I know that this has been covered in the past,but what the hell? Both dominated head and shoulders above every other heavy in that decade - Larry the first half and Mike the second. I would say that even though I rate Larry quite a few rungs higher up the ladder than Mike in an all time rating,I would,say that the latter pips the former for the 1980-89 window. Mainly because Tyson beat virtually anyone who was anyone around at the time. Holmes beat most up until Michael Spinks but there were a few names missing.
It has to be Tyson. The cut off see's Holmes miss out on Norton, Weaver and Shavers x 2 while Tyson misses Douglas. On top of this Tyson beat an aged Holmes and KO'd his conqueror in seconds. That's without even talking dominance and opponent ranking status.
It's Tyson for me quite clearly. Tyson went 37-0 with 33 stoppages and was undefeated in the 80s. Tyson beat Holmes and he beat the fighter who dethroned Holmes in Spinks. Holmes had more title defences in the 80s but he had 3 losses including losing to Tyson. Tyson also unified the belts in the 80s something Holmes failed to do and he was much more dominant in the 80s than Holmes was. Without including the wins over Norton, Shavers x2, Weaver, which were in the 70s. And the fact Holmes actually lost to Tyson it has to be Tyson for me as the number 1 Heavyweight of the 80s.
Holmes based on career overall. Tyson as the 1980's dominant heavyweight he cleaned up the heavyweights that Larry didn't fight.
He tried, but his fight with Coetzee fell through. Also when Weaver had the WBA belt for a couple of years, nobody called for the unification as Holmes already beaten him and with the Ali win he had the lienage of this belt twice over.
