Tyson's 5 best Opponents vs Holmes 5 best

correct i style give Willimans based on his overall talent a SMALL chance of the upset 10 % at best

 

I agree that he was seen as a soft touch. Holmes thought so too. Witherspoon rose to the occasion and was robbed of a rightful rematch.


But why aren't we allowed to use hindsight knowledge? Even if we forget everything he did after the Holmes fight, surely he showed to be more capable than the likes of Cooney, Berbick et al when basically holding Holmes to a draw?

 

Good point.

Most people consider Cassius Clay the best fighter Sonny Liston fought, but going in his credentials were no better (and arguably less impressive) than those of Patterson, Machen or Folley.
Even when people are ignoring the hindsight of what Clay did in the next 10 years or so, they are at least acknowledging that Clay looked pretty slick DURING the actual fight with Liston.

In Witherspoon's case, I think he was never better than against Holmes. I dont believe he matured or improved on that, and if he did it was usually off-set by lethargy, poor conditioning and sheer lack of opposition worthy of his full repetoire.

 

I think Holmes and Tyson's opposition are opposites in a way. With Holmes it was better than paper shows, with Witherspoon, Weaver, Berbick, and Cooney giving top 3 best performances of their careers. If you watched them without knowing their records or ages, you would never guess the stats.

With Tyson, the opposition looks better on paper than it really was. Spinks, Page, Thomas, Berbick, Biggs, Ruddock, and Williams all looks impressive on paper, but Spinks was pretty much shot, and Page and Berbick were rather inconsistant, so was Williams at times. Very seldom do people say that the people Tyson fought put up the best fight of their careers, or say they were in tip top condition. This could be part of them being scared to death though.

On paper, I give Tyson the edge, but as far as opposition performances, I would give it to Holmes.

 

Tyson never fought Page. They only sparred.

I give Tyson the edge. Not necessarily because of how he beat them, but he faced these guys when they were seasoned and his ability as a fighter prevented them from being putting together career defining moments, although Thomas and Ruddock put up a decent scrap.

Holmes has Tyson on two things; Longevity and consistency. Holmes never shined as bright as Tyson did and he never looked as spectacular (partly becuase of his style) but he never lost to a Buster Douglas type of fighter, he pulled it out even on bad days. Tyson unfortunatly did not. But he was, for time period consistent in his wins- in both the scoring sense and the result. I give the edge to Mike but based on the premise of the thread but I rank Holmes higher.

 

I find it hard to know who to rank higher on the all-time list - Tyson or Holmes ?

I think Tyson's opposition was just as good, and he actually walked through some guys quite easily, guys who gave Holmes trouble.
But Holmes was never beaten up and knocked out by a guy like Buster Douglas. And past his prime, Holmes had more success than Tyson could manage.

I'd probably have Tyson and Holmes jostling for a position around 8-11 on my list of all-time heavyweights (rating only filmed guys from the Dempsey-era onwards).

Contrary to most people here, I'd have Evander Holyfield above both of them.

 

Witherspoon, although a greenish 16 fight kid was one of the best opponents Holmes faced. Douglas was at his best vs Tyson, a big gap between his fights vs Tucker or Evander but if we have to judge him on his peek fight, that is the one.

 

:huh

 

Crap, you're right, my bad.

 

Holyfield above Tyson i can understand but above Holmes ?

Holyfield was great but also very inconsistent

 

I got Holmes above Tyson and Tyson above Holyfield.

 

Hpw is Holyfield above Holmes ? Holmes outstrips him in consistency length of reign and raw boxing skills Holyfield outstrips him 'slightly in quality of opponents.

 

People use the consistency argument to put Holmes above Holyfield, but Holyfield didn't lose a fight until Riddick Bowe beat him.

Bowe was a peaking young "live" challenger, a well-rounded big, strong, skillful fighter with 31 bouts under his belt.
How many guys like that did Holmes risk it against ?

Holyfield's next loss was the decision loss to Moorer, which could have gone either way.
Larry Holmes got the benefit of the doubt in two fights that he arguably lost - against Williams and Witherspoon, who he had chosen as soft touch 15 and 16 fight novices.
Again, Moorer was a 34-0 professional and number 1 contender. Those types of guys Holmes was refusing to fight when he started to age slightly, when there were more than a few available.
Holmes beat a few, but no more than Holyfield did. And he took the risk less often.
Holmes prefered to fight inexperienced guys or mediocre guys.

Holmes gets all his great "consistency" with some very weak names on his record.
He dumped a title rather than fight Greg Page. He ducked a match with Pinklon Thomas. He didn't seem to mind too much about the other guys holding the other versions of a title. Was he chasing fights with Tate, Dokes and Coetzee or a rematch with Weaver ? I mean, just to prove himself the best. Did he chase a rematch with Witherspoon when 'spoon took the WBC title Holmes had dumped rather than fight Page ?


Dont get me wrong, his record is very good, and he beat good fighters in Norton, Berbick, Witherspoon.
But Holyfield deserves credit. When he started to get old and proved beatable, he actually UPPED the quality of his opposition if anything, he had a burning need to prove himself the best.
He could have sat on his 1-1 record against Bowe and waited for a title shot against one of the easy "title holders", he could have ducked Lewis at the end.

The bottom line is, if Holmes had fought Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Thomas at their peaks (and ALL their peaks coincided with his reign), those were established guys with 30 or so fights and aged 25-30, or if he had rematched Witherspoon as well, then WHO KNOWS WHAT HIS "CONSISTENCY" WOULD BE ?

 

Holmes has proven his ability to win even whenn the sky started to rain ****. You can say that Holmes fought some weak opposition but even when he fought strong opposition and he needed to gut out a victory he pulled through until he was at the end of his reign.

Holyfield though great did'nt pull it off in the first Bowe fight Holmes did pull it of against Witherspoon and Williams though he had to give everything to get the win.


Let us look at Holyfields first reign

He wins the title from a fat Douglas then defens against old Foreman Bert Cooper and Old Holmes then loses to the first real threat he faced in Bowe



Holmes won the Title in a terrific fight from Ken Norton fights some fair to good challengers among which Shavers a fight in which Holmes snatches victory from the jaws of defeat after that monstrous 7th round knockdown until he fights Leroy Jones a 24-0 fighter whom he stops in 8 rounds Then Holmes fights another batch of reasonably good challengers among which old Ali until he fights 22-0 Snipes where he had to pull a victory out of his ass again then he fights 25-0 Cooney in a fight most people predicted he would lose stops Cooney in the 13 th round then faces another batch of challengers among which Witherspoon and Williams then Finally loses to Spinks .

For 7 years fighting Good and bad challengers Holmes ALWAYS found a way to win.

None of Holyfields reigns lasted longer then 3 years

Holyfield was great but his inconsistentcy hurts him.