78 to 82 Holmes a Nightmare for Tyson

To be clear, I’m a fan of both Holmes and Tyson. But for the life of me I don’t know how anyone can call Tyson’s opposition weak by comparison to Larry’s when we’re talking about guys like Scott Ledoux, Alfredo Evangelista, ossie ocasio, Lucien Rodriguez, Scott Frank, David Bey, Marvis Frazier, Tex Cobb and a disabled Muhammad Ali. Is this supposed to be a joke ?

 

Tyson's record against The Ring rated opposition is something like 20-4. I accumulated the math a while ago in comparison to George Foreman's record against fighters ranked in the Top 10 of The Ring magazine and Tyson blew him out of the water.

Not sure where Larry's record stands but it could be similar to Mike's who has one of the best records against ranked opponents in the heavyweight division's history.

For the thread topic I believe Tyson-Holmes would be one for the ages with Tyson coming out on top. Holmes had far more trouble with his opposition than Tyson ever did.

 

I don't consider them better than Holmes.

 

Tyson's record against Ring Top 10 is 11-4, George's is 9-4. Tyson however scored 7 of them during his title run from 86 to 89, while it took Foreman 2 careers to do it.

 

I didn't. I clearly showed you that Holmes beat 7 Top 5 guys (which is amount of all Top 10s Mike beat during his whole reign) and 3 Top 10 guys who were in the rankings for at least 2 years. So even if we don't count Ossie Ocasio, Leroy Jones, Lorenzo Zanon, Scott LeDoux and Tim Witherspoon, Holmes still has both quality and quantity over Tyson.

 

I think the 20-4 number is not at the time of fight but ranked at some point in there careers.

 

Could be, but if so, it's a flawed way to look at things. You can't take a win over Tillis, who was Top 10 rated in 1981, and consider it a Top 10 win in 1986.

 

It probably better to look at the time of the fight (or at least within a year of it)

But I assume that's were the number comes from.

 

Not if none were champions except a geriatric Ali and Tyson disposed of Spinks and Williams in about 1 round total.

 

Prime Larry Holmes called green Trevor Berbick the strongest fighter he'd ever fought. Green Tyson destroyed prime Berbick in two rounds. Already out of prime but still close to prime, Holmes shouldn't have gotten a decision against Carl Williams; Tyson destroyed him in a minute. He did the same with Spinks, who was a tough opponent for Holmes. He did the same with Holmes himself, even though Larry was 38 and still had many good fights ahead of him. The facts suggest that Holmes had much longer lifespans, but even in his prime, he would always have had a tough time against Tyson.

 

You're moving the goalpost. Tyson only beat 1 real champion in Spinks with shot knees. So the same amount as Holmes.

 

If you have to move the goalpost that far, it tells me what I need to know. Beating four prime champions in separate bouts is about the same as beating an old Norton who never won or defended a belt in the ring and a neuro ward Ali.

 

Its not Tysons fault but it is what it is, and it hurts him in a potential match-up with guys like Holmes. And I dont think its much controversial to say a HW division with the best fighter being Michael Spinks isn’t a good era.

Not once was he in danger of losing though. Being dominant is good for the record but never facing adversity isnt good. We know that Holmes can and will adapt even under the worst circumstances. What if Tyson goes under genuine adversity against Holmes?

 

You're the one that moved the goalpost. We're talking top competition, not the belts attached to it. Tony Tucker was a Top 10 guy, the fact that he was a paper titleholder doesn't elevate his status. Same for Smith who was Top 5, but a paper titleholder also. Just because Top 10 and Top 5 guys defeated by Holmes didn't hold a title (in the 2 belt era), doesn't make the wins less valuable.