Who was better prime for prime h2h?

Did you not see his decline in real time from say 81-85? It was clear as day

 

No the heavyweight division was a dump in the 1980’s. If you lived through the era you’d know this. I’ve got my issues with Holmes avoiding Thomas, Page, Tubbs etc but to be honest they were easily avoidable because every time one of them looked like being a viable opponent they’d turn up one of fat, drug addicted, complacent or cocky and lose to someone they shouldn’t. The division was considered a wasteland at yhe time until Tyson restored the glamour to the division which is why his reputation is massively inflated by people like you, no offense.
These other “why didn’t” arguments don’t hold any weight. Why didn’t Holmes dominate during the Tyson era? He was old and had been slipping since about 1983. Saying he was in his prime (which was in reality in about 1978-80) is crap.

Why didn’t George win the title in 1989? He was about 2 years into his comeback after a 10 year layoff and getting massively out of shape. He was still building by fighting some scrubs before building up to meeting better fighters around 1990. His comeback certainly wasn’t being taken serious enough to warrant a title shot in 1989. It certainly wasn’t because it was easier to win a title in 1994 compared to 1989-90. He just wasn’t ready for that step at that stage. He was building to face Tyson but Douglas derailed that well before that likely would’ve eventuated (if it ever would have).

 

Robert, Young Grifo, If Holmes' decline began in 1981, and yet he defeated a top contender of the '90s in 1991 and was still competitive in 1995, then that means the '90s were absolutely crap in the heavyweight division, right? That was a pretty weak era.

 

Holyfield had Tysons number.

 

What you said holds some weight. Some.

But just remember, Holyfield was a natural cruiserweight who moved up and had moderate power at heavyweight. In fact, Holyfield wasn't even much of a puncher at 190.

I can guarantee you, a prime Ali would probably be in there notably longer against those same opponents, too, that Tyson beat quicker than Holyfield.

Tyson beat those guys quicker because of his style and power. Holyfield would always be more prone to lasting longer because he owned moderate power and needed accumulation.

 

Then why couldn’t Tyson dominate it if it was so weak?
He got his brains bashed in by Buster Douglas who isn’t even approaching being one of the top 10 heavyweights of the 90’s. Tyson was literally in his prime (23 going into the 90’s and still only 29 when Holyfield punched the stuffing out of him, his absolute prime). Tyson paid Lewis step aside money in 1996 because he didn’t want the heat a 6”5 skilled and powerful super heavy would be bringing, instead fighting Bruce Seldon (lol) and a soft touch in a washed Holyfield (ooops!).

 

But we all agree that Tyson had an extremely short prime because he simply quit boxing and stopped training regularly. As for the years 1986-1989, do they have fights in 2002?

If Douglas was better than Tyson, why didn't he dominate like Tyson did from 1986 onwards during a weaker era? He started in 1982, so what stopped, tell me Griffo

 

Douglas wasnt better than Tyson but he destroyed him. Thats on Tyson. I can’t get my head around Tyson fans justifying that because Mike stopped living the life. He sabotaged his own career giving the likes of me heaps to put it on him and you.

 

You can make an argument for that. In 1990 a blown up cruiserweight took the crown, then was beaten by a guy who struggled with past it Tubbs and Biggs, then that guy lost to the same blown up cruiserweight he beat, then that blown up cruiserweight lost to the blown up light heavyweight and then that blown up light heavyweight lost to a 45 year old. Not a good look. People were saying Mike Tyson was the best heavyweight in the world when he was still in prison because of it. It depends how you want to spin a narrative. 90's are mostly nostalgia, as they were being cooked by fans and boxing journalists while they were happening. Even Lewis was being criticized back then the way you criticize him now.

 

Where do you see any justification here? Tyson screwed up his own life and career. It doesn't change the fact that he was brilliant when he focused on boxing, dominated his era like no one before or since, and the excuse that it was a weak era has no logical basis. You still can't explain why that era was weak. If it were weak, Holmes would still be champion because at 35 he wasn't finished. Meanwhile, he couldn't beat Williams and Spinks, whom Tyson outclassed. Do you understand the difference? If Tyson had knocked out Holyfield and Lewis in 1996, everyone would have said he knocked out a cruiserweight and a boxer who was quickly beaten by his sparring partner. You'd judge him for beating weak boxers.

 

To elaborate on Lewis stepping aside, some people also forget this.

When Tyson paid Lewis $4M to step aside so that he could fight Seldon instead —with only Seldon’s WBA title on the line. Not Tyson’s WBC title—the agreement on the step aside was that Lewis would be guaranteed a shot at Tyson next. Hence why the WBC title was not on the line for Tyson-Seldon.

In short: Tyson agreed to pay Lewis $4M to delay the fight.

But after Tyson beat Seldon and claimed the WBA belt, he vacated the WBC one to avoid Lewis and chose to fight Holyfield instead, which was a more lucrative fight in the U.S with less risk (or so Tyson thought).

And we know what happened next.

 

Also Don King.

 

Tyson is not a blown up cruiserweight, he's a genetic freak and was already around 190 pounds at 13 years old according to Atlas, he'd have had to drain himself to near death to make the weight

 

I clearly meant Holyfield.

 

It was a weak era because the best fighters he beat were an inactive Michael Spinks with a bung knee and an inactive Larry Holmes who came in on short notice with limited preparation. You can wax lyrical sbout Tucker, Bonecrusher, Tubbs, Thomas etc when in actual fact they all weren’t as good at the time as the name suggests. I doubt a single fighter Tyson defended against went in to achieve anything meaningful in boxing aside from Holmes (who again came into the Tyson fight underprepared). Tyson cleaned out a division of wastrels and drug addicts in the 80’s and his 90’s career when the competition stepped up.
The why didn’t Holmes beat Williams and Spinks argument doesnt hold water. Holyfield couldn’t beat Stewart and Tillman like Tyson could yet Holyfield punched the stuffing out of Tyson. Explain that one?