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

I will be a bit hesitant in rating an old Norton as A. The HW division during Holmes' era is only slightly better than today's. When you have old Norton (who has been koed several times already) giving the champ a good run for the money (which many argued Norton won), LHW Spinks beating the champ on his very first fight as HW and guys like Berbick able to hold a piece of the belt, you know that the division sucks.

Now Tyson's era is just very slightly better than Holmes and the main reason being that there were guys like Tucker, Spinks (who has grown into a full fledged HW), Ruddock, Bruno and Holmes himself.

However I rank Holmes higher than Tyson in the ATG list simply because Holmes has not been badly beaten by journeyman during his prime. And even when Holmes was old, he was able to beat guys like Mercer, Butterbean and many argued Brian Nielsen. Tyson disgraced himself against Holyfield, smoked pot against Golota, got mopped by Lewis whom he was avoiding like a plague, and of course we all know what happened in the Williams and Mcbride fights. What a fighter does past his prime does count to some extent in some ways into his greatness, whether he wins or loses.

 

He was very impressive in all his wins but EVERY time he fought somebody that wasn't scared of him he got his ass kicked. That is not the case with Larry Holmes and it is not ATG material to me.

 

Learn your craft son.

 

He was KO'd by Douglas and dominated by Holyfield who was a blown up cruiserweight. I won't even mention any other losses after that. I'm pretty sure I know my craft.

 

Are you kidding me? Getting beaten by Douglas in a dominating fashion is definitely worse. At least Holmes put on a very competitive fight against an undefeated Spinks. Tyson was just flat out dominated.

And Holmes' wins over Mercer, Butterbean and Nielsen means something compared to Tyson's loses to Williams and Mcbride.

 

He was, but Tucker, Ruddock, Holmes, Tubbs etc was far from scared.
He did lose, against Douglas and Holyfield.. what does it matter....?
Holyfield and Douglas fought him with respective unique styles, which worked... every fighter losses at some point if they're at that level for such a long time.

Seriously man, you can't say that Tucker, Ruddock or Holmes was scared of Tyson, and if you do.. people will laugh hard at you.

 

I'm not saying EVERYBODY he beat was scared of him. I guess I could've worded it differently. My opinion that he is vastly overrated will never change though.

 

I was gonna respond but I see you concede you worded it wrong.

Anyway, I've always felt that every fighter is both underrated and overrated, it just depends on who's doing the rating.

Never have I felt this to be more true than when it comes to Mike Tyson.

 

Tyson has a bit better wins and was a true champion in the sense that he left no doubt about who was the best or gave rematches (Ruddock). Holmes never gave challengers that made close fights rematches (Weaver, Williams, Witherspoon or the champion (Norton) and he should've fought at least 1 or 2 out of Dokes, Page (the mandatory, Holmes dropped his only title to avoid him), Thomas and Coetzee.


However, in the end, Holmes was consistent and avenged the loss to Spinks in my eyes - can't blame him for losing to a peak Tyson at that stage, although it was definitetly an impressive win for Tyson considering Holmes went on to beat Mercer 5 years later.

But Holmes has more longetivity and less embarrassing losses which to me makes him rank higher.

 

Whoever said Evander Holyfield was a blown-up cruiserweight in ****in' 1996 is an idiot, that's all I have to say about this subject.