Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Irrelevant

 

Sorry to say man, he does present some good arguments.

 

Yes, I agree, it was a reply to an equally irrelevant point.

 

He was up against an older fighter whose speed and reflexes and stamina were clearly downgraded though.
Holyfield who'd been punished in 8 rounds by Bowe a year earlier, lost to Moorer in horrible condition the year before. Damaged goods, downgraded. Brought in as a 'set up' for Tyson, a huge underdog.
And Tyson still got his ass beat.

 

He got up and beat both those guys. He was 29 against Shavers. He was 32 against Snipes.

He got up against Tyson too but was 38 years old.

 

Neither was Holy.

 

Sorry, Holmes doesn't get the same credit for beating guys like Evangelista and Zanon that Tyson gets for beating Ruddock. Tyson has one prime loss, and he didn't train. He also was blocked from a rematch so he fought the most dangerous opponent available twice. Holmes never gave anyone a rematch.

 

It's interesting how you try to defuse the fact of Buster Douglas KO10.
After scrutinizing Holmes's whole career for weakness or off-nights, knockdowns he suffered, or close decision wins or close decision losses he had at age 35. That's all fair game. Close loss to the Michael Spinks when he was way past his best and in poor condition.
But you really don't want to face the fact of Tyson LKO10 Douglas.


Of course, when you're claiming a guy who held the title for years and lost it at age 35 on a close decision had a lesser career than a guy who was beaten up and dominated and KO'd and dethroned at age 23, you don't really want to get into that too deeply.

 

Holmes has zero prime losses.

 

1. Yes, but Bonecrusher knocked out Witherspoon in one round.
2. Williams was the second contender in The Ring annual ratings in 1988. He wasn't ranked when Holmes fought him. He must have done something after the fight.
3. Tate did exactly nothing of note after the Berbick fight and was coming off a kncokout loss.
4. Spinks was more highly regarded going into the Tyson fight. That is an objectively true statement without revisionism.
5. Tyson was winning the heavyweight championship at an age where Holmes was getting stopped in the first round at the Olympic trials. If we knocking Tyson for burning out early, we have to knock Holmes for being a late bloomer.

 

I noted Douglas, and gave you your cookie and pat on the head.

The reality of the situation is that Mike wanted a rematch but was denied it, so he fought the most dangerous and highly ranked heavyweight available twice. Holmes fought nobody twice.

Perhaps Holmes wouldve lost earlier if his cake walk opponents resembled Tokyo Buster Douglas and not Scott Frank.

 

Holmes was PRIME when he fought Norton and Cooney.. You missed the point entirely.

 

Holmes opposition was ****ing worse.

 

Yeah, he got knocked out by an old Weaver.
Then when on to beat a fading Berbick.
Holmes has wins over prime Weaver and prime Berbick.

The reason Williams was ranked high in 1988 was :
1. The quality of the fighters in the division had been declining for a few years.
2. Tyson had done well in 1987 and '88 to defeat most of the good and mediocre ones left around.

 

Holyfield was juiced to the gills and we both know it.