Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

The guy’s a joker.

What’s the point in even making a thread, when you’re going to type that regarding Mike and Douglas?

Zero objectivity applied.

 

The best 2 fight sequences in HW history?

Are you actually from this planet?

He was a C class HW who caught Lewis napping with a perfect punch.

He was then easily destroyed in their rematch.

Again, that victory that he holds probably eclipses any win of Mike’s, Evander’s and both the K bros etc.

Hardly any HW has a scalp like knocking out Lennox with a single punch.

Again, it was great.

However, he was still a career C level guy.

James Douglas isn’t the GOAT at HW because he beat a 23/24 year old Mike.

Joe Frazier isn’t the GOAT at HW because he beat a still great Ali from 71.

Fighters are not ranked upon single fights or their best wins.

They are ranked on their overall careers.

Hasim Rahman was a C class guy who lost the majority of his opponents. And many of those opponents were lower level guys.

Hasim Rahman was never a great HW.

 

Who cares??

How many more times do I need to say it?

CONTEXT.

The guy was a C class HW who landed a perfect punch.

All credit to him. But he was still a C level HW.

So what if he won a belt afterwards?

Why don’t you tell us who it was against and what the circumstances were.

In your world, you probably rank Leonard and Broner at similar levels.

 

I wonder how what started as a thread about Tyson and Holmes, a couple of ATG HW, then became a thread about Mercer and Rahman, a couple of JAG HW with all due respect...

 

Because when I close his arguments down by giving him logical examples and applying context, he just finds somebody else to throw at me instead.


It started due to me saying that Larry Holmes had a very good win over Ray Mercer, due to:

1. Mercer being a good, solid HW.

2. Larry being 42 years old at the time.


He then said that Mike’s wins over Ruddock was better.

I then said that Mercer was better than Ruddock, and that Larry beating Mercer at 42, was better than Mike beating Ruddock at 25.


But the guy cannot and will not apply context.

He won’t take things like age into account.

He tries to win his debates purely based upon stats/numbers.

 

I’m keen to hear the reasoning for this.

 

I mean the reasoning that the Lewis-Rahman fights were among the best series in HW history.

 

Did you consider these great fights, though? What was great about them? They both had (effectively) one-shot KO’s, which are always admittedly exciting. The rest of both fights I don’t know where the thrills are, though.

Fight I you have Lewis panting, plodding & grinning like a smug idiot until he’s poleaxed.

Fight II you have Rahman with his arms outreached like a zombie & looking utterly rudderless until he is ‘crowned’ above the Don King logo.

 

Holmes is a sure fire top 10 hw, Tyson is lucky if he enters top 15.