

Around the same level though the former where much more dangerous then the latter. But dominating Povetkin and Haye > Having close fight that were debatably losses to past his prime Norton and 16 fight Witherspoon.

 

Who?

 

Yeah, they were around the same level.

And Wlad had huge physical advantages over his opponents.

So why was his reign way harder??

How can it have been way harder??

Beating Haye was no better than beating a young, dangerous Witherspoon.

You could make a case that beating Withersooon was better.

 

100%. But he wouldn't have a case for number 1 imo.

 

So did Louis and Ali does that make them less great? Are Holyfield and Usyk now the greatest for overcoming physical advantages in every fight they ever had at HW?

 

This content is protected

Here’s Larry at the same age as prime Tyson. Context.

Now do the same “context” for Benitez after is early twenties.

 

So you're basically picking and chosing criteria that suit you. I can arguge being one shotted twice, no matter the age, is worse than losing 3 times to non elite opposition before one's prime. But does it really matter? No. In both cases.

Overall ability: Wlad had one of the best jabs, straight rights and left hooks in the history of the HW. Also had elite balance and distance control. Manny Steward called him the most talented HW he worked with. He was also one of the hardest punchers ever.

Overall resume: He beat every top contender of his era besides his brother. That's an elite resume. You can't ask for much more. Holmes and Lewis missed more contenders than he did.

Best wins: You can knock Wlad here all you want, but his best wins aren't worse than Louis and Holmes best wins.

Accomplishments: 18 title defences, unified 3 belts, was considered the man for over 6 years. Again - elite level.

Longevity - 10/10 as only Joe Louis had a longer reign.

 

Larry is not seen as undisputed.

 

Was seen as such at the time, since the concept of undisputed didn't emerge in the form we now have. I can also say Wlad wasn't seen as undisputed as everyone hyped Usyk as the first undisputed champion since Lewis

 

Larry was seen as ducking Pinklon Thomas.

 

That has nothing to do with the subject.

 

This is all over the place again

 

Holmes was all over the place when Tyson caught him.