Best Mike Tyson win pre-Buster Douglas?

I do not care if you think Tyson would've beaten Holmes regardless of preparation or activity. You are free to think that. Not once did I give Holmes any excuses or claimed he would've won, you are making up arguments to attack.

This is all I care about:

Do you think a fighter going 21 months without a fight is an "active" fighter, yes or no?

 

The context is about how fanboys come up with far fetched reasoning to believe that Holmes was better in the 90s than 88. You’re not steering the ship here.

 

Do you think a fighter going 21 months without a fight is an "active" fighter, yes or no?

 

Are you a fanboy who thinks Holmes was better in the 90s than 88?

 

No. Now answer my question.

Do you think a fighter going 21 months without a fight is an "active" fighter, yes or no?

 

In the context of Holmes’ activity level being a major factor in his loss to Tyson or a determinate that his form was worse than in the 90s, he wasn’t inactive.

 

I don't care about what Holmes did in the 90's.

How is having ZERO FIGHTS for 21 months "active"?

 

You’re talking to yourself again and quoting your imagination. I was talking about fanboys drinking the Kool Aid.

 

No, I'm talking to you, the guy who made a claim and now refuses to back it up.

You insisted Holmes wasn't inactive despite having zero fights for 21 months. With or without context, that is a very strange claim to make, and I'm addressing that and nothing else.

How can a boxer have ZERO FIGHTS for 21 months and still be considered"active"?

From Boxrec's website:

The Active ratings include only those boxers who have fought a bout within the past 365 days. After a year of not fighting, a boxer is automatically designated "Inactive" by the BoxRec computer.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description

 

Again, you’ve been lost to your own imagination. I alluded to Holmes’ time outside the ring amounting to a nonfactor in his loss to Tyson and his level being higher than he was in the 90s, hence the Kool Aid.

 

If thinking a boxer who hasn't fought in 21 months is inactive is drinking the kool aid then pour me another glass.

 

Bloody hell, No Neck. Stop making such a monumental tit of yourself. The answer's 'No'.

He didn't fight for 21 months. Your counter argument, that he was training in his own gym, is both completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant. You've lost.

 

Thinking the 21 months makes him worse than the guy who fought Holyfield though.

 

Eddie Ezzard never was funny.

 

It will not make your balls fall off to simply admit you were wrong.

In fact it would be the most masculine thing you can do in this situation. There is no universe where any boxer who hasn't fought in 21 months can be regarded as an "active" boxer.

If this were boxer you disliked fighting someone whose been out of the ring that long, you'd be writing all kinds of harsh criticisms.