This reads like an intentionally misleading and deceptive post.. Holmes was 36 years old for the Spinks fights and arguably got robbed in at least one of them. He was 47 against Neilson and quite possibly robbed in that one too. Tyson was in the peak of his prime against Spinks in 1988 and while he was diminished for the Neilson bout, was still many years younger than Holmes. And Holmes actual fight with Tyson should be disregarded for obvious reasons as well.. If we're going by that logic then you might as well point out that Holmes beat Ali's conquerors in Norton, Leon, and Berbick as well as beating Ali himself, there bye making him the superior fighter. I'm also not sure that Mike's resume is better than Holmes either, though there are certain highlights that could give him an argument.
i understand what you say, my ost was in response to the idiot who said compared to Holmes, Tysons resume was full of cans
Yeah that's not real accurate. Tyson and Holmes fought comparable opposition and in some cases even the same guys. You can argue that they both fought decent opponents whom the other didn't like Holmes fighting witherspoon and Tyson fighting Ruddock, but anyone who thinks that their opposition was in two different categories is wrong.
Holmes would win by wide UD or late stoppage. Tyson was just an 18 year old kid while Holmes was a grown ass man at the top of his game.
Tyson in his first year as a pro versus a near-prime Holmes? Hard to pick Tyson here. Peak for peak though, I've always felt Tyson overcomes him.
any version of Tyson was a more complete fighter than Shavers and Snipes and Tyson hit as hard as Shavers and Snipes, had faster hands and was a better finisher than both men by far....any version of Tyson was a dangerous foe for prime Holmes....