Who was better prime for prime h2h?

I think this is what you're looking for:
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/mike-tyson-had-a-better-career-than-larry-holmes.669560/

 

Two simple reasons:
1. Holyfield had a good style to Tyson's.
2. Tyson was clearly weaker in 1996, rusty, with poorer conditioning and mental health issues.

We're still talking about Tyson in his prime, 1986-1988, and you're dragging Tyson from 1996. Are you doing this on purpose?

Explain why Holmes, who was long-lived, couldn't retain the title when the era became weak?
And he was still competitive in the new era, even though he was over 40.
Williams should have ended Holmes's dominance. Did Williams also have knee injuries before Tyson?
Prime Holmes called the green Berbick the strongest fighter he'd ever fought, and for 15 rounds, he held his own. Mercer had more trouble with the battered Ferguson, the aged Holmes, and Whiterspoon than with the prime Lewis. It was such a remarkable era.

Why do people have a problem with Holmes's 20-month layoff, but they're okay with Leonard's twice-long layoff before Hagler? They have a problem with Spinks being a light heavyweight, but they don't have a problem with him accomplishing something no heavyweight has ever done against Holmes? They have a problem with Tyson knocking him out in 90 seconds, but Holmes losing to him twice is fine. Think about it, Griffo, and stop applying double standards. A 35-year-old Holmes should be holding onto his title in an era of fat men and drug addicts, not losing his belts.

 

You’re the one applying double standards. Holmes wasnt some force in the 1990’s. He had a win over the limited and ridiculously inconsistent Mercer and thats about it. He lost anytime he fought anyone semi decent otherwise.
Holmes was fading for years leading into 1985 and anyone who followed boxing back then knew it.
Holmes 20 month layoff isn’t the same as Leonard’s. Firstly they’re two different people and their preparation going into their respective fights was chalk and cheese. It’s an asinine comparison.
Why should Tyson be given the luxury of only being judged on 1986-88?? Fighters are judged on their overall career, good and bad. Tyson fans only want the highlights package and switch off for the lowlights. Tyson is also the only fighter excused for losses suffered in his 20’s ie his prime. Totally different to Holmes who eventually lost at 35.

 

But we're judging their peak versions. It's obvious Holmes had a long lifespan, so saying he was easy to beat at 35 or 38 is ridiculous. He might not have been his prime; to beat him, you still had to be brilliant. And to knock him out, you had to be someone absolutely exceptional. That's why no one has done it, except Tyson. Do you understand now? If you win an Olympic gold medal and then miss the next Games in the qualifying rounds, no one takes away your record, but for some reason, Tyson does. It makes no sense.

 

Holyfield always beat Tyson H2H, so there you go.

 

Who’s taking the win away from him? It was a great performance but it was against an under prepared past prime Larry. That should be obvious. If Holmes had a proper warm up I’d be interested to say how it pans out, maybe Mike wins just the same.
It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that 35 year old inactive Larry Holmes wasnt the best version of him. Just as Tyson fans want us to believe that 23 year old, active Tyson wasnt the best version when he fought Douglas.

 

If you don't prepare for a fight, it doesn't matter if you're 23 or 30. You're not ready. You can be in the prime of your career, but if you don't train, you won't be ready. I don't know why you're surprised. But again – if Douglas was better than Tyson, how did he lose to three boxers whom Tyson beat? If Douglas was better, why? Did he dominate a weaker era like Mike? Who stopped him?

This conversation is getting boring, but I'd still like to know why you believe the era Tyson dominated was weak. I don't know why you're avoiding the answer. I've provided arguments why I think it's not. Refute instead of constantly writing that Holmes wasn't at his best against Tyson. No one is denying that, but knocking him out is still a magnificent feat, one that no one has repeated in the next era, even though Holmes wasn't younger.

 

It was a weak era because he didn’t beat a young, prime fellow great heavyweight.
Spinks and Tucker were undefeated but their records at heavyweight didn’t amount to much. . Tubbs, Thomas, Williams, Bruno and Berbick all has losses and weren’t much more than gatekeepers afterwards (Bruno possibly excepted).
Ali had a roster of legit outstanding opponents, Holyfield had Bowe and Tyson, Lewis had Holy, Vitali, Tua. Usyk has Joshua and Fury
Tysons simply don’t measure up.
Tyson of course is historically greater than Douglas but it doesn’t alter the fact that the very first time Tyson was challenged he failed dismally against this lesser fighter. It’s like Ali not getting up and stopping Cooper, or Frazier getting stopped by Bonavena or Holmes staying down against Shavers. Only these didnt happen because Ali, Holmes and Frazier gutted it out and found a way to win. Tyson never did.

 

You're criticizing the guy for dominance. Would Tyson have been better if he'd been on the floor with someone like Bonavena or Henry Cooper? Or had to fight for his life against an opponent like Smokin' Bert? In his prime, he ate opponents like that for breakfast, and it's not his fault that it was mostly complete domination. When he was in weaker shape, he struggled. He took powerful blows, but he was able to survive the slump and prevail (Tucker, Bruno, Razor).

Did Lewis ever get up and win? How many times did Foreman get revenge? Like if he lost to Lyle and got revenge, what would have been a better head-to-head prime? You're completely confusing the concepts.

Tucker, WBC champion, 34-0, 27 years old, prime
Biggs, 15-0, undefeated Olympic champion, 27 years old, prime
Spinks, 32 years old, 32-0, current lineal champion
I can't understand how a narrow victory over 37-year-old Holyfield, who has three losses, is better than completely destroying 32-year-old, undefeated Spinks, who was the current lineal champion.

 

It's total nonsense. Holmes had a normal camp and had had an exhibition or two in between. He got knocked out because he fought Tyson.

 

Some people simply don't get it. There's information about negotiations a year before their fight, there's an interview with Holmes about the Tyson-Biggs fight, and finally, the fight is officially announced for October 8th after six months of negotiations, and people still say Holmes hasn't trained, that he just got up from the couch, that he had four weeks to prepare, even though it was only three and a half months after the fight was officially announced. It's utter madness.

 

Yeah, he wasn’t fighting a guy who got gifted a draw against some guy named Wilson.

 

What’s madness is thinking Holmes was anything near approaching peak form going into this fight. He was retired for nearly two years for all intents and purposes.
Who was the better version of themselves? Holmes against Tyson or Tyson against Douglas? I’ll bet I can guess the answer lol.
Tyson doesnt deserve a pass for stuffing his own career up. Using a selective period of his career to judge his career overall without affording the same luxury for other fighters is intellectually dishonest but typical Tyson nuthuggery.
Foreman didnt avenge a loss but did climb off the floor to win.
Lewis never climbed off the floor to win but did avenge both of his losses.
Tyson never did either. Not once even when he could no longer physically dominate anymore and some intestinal fortitude was required. He was a classic front runner. Great fighter (briefly) sure but a front runner all the same.

 

1. He beat Ruddock with broken ribs.
2. He gave Ruddock an immediate rematch because he was his toughest opponent and Douglas wouldn't fight him.
3. Larry Holmes has a thread on the first page of this forum about how he didn't like to train hard.

 

Look at the topic title – prime vs. prime, and you're still talking about their entire career.

If a sprinter breaks the Olympic record in the 100-meter dash, will you take away their gold medal because they won't qualify for the next Olympics? And will you claim they're a poor athlete even though no one will ever run as fast as them? It's the same with Tyson… if someone literally ran up Mount Everest, they'll have it forever, and even if they later fall off Mount Blanc, it doesn't mean the Alps are higher than the Himalayas.