Tyson's 5 best Opponents vs Holmes 5 best

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mr. magoo, Feb 28, 2008.


  1. Bill1234

    Bill1234 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,314
    505
    Jan 28, 2007
    I agree with this, not to mentioned Holmes at 42 beating prime Ray Mercer and at 45 giving a prime Oliver McCall all he can handle. I think people base too much on the record of his opposition rather than how they were in the fights. Against Larry, Withersoon arguably had the best performance of his career. I can see how the Witherspoon was close, but when people pull this robbery crap, watch the fight, not what one person says than follow their words.
     
  2. NickHudson

    NickHudson Active Member Full Member

    894
    21
    Apr 13, 2007
    I second godkings post as well. It is a very nice exposition of Holmes superiority over Holyfield.
     
  3. ironchamp

    ironchamp Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,365
    1,037
    Sep 5, 2004

    Holyfield is below Holmes.

    I give Holmes the edge because of his consistency, 7 years with the title and 20 title defenses is a feat that is worth recognition.

    Tyson had better consistency than Holyfield did as well.

    I agree with you last post.
     
  4. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,788
    2,388
    Aug 26, 2004


    :good
    Very True, I can see you are one of the guys that lived in the 80's and did not just read about it. I know how fustrating it was that Holmes avoided so many of the better matured fighters of his day, I agree with what you say about Evander and it is all very true. Holmes was very protected and even though I always respected his skills, who knows what would have happened if he would have fought the best of his day
     
  5. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    52,177
    27,636
    Jan 3, 2007
    I think Both Sonny's jab and GodKing have good arguments in contrast to one another. The two are well supported and I'm having a hard time disagreeing with either.

    One possible point that neither poster addressed is that there were very few mega-million dollar paydays available between 1979-1985. At one point, I think the steaks for Holmes fighting Page ( a #1 contender )was something like 3.5 million. The Gerry Cooney fight was by far and above his biggest meal ticket. I don't remember what Holyfield's purses were for fighting the likes of Holmes, Foreman, Bowe I, II, III, Moorer I, II, Tyson I,II, and Lewis I, II, but I can remember thinking how outrageous they were, and I'm fairly certain they were MUCH MUCH higher than any purse Holmes received for fighting a top rater ( other than Cooney ). Although I have never questioned the heart or guts of Evander Holyfield, and never will, let's face it. Taking a fight for the kind of paydays that he was offered is pretty damn hard to turn down, even if you've just suffered a gun shot wound the day of the weigh in. Holyfield's purses in those days were not being scarfed down by Don King the way that Holmes's was back in the day, and when I say " back in the day", lets not forget that inflation did not go up too drastically between 1983-1995. 3.5 million dollars in 1983 was still **** compared to say 15 million dollars in 1995.

    What's my point?

    Taking on the best in the world is a lot easier if the deal is sweatened to the extent that it was when Holyfield was champion. I still think that a man with the yern to prove himself and fight the best would have done so anyway, but if someone offered Holmes $10 million to fight Page as opposed to 3.5, I have little doubt that he would have stepped up to the plate.

    Upon winning the title, Holyfield took fights with 40+ version of Holmes and Foreman for this very reason. We all know that there were better challengers out there. I for one, being a true boxing fan and not a sensationalist, would have liked to see Holyfield sign for either Ruddock or Witherspoon immediately after beating Douglas. Razor would have easily walked away from the Tyson deal for a shot at the heavyweight title. Witherspoon was another well qualified contender in 1991, regardless of his lower rating by fat ass politicians and even despite being slightly past his prime. The problem is, neither Ruddock nor Witherspoon would have made him the kind of money that the other two made him, and at the same time, both were bigger risks. The concept of making a less risky investment for greater returns, is older than boxing itself, and we're all well familiar with it.......