Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

It doesn’t matter if you think it was a cherry pick gone wrong.

David Haye was not on another level to Tim Witherspoon.

It’s just a nonsense statement that carries no weight.

 

No.

You have criticised/mocked Larry for not having fought any southpaws.

So I’m simply asking you which southpaws were there for him to fight?


It’s a very simple question.


It’s not like they were half a dozen in his era/during his reign, who he all clearly ducked.


Why can’t you answer the question, instead of deflecting?

 

It appears that you're attempting to give the same credit to Larry for his cherry as to Wlad for unifying against the top fighter in the division who didn't carry his name.

 

Yes and I stand by that remind me how many southpaws did Holmes fight? How many SHWs?
That alone shows Wlad fought the harder opponents. The only real argument you have against that is "physical advantages" which is a meaningless term that applies to most HWs champs outside of Holyfield and Usyk who are your HW GOATS now I guess.

 

It appears that you are yet again deflecting.

Who were the southpaws in Larry’s era, who he didn’t fight, which were viable fights for him?

 

How many southpaws did Wlad fight?

How many SHW’s did Wlad fight?


Who were the southpaws there for Larry to have fought?


Larry not having fought southpaws, doesn’t mean that Wlad had the MUCH HARDER reign.

That is absolute nonsense.


They both fought comparable opposition.


Oh, Wlad’s physical advantages were meaningless now?

Okay.


Why don’t you just admit that you exaggerated?


Wlad did not have a MUCH HARDER reign than what Larry did.

 

Eventually, your sort of reasoning results in the least accomplished fighter being the most highly regarded due to lack of opportunity.

Turtles all the way down.

 

More deflection.

It’s ridiculous that you can’t answer a simple question.


Larry ranks higher than Wlad because:

He was greatly skilled.

He had a better overall resume.

He had equal top wins.

Slightly better longevity.

And he only got knocked out once in a 75 fight, 20 year career.

He didn’t get knocked out 3 times, to non great opposition whilst he was young, and he didn’t tag team the division with his brother.

He also showcased his great skills, and didn’t hug and maul his way to victories.


That’s why Larry ranks higher.

And Wlad having a better reign officially, in terms of numbers, is not going to take precedence over the above. Not when most of their opposition was of equal quality.

It isn’t enough.


Title reigns don’t impress me like they do you guys.

You guys seem obsessed with them.


It would be like holding GGG in higher regard than Mike McCallum, because he had a big title reign.

Again, they mean nothing without context, and there’s an awful lot more to look at.

 

Their reigns are comparable when it comes to difficulty and the level of opposition. Holmes had more defences and more Top 10 wins, but Larry also missed more top contenders. I have Holmes rated 2 spots above Wlad in my rankings.

 

Yes, they are absolutely comparable.

Nobody can say that Wlad had a much harder reign.

 

Keep checking back into the nut house JT.

A place where Larry is getting criticised for not having fought any southpaws, despite the fact that he hardly had any to fight.

 

How many top 10 wins did Holmes have? I think he and Wlad would be close there maybe Holmes has a couple more wins but I would be surprised if it was much more.

 

Holmes had 20 throughout his career, Wlad had 15.

 

In my opinion no. Larry Holmes has been at the top longer than Tyson and has a slightly better record of defeated opponents. In my opinion Holmes is among the top 10 heavyweights of all time, Iron Mike is among the top 15.