Better resume Holmes vs Tyson (Common Fighters)

You have contradicted yourself now. It was you who first stated that the physical peak isn't the same as the prime which is the best run of the boxer. And it is you who is now saying that Ali was past his prime after he had physically declined. And that is exactly my point - a fighter's best run can happen after he has passed his prime.

Did it happen in the case of bonecrusher Smith? I don't know. Maybe it did. Which is why I said it is debatable.

 

I'm not contradicting anything you're going round in circles bringing up other irrelevant examples basically as I said mental gymnastics to try and prove your argument which is not a good argument.

You can't compare Muhammad Ali to Bonecrusher Smith that's absolutely ridiculous and has no relevance at all. You're comparing an established champion to a novice with 15 pro fights who virtually had no world level experience.

I'm growing very tired of this discussion because quite frankly it's baffling and you're reaching with all this silly irrelevant points because I proved your original comment to be wrong.

How many times do I have to say it ? There's no evidence of Bonecrusher being in his "prime" vs Holmes that's something you've conjured up yourself with no evidence of stand out prior performances or regarding the eye test of his performance vs Holmes. It's quite simple Bonecrusher was considered in his prime vs Tyson because he had the best performances of his career coming in the fight and was a champion. I don't see how you cannot fathom that unless you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

I never went in circles, I have stuck to the same argument. I am not comparing Ali to Smith, what makes you even think that? I am just comparing the career stages of two fighters, that is it.

And you did not prove anything wrong. You kept repeating the same thing over and over, sidestepped my examples (until it was not possible to do it anymore) and kept saying things which I did not even say (Smith/Berbick were past their prime, absolute peak) etc. Trying to trap me in jugglery of words won't help.

There can be no 'evidence' of a fighter being in his prime if you base the definition of 'prime' differently on different boxers. You can't say one boxer is in his prime because he has the best run of his career and say that another boxer isn't since he has physically declined (which you did twice by the way, in the case of Smith, Ali and Hopkins).

 

You made very specific claims:
Berbick was with Holmes in the prime, with Tyson it is debatable and you mentioned other names... Williams, Spinks, Smith... everyone according to you was with Holes in the prime, with Tyson it is debatable - so let's discuss since it is controversial. On what basis do you think that they were at their best with Holmes and not with Tyson? based on recent fights? based on age? everything indicates that he and Tyson were in a better period of their career, so it should be exactly the opposite of what you write...
Holmes of Berbick was probably prime and after the fight he called Trevor the strongest fighter he had ever faced, although I don't think Trevor was as strong as he was 5 years later. I don't think Tyson was that impressed with Trevor.
Why is Marvis Frazier irrelevant? He won a few good fights, he was more experienced against Tyson than against Holmes, he was a good age, he looked good in other fights, he was considered a solid fighter, a top HW - what's the problem? Frazier, Ferguson, Ribalta are very good, overlooked victories for Tyson. I have the impression that you are adapting your theses to your own opinion if you cannot justify them

 

You may want to read my preceding posts where I clearly distinguished between Smith being in his prime and having his best run. Please read it. And the same applies to William and Berbick except that in Berbick's case, Holmes was still arguably in his prime.

With respect to Frazier, I only consider him as relevant as Ferguson and the others. He was a journeyman and the only reason he got a title shot was due to his surname. Now if Frazier, Ribalta, Ferguson count, then so should Nielsen. But you overlooked him. Who is the one adapting the thesis to one's own opinion again?

 

1. I believe that what counts is the period considered important in one's career. Niels was over 10 years after Tyson's prime, but Tyson still performed better than Holmes. You may find it important.
2. Frazier was not a journeyman. He hit two big HWs, with Holmes he was green and after a break due to illness. He was a talented boxer who won against strong rivals. Would Ali, Lewis, Foreman, Liston do anything significant against Holmes in the 10th fight?
3. You still don't answer - on what basis do you think that the prime of Smith, Berbick, Spinks, Williams was the fight with Holmes and not with Tyson? everything indicates that it is the opposite but I am waiting for the arguments, apparently the only one you gave is that Joshua defeated Martin in the 15th fight... I don't know if it's trolling or something else, this argument is so ridiculous, so weak, so irrelevant that giving it yourself you discredit me as a serious interlocutor, sorry
4. Tyson destroyed Spinks, Berbick, Williams, he needed a total of about 10 minutes on them, Holmes fought with them for 3 hours and did not destroy any of them... that's an abyss!!! Prime not prime, Holmes was younger than Usyk and was a very long-lived champion. 35 years for Holmes, considering that at the age of 45 he gave a competitive fight for the title, it is no problem.

You deny facts, logic and common sense, my friend, don't go this route because you look like another Tyson hater who listened to the wisdom of Ted Atlas

 

You're all over the place in this discussion so let's recap.

The first comment you made in this thread = "Bonecrusher in his prime vs Holmes against Tyson it's debatable"

That's just flat out wrong as i've already explained i'm not repeating myself infact it should be the other way around it should be highly debatable a green Bonecrusher is considered prime.

Another comment you made = "Experience or exposure do not decide a prime"

Again flat out wrong of course experience can be a major factor on whether or not a fighter is in their prime like what ? I already gave you the Hopkins example as he was in his physical peak vs RJJ but clearly not prime. If you want another example Lewis was probably at his physical peak in the early 90s but he clearly was not in his prime.

As i already told you you're confusing "physical peak" to "prime" they're two different things.

Other comments you've made in this thread like comparing Anthony Joshua's early career to Bonecrusher an Olympic gold medalist with alot of hype/financial backing and perfect matchmaking he also won a belt off a very weak belt holder in Charles Martin again no relevance to Bonecrusher.

Also comparing an established champion like Muhammad Ali to a novice like Bonecrusher to somehow conjure up an argument that Bonecrusher was in his prime vs Holmes it's utterly ridiculous.

I'm not sidestepping anything i'm recapping everything you've said in this thread you haven't made any good points infact they're quite frankly baffling and you're reaching simple as that.

 

Holmes didn’t pick up a pair of gloves until he was 22-23. So, safe to say that at 20 he’d have lost to anyone.

 

Holmes began boxing at 18.

 

I swore he said 22 or 23.

but you’re right as per the internet. Started training at 18. Turned pro at 24. My bad.

 

Your point still stands. Holmes wasn't even a professional at the age that Tyson was "past prime".

 

ok, I didn't know that he became interested in boxing so late. But this is even more proof that people have different periods in their careers. Tyson started extremely early and extremely intensely, he burned out extremely quickly also due to his lifestyle, Holmes had a completely different pace. In any case, Tyson, at the age of 35, was a wreck and Holmes could have been close to the prime, and there is no surprise here.