Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

That was legitimate. Williams had just beaten a prime and dangerous Tillis. However, Williams did beat Larry.

 

My view is Tyson had the bigger impact on the sport but Holmes was greater overall. I still consider Tyson a great heavyweight and a top 10 heavyweight for sure. But I think Holmes has a very solid top 5 argument.

 

Who said that's what he did?

 

I don't hold anything like that against Tyson. I applaud Tyson for a lot of his accomplishments. Here's a basic principle for you though. When you are in more wars in a short frame of time like Holmes was, unlike Tyson's wars (which were scattered throughout his career), your time at the top is shorter than it is for others. Take Matthew Saad Muhammad, Benny Paret, and Joe Frazier. None of them had very long peaks due to excessive warring in a short period of time.

 

I DID answer your question. You asked how I felt about Floyd taking on soft touches late in his career as Holmes had and I very clearly pointed out how the two were NOT comparable. At 37 years of age Floyd was still beating p4p best fighters in the world while Holmes at 33 was taking on fringe level contenders and even struggling with them.

 

Tyson's win over Holmes was legitimate imo. Holmes didn't look that far removed from his best.

Tyson is underrated these days after being overrated years. The opposite holds true for Holmes.

 

That's sparring. We're talking pro.

 

The Tillis who had lost 3 out of 4 and gave Tyson fits? That James Tillis?

I thought Tyson edged it but an argument can be made the other way.

 

Actually Saintpat, I was the one who first mentioned Tillis, so you're talking to me more than NoNeck. Yes, Tillis. I know he never beat anybody big, but he did arguably beat the two Mikes of the 80s, and if nothing else gave them both a night to remember. And he gave Page and Williams the time of their lives. He also gave Thomas some trouble, and I might be wrong, but he got robbed against Coetzee?