Mike Tyson had a greater career than Larry Holmes...

Wins are great for both men, lets look at thier respective losses.

Tyson:
Douglas - Many may argue that he was out of shape, mentally weak etc etc... there ain't room for failure if you're supposed to be the champ.
Holyfield x2 - No doubts here, Holyfield had his number all the way.
Lewis - Long past his prime, perhaps not even 20% of himself, but Lewis did beat him down(Lewis was even older...)

(Won't mention the other bums he lost to because that was just a circus act by an old, fragile Tyson)

Holmes:
Spinks x2 - After seven years of "domination"
Tyson - Almost two years of inactivity before this fight, don't you all think he was a little rushed against a monster like Tyson?
Holyfield - This was probably long after his prime, but he gave Holyfield a good fight, and then went on to beat Mercer and do fine in the '90s.


-

Longetivity is another way to determine greatness, we all know that Larry Holmes had much better longetivity than Tyson, and probably even as good/better wins then Mike.

Sorry bud, Larry is #3 on my list, Tyson is 8.

 

Larry Holmes beat tougher comp and had a longer run at the top. Holmes at his best would beat Tyson at his in my opinion. Tyson cannot handle great boxers with heart and Holmes had plenty of that.

 

Tyson was awesome , Holmes a moderately talented overachiever.

 

Holmes deserves it as he had the longer run but Tyson still has the record for youngest champ

 

Holmes beat the following names and legit Top Hwts in World Title fights:

Norton (June 1978 - won WBC Title
Weaver (June 1979)
Shavers (September 1979)
Ali (October 1980)
Berbick (April 1981)
Leon Spinks ( June 1981)
Cooney (June 1986)
Whiterspoon ( May 1983)
Bonecrusher Smith (November 1984) -won IBF Title
"The Truth" Williams (May 1985)

Tyson beat beat the following names and legit Top Hwts in World Title fights:

Berbick ( November 1986) - won WBC Title
Bonecrusher Smith ( March 1987) - won WBA Title
Thomas (May 1987)
Tucker (August 1987) - won IBF Title
Biggs (October 1987)
Holmes (January 1988 )
Tubbs (March 1988 )
Michael Spinks (June 1988 ) - won Indisputed Title
Bruno ( February 1989)
Williams (July 1989)
Bruno (March 1996) - won 2nd WBC Title
Seldon (September 1996) - won WBA Title


"Mike Tyson accomplished more, in a shorter span than Holmes" - Obviously agree with.

"he won two titles beating the likes of ... Botha, Golota" - Untrue

"Mike Tyson had a greater career than Larry Holmes... and should be ranked higher in top 10 lists" - Don't agree with, the thread starter "forgot" to mention that Tyson was knocked out by James Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.

 

Tyson was fun to watch when he was the man. He was awesome when everyone was intimidated by him...

but to ME...he was only a great, extended flash in the pan.

So in MY opinion... Tyson is nowhere near Holmes in an ATG sense.

If I were to compare them mythologically... Holmes would be like Poseidon, and Tyson would be Cupid.

Just because Tyson beat a C-/D level Holmes (who STILL gave Tyson a little hell by the way), it doesn't make him greater...

Tyson greater than Holmes...:rofl

 

Holmes wasn´t an A-fighter when Tyson beat him. Larry was better in the early 90´s than at the time of the Tyson fight, though.

 

Oh yeah! Tyson was badly beaten by post-prime Holyfield! And how did "The Assassin" fare against a prime, or closer-to-prime, "Real Deal"? Besides, I am far from sure that post-prime Mike would beat Mercer!

 

Please die!:tired

 

I disagree, although I love Tyson and dislike Holmes.

 

Interesting proposition, which (though wrong in my opinion) highlights that both men beat better opponents than they are generically given credit for. Let's look at the opponents in a little bit more depth-

Norton (A)

Norton's last peak performance, really. He went into a rather steep decline after this due to a lack of confidence, but in many respects (footwork, stamina, aggression) this was the best Norton we ever saw.

Weaver (B)

Just coming into his period of world class. Holmes, fighting sick and having no idea (understandably) of what kind of beast he was about to fight, came out on top regardless.

Shavers (B)

People talk about the second fight, but in my opinion the Holmes of the first fight was the most effective Holmes ever. Shavers was still in his best years- better than his younger years, since he was more patient- and could barely land a power punch on Holmes. So while Shavers was B level opponent, Holmes's sheer dominance in their first fight deserves ample recognition.

Ali (B) Ridiculously shot

Realistically, at the time, Ali was a "C".

Cooney (B)

I think if the older and inactive versions of Holmes and Spinks that Tyson faced are classed as "A", then Cooney was an "A" as well.

Witherspoon (B)

Again, I'd call the focused and in shape Tim that Holmes beat an "A", if we're going to set such a low standard for what an "A" is.

Bonecrusher Smith (B)

Another good win, well after Holmes's peak.

I'd add Trevor Berbick (a B, like you say) to Holmes's resume, since it's unreasonable to add the older Berbick that Tyson faced to his resume but not to Holmes's.


I'd also add that, in my opinion, Holmes won both of the Spinks fights. However, I'm aware that most people only think he won the second fight; nevertheless, that gives him yet another A opponent. Meanwhile, Ray Mercer when he fought Holmes was at his best, and a "B" opponent.

That gives Holmes 4 As (using the common criterium) and 5 Bs.


Bercick (B)

No doubts here. Berbick is very underrated today, and Tyson's demolition job was simply amazing.

Bonecrusher (B)

To Tyson's credit, Bonecrusher was a little bit better when he faced Mike. However, he was also crapping his pants.

Thomas (B)

Hmmm, I'm not so sure Thomas was a "B" when he faced Tyson. Three years earlier he was a "B", but he'd had a steep decline since. I think I'd call him a "C".

Tucker (B)

Durable, tall, awkward and with better foot-movement than we'd seen from him before or since; this was one of Tyson's most impressive opponents, though not one of his more impressive performances.

Biggs (B)

Today, he's underrated, but at the time he was top-notch. The problem for Biggs was that Tyson had the perfect style to take him apart.

Holmes (A)

Holmes was coming off a long period of inactivity, and was at least 5 years away from his prime. Still, an impressive win nonetheless.

Tubbs (B)

I don't think we can call Tubbs a "B". He was offered extra money to come in at a reasonable weight, and STILL came in as a tub of lard. If Tubbs is a "B", then Leon Spinks and Alfredo Evangelista were "B"s as well.

Spinks (A)

A great (and over-discussed) win.

Bruno (B)

Another very impressive win. Bruno was coming into his best years, and was light-years ahead of the inexperienced and crude youth who'd done so well against Spoon.

That gives Tyson 2 As and 6 Bs to compare with Holmes's 4 As and 5 Bs. Tyson had more depth in his second-tier competition, but Holmes beat more top-notch boxers. For that reason, I think Holmes had a better resume (although not as far ahead as some might think) than Tyson.