Am I Wrong To Rank Tyson Higher Than Holmes?

That doesn't mean that guys like Tubbs and Thomas were any less worthy challengers. In fact, Thomas was avoided by Holmes and Tubbs could indeed upset Holmes had they fought.

 

He never took a shot like Shavers and Snipes landed on Holmes. A lot of times he was able to see it at the last second and brace for it or roll with it. Mike was extremely elusive and very hard to hit with a good, solid, clean shot that he did not see.

Against Shavers and Snipes Larry got careless due to his dominance and was tagged with bombs that Mike never would've gotten hit with.

I agree, Mike was very good at absorbing one punch bombs, but I don't think we really ever saw him take a flush one that he didn't see, barring the Lewis fight when he was shot.

 

Depending on your criteria, it is possible to rank Tyson over Holmes. Tyson unified, which Holmes never did. Tyson didn't miss fighting as many top fighters as Holmes did, he was the youngest champion in history (2nd if you wait until the Spinks fight to consider him champion) and overall, he fought a higher caliber of fighter than Larry did. An argument can be made he was the better head to head fighter at his best and more dominant, too.

So, if you put those kinds of things ahead of superior longevity and a lengthy title reign, the argument can be made. It's not like there's only one way to rank fighters, which is why the whole thing is almost entirely subjective.

 

Curious who you feel were higher caliber fighters?

Edit: I'm assuming Holyfield and Lewis, maybe?

 

2-3 years isnt that long a time in boxing (well it depnds on the fighter and how many wars he had and his age)

Thomas head beten mike weaver in 85 (two years before). hed beaten witherspoon in 84 (like 2 and half years before tyson fight). he was only 29

Carl Williams beat Trevor berbick in an IBF title eliminator in 1988. He was only 29-30

Spinks had beaten the still ranked (but inactive) gerry cooney in 1987 and was two years removed from a win over holmes. spinks was only 32

Tubbs was 29 and only 2-3 years removed from beating smith and page is well as losing a clos one to witherspoon

 

All true. It's just that Cokelab feels fighters need to reel off consecutive wins to be considered in top "form" without acknowledging that some fighters have great amounts of championship experience, even in a close loss.

 

I think the argument can be made not only for Lewis and Holy, but that the guys Tyson beat were head to head better than a good number of Holmes' defenses (like Pinklon Thomas, Bruno, Ruddock, Tubbs and Spinks). They were also more experienced than many of Holmes defenses.

Tyson also typically did better against common opposition- granted he came before Holmes so that's not entirely unexpected, but there is enough ammo there to justify ranking Mike higher than Larry if someone wanted to.

I'm always sorting through my own list, so I don't have a dog in this fight right now. But I don't consider it much of a controversial choice regardless of who someone ranks higher of the two.

 

But they were no longer beating rated fighters when Tyson fought them. They were years apart from the fighters they had been.

Thomas was great against witherspoon but nobody cared who he was until then. Pink then flopped against Berbick proving a Holmes fight at that point would have been disaster for him.

Tubbs was tricky, but all he ever did was beat page when he had a belt but either side of that David Bey and berbick also beat page. It was no big deal.

 

Good points. No one was giving them much chance because of tyson's and the aura he had built but they were still very good opertators who tyson deserved great respect for destroying them

Tubbs went the distance with riddick bowe 3 years later and Thomas was never proper kod by elite opposition in bowe and holyfield

 

Tyson was a great fighter. Granted there was not much left in the division after the unification but there is no excusing the fact that a lot of his chalengers did not earn their shot.

but look at who he was beating after the berbick fight? unrated joe bugner victims. He got his shot out of being called pinklon thomas. The last rated fighter he ever beat was weaver, the year TYson turned pro.

spinks only beat one world class heavyweight and many cannot decide if he even did that. Cooney was last ranked in 1982 for beating ken norton. He beat unrated eddie greg and one easy frank bruno opponent since Holmes beat him but most people thought cooney was still retired when he fought spinks. he was unrated. stefan tangsted?

Tubbs always looked like he had something but the truth was against Tyson he chose to come in out of shape just so he could be fined and have his excuse in place. did you know to earn his crack at the title Tubbs beat a lightheavyweight having his first fight in 3 years? that was after beating mike jameson on points who bruno already knocked out in 2 rounds.

 

Imn not saying these guys were great or that. But they were good-very good heavyweights

Imn just saying tyson deserves credit demolishing these guys in the way he did. Larry Holmes made many of his defenses against lesser fighters than what Tyson fought and also beating some guys tyson fought (He beat bone crusher in more impresive fashion than tyson) and arguably beating a good very good heavy who Mike never fought in Tim Witherspoon. But that verdict is still disputed to this day

many of his perfromances were far from perfect unlike tyson who impressed with nearly every defence of his title

 

To be considered top ten material a contender should beat a top ten fighter. champions often take a chalenge from a has been with a name but beating them is not worth boasting about if they cant beat contenders anymore.

 

:good Tyson could not have done better against them but Holmes beat more contenders who were rated and beating other contenders for a much longer time.

Knocking over tubbs, thomas, old Holmes and frozen spinks makes for a great highlight reel but we should not forget those guys were no lomger listing good wins. Berbick, smith, Tucker and douglas were worthy fighters but only the berbick win would make it onto that amazing, awesome highlight reel.

 

I dont know if you have fully read my posts on this thread but i agree that Holmes is greater beacuse he had more defences, beat some unheralded quality fighters on the way up and was still a world class operator in his 40's who gave a ATG Heavy Holyfield a fight and very nearly regained the title in 1995

But an argument can be made for tyson based on his youngers years and title reign

 

All these guys were ranked in the top 10 when Tyson defended against them. You're criticizing Tyson's opponents for not fighting anyone. But Tyson was beating them all up and cleaning out the division. There was no-one to fight! Tyson was picking them off one by one.