Am I Wrong To Rank Tyson Higher Than Holmes?

Holmes was only down 4 times.

 

I'd rank Tyson higher, then again I rank Tyson especially highly as a Heavyweight.

 

i feel larry holmes should be ahead of tyson just because of that 7 yrs without loosing is a great feat/.............although if u put tyson of 86 vs holmes of 81 or 82...........i think mike tyson would catch up to larry holmes and tko him or knock him out/ larry holmes considers himself the greatest i do not/

 

Something missing here.

 

almost objectively so

 

What is missing? His post prison tenure damages his legacy. Do you not agree?

 

Tyson #5 Holmes #6

 

I have Holmes 4 or 5 and Tyson 8-10.

 

Tyson doesnt rank higher than Holmes IMO. Not a chance. Prime for prime Holmes wins, and pretty decisively too

 

I was never really the biggest Holmes fan, and I think H2H Tyson kicks his ass all over again. But I have to respect Holmes legacy and say that P4P he ranks higher than Tyson.

 

Disagree. He would lose some major wins, like Ruddock fo example, wouldn´t win another belts. His resume would be worse, his achievements would be worse, his longevity would be worse. Subjectivly he may be remembered more fondly. Objectivly his standing should suffer.

Anyway, I´ve got Holmes between 4 and 6 and Tyson at 7.

 

Good point. This is a subjective matter. ANd ranking Tyson higher can be justified easily.

 

THis really is a tough question and i can see why people would rate Tyson ahead of Holmes (altough i don t think that Tyson Holmes result should have anything to do with it).

I think though that in all fairness, i would have to defer to the longevity answer. Although, at his very best, Tyson was further ahead of his piers than Holmes was his. Realistically, it comes down to whether you value spectacular dominance over longevity.

If you do rank Tyson higher, then i think that the likes of Liston, Marciano, Sullivan and Jeffries must also be very high, possibly unseating the usually favoured status quo of Louis and Ali.

 

I used to but, now I rank Holmes higher. He's got longevity, 48-0 streak, and then the comeback. Yes, he didn't unify, and possibly took easier greener options toward the end of his title reign. Of course, Tyson has unification and more dominance. But his losses seem to be a little less forgivable.

 

Holmes was beter for longer. He established himself as the best heavyweight in the world over a longer time regardless of if he unified the titles. The rivals were D-list compared to Holmes and he beat most of them.

By the time Tyson came along King had given up on building a superfight rivalry between the champions and the HBO unification tourney was already in process.

Earlier King waisted ground hoping a rival champion could build intrest for a Holmes superfight but none of the rivals caught on because they could not win title fights. I think they were only kept apart waiting for another champion to be good enough to bring in a super money unification but King was happy enough to promote two champions in the meantime.

By the Tyson came along the idea had been given up, the titles were going to be unified anyway. He crashed and burned. Tyson is #10 on my list Holmes 4-5.