Greater legacy Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson

put it like this, the next generation will remember Tyson, you might not be able to say the same for Holmes

 

Agreed!:good

 

I would say Holmes. And let's get something straight. Mike Tyson didn't become the true World Heavyweight Champion until he beat Spinks. Spinks didn't retire, was still active and The Ring still recognized him as the Champ. A lot of people think just because Tyson blasted Spinks away and already had those ABC belts that he was the Champ. That's nonsense! Spinks beat Holmes, who beat Ali, who beat L. Spinks, who beat Ali, who beat Foreman, who beat Frazier, who beat Ali, who beat Liston, who beat Patterson, who won the vacant title by beating Archie Moore, the last guy to fight for it. Anyway, you guys get the point. Trevor Berbick was not the Champion. James Smith for sure had no claim to it and neither did Tony Tucker. These guys were terrific fighters of course, especially Tucker. Not real, lineal champions. I think that Mike Tyson was the youngest heavyweight ever to establish that he was the best and the man to beat. He wasn't truly the youngest heavyweight champion though, let's be honest. Now don't take me the wrong way here, I am a big fan of Mr. Tyson. He is actually my favorite boxer. But in all honesty, he wasn't the youngest true Heavyweight Champion of the world and I definitely feel that Holmes had the greater legacy. Now obviously if you are talking about money earned and world wide fame then Tyson is the man. If you are talking about accomplishments in the ring through their entire careers, then Holmes.

 

Currently, Tyson has the better legacy. However, in a historical sense, maybe another 20 years down the road, the Easton Assassin may reign supreme. I'm part of the Tyson generation, people my age grew up watching him and that's why there's still so much interest in him. When the people who are discussing legacies aren't as familiar with Tyson as we are, and start looking at resumes, etc., Holmes will be regarded as the better fighter.

 

I wasn't really cognizant of Holmes but I was a young teen when Tyson was everywhere. I remember the fear and dread, and sheer monstrosity of his physicality. People were scared, not just scared to fight him that was obvious. People were scared of being injured, big grown men were scared to their bones. I haven't seen **** like that since.

 

I'm with you 100%.

 

That is because each generation gets dumber and dumber.

 

Holmes never managed to unifiy the titles and I feel this is his biggest setback in legacy. Ducking quite a few fighters that were a threat to him also didnt help. He also didnt fight better competition then Tyson in his time as a champ and had a few too close calls. Yet his longetivity is unreal. I say its a tie, but the edge is on Tyson for sure.

 

Fixed.

 

I do not think the edge is for Tyson. Tyson was more dominant his first few years from 86 (Berbick) to 1989 (Williams) was better than Holmes, but Holmes had better longevity. Makes you think what is better. Explosive dominance for 3 years or consistently winning for 7. I don't Holmes ducked many guys. The guys he fought were pretty good like Witherspoon and Smith and Weaver and Norton. You cannot argue about his resume. I looked forward to the fight with Coetzee I remember, Larry would have destroyed him. If I had to make a pick I would pick Larry barely. They are close in ranking, just different types of fighters. I still think Mike is lucky he did not fight Witherspoon. I thought at the time Witherspoon was the guy who could beat Mike.

 

Larry Holmes has the better resume, and he didn't take any severe and devestating beatings, he also didn't lose to C level fighters like Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. A prime Tyson knocked out a long in the tooth Holmes, but Holmes stayed with Tyson for a few rounds. In fact, I remember Larry setting up a perfect uppercut, and his fist somehow got caught in the ropes, he was knocked out a few seconds latter.

 

...:verysad