Greater legacy Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson

not me. holmes struggled with spinks and witherspoon to name a coulple. i know 'styles make fights' but we saw what tyson did to spinks (and holmes himself 20 months after his spinks fight) and i don't see spoon almost beating tyson.
that said holmes has a better 'legacy' because of sustained greatness, but it ain't b/c he was a better fighter prime for prime than tyson.

 

Tyson made greater impact and hence I should say he has greater legacy.

But all time HW ranking, I have Holmes higher.

 

**** the powers that be, and being this is East Side Boxing, they can all Kiss me where the Sun dont shine, and because this is HBO, that would be my foul, hairy behind, with their naked lips. Mike Tyson, Legacy for Legacy couldnt carry Larry's wet jockstrap, and you can quote me on that. :deal

 

I agree with almost everything you said. You've obviously studied the storied career of the great Larry Holmes. The only disagreement I have is that Spinks definately won the first fight in an inspiring performance against the much bigger and stronger Larry. Holmes, for the first time in his career, took an opponent lightly. I remember him dismissing Micheal as "way too small to fight me" and came in a little out of shape and overconfident. Larry would routinely back quality opponents up with his awesome left jab and then hurt them badly with his accurate overhand right. Larry vs. Tyson prime for prime? I go with Larry. Just much better fundamentals. I'm a big Wlad "nuthugger" but Larry would take Wlad deep in a back and forth struggle and drown him late in the fight. His heart and conditioning were second to none.

 

Based on talent and achievement Holmes got a lot more than Tyson.

Tyson was a superior talent, but he clearly underachieved in his career. he left an important legacy though, of probably being the most unbeatable HW during his peak.

Holmes was a lesser talent than Tyson but he certainly made the most of it and achieved quite a lot in his career.

 

Holmes' 80s reign was not packed full of stars like the 60s and 70s were but his dominance and pure amount of defences deserves respect. Longevity should definately be one of the major factors when comparing legends.

Tyson dispatched contenders in devastating style but there are alot of exciting fighters out there, being exciting doesnt autoatically make you great. He just doesnt have enough good wins on the record, he did lose to Douglas at his peak and didnt have the stomach in the 90s as the standard was a lot better.

If he wasnt a ****** things may have turned out differently, maybe he couldve got Holy, Bowe, Lennox etc but he didnt.

 

Co-Sign.

As far as legacy is concerned, I gotta give it to Holmes.

 

If you cant be arsed to do a public poll, I cant be arsed to tell you who I voted for.

Adios !

 

tyson hands down .. if tysons biggest fight was against young kids coming up and a young white hope he'd be slaughtered in the rateings .. but the fact that he beat seasoned fighters and beat them bad critically makes him have a better legacy ..

 

When talking legacy of course its Tyson.

 

I always thought Witherspoon had the style to beat Tyson. I knew King kept Witherspoon away from Mike. Witherspoon was too big and he had a good chin. I think he might have stopped Mike. Page did spar Mike and knock him down I think.