Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[wpink1]

I found common opponents that Holmes faced prior to tyson. As for who is better, good debate. I think tyson destroys Holmes if they fougth in their peak, simply because of styles. Yes holmes has the jab to frustereate Tyson, but a young Tyson could evade a jab and get inside and blast away to the head and body against a fighter who was not able to jab and move, thus "not be there" when Tyson launches those killer left hooks.

Holmes would beat a wider variety of fighters, fighters that could carry the fight effecitvly in the latter rounds, not be scared of Tyson, and put up puches, we all now Tysons most effective time in the fight is the first 4-5 rounds. Sometimes his confidence leaves as soon as his opponent fires back a hard shot and rocks tyson and is able ot withstand Tyson's bum rush. You can visable seen Tyson change from dominator to being dominated.

I think they both had somewhat weak divisions to fight in, not the period of time shortyly before. If I had to pick I go with Homes slightly because there would be fighters that Tyson would not beat that Holmes would, but head to head I go with Tyson simply because of Styles. But if Holmes gets out of the 1st 5 rounds...It is all Holmes.

[Hawkins]

** You've got no stats to toss and just made a major misstatement. Holmes never fought most of Mikes opposition period. Could be you've got no talent for analysis, instead offer up touchie feelie sentiments like Holmes faced better, younger opposition.

I'm sure Mike would have racked up an extra dozen title defenses against the likes of the Beys of the rings. Six of Holmes' defenses against fighters with 16 or less fights. I didn't include the 10-0 infant Frazier since that was a non title fight. Then you get into all the journeymen like Zanon, Rodriguez, and LeDoux who had no business near a title fight, and that's damn near half Larry's title defenses right there.

Just more stats for me to toss around and land on top of your touchie-feelie sentiments. Not my fault "they make Mike larger in scope than he actually was." Maybe he just looks bigger after Larry's record is chopped down to size.

>> I worded it wrong by saying 'most'. That's on me...


You're right. I have no talent for analysis when it comes to debating a point with 'fans' who routinely distort facts and make downright baseless arguments in an attempt to make a fighter larger, and more important, than he historically was. I think you're just a half a step behind them_apples in your man love for Tyson. However, at least them_apples is consistent in his nuthuggery. But anyway....

Ok, let see. Two of the major 'title' fights Tyson had on his way to becoming the undispute champion were with guys Larry Holmes had beaten years before. Trevor Berbick was 19-1 when he fought Holmes, by the time Tyson got to him he had lost to Renaldo Snipes (a guy Larry Holmes also defeated) and the ever dangerous ST Gordon. Lets throw in all the other 'dangerous' fighters that Berbick faced that made him so much better by the time he got to Mike Tyson.

Lets have a look at James Smith. Tyson got to face such a dangerous version of Bonecrusher..look at the fights he has lost by the time we get to young Tyson. Tony Tubbs. Then we have Tim Witherspoon and Marvis Frazier, guys that Larry Holmes also beat.

We could do this with Carl Williams, but its not needed. Everyone knows, depending on how you want to make a fighter look, you can spin his record and opponents anyway you wish. You're quite adept at it. However, one fundamental thing you fail to mention..Larry Holmes was at odds with the ruler of the 80's heavyweight division, Don King. Everyone knows this probably hampered Larry's attempts at making certain fights. Of course you'll apply some of your asinine logic and put a spin on this that would make Bill O'Reily proud.

No matter what you, or anyone else says, the heavyweight period of the 80's pales in comparison to the era it followed thus making any legit champions of the era less than they actually were.

[LondonRingRules]

[QUOTE=Hawkins;2858874You're right. I have no talent for analysis when it comes to debating a point with 'fans' who routinely distort facts and make downright baseless arguments in an attempt to make a fighter larger, and more important, than he historically was.[/QUOTE]

** I would say your talent lays in histrionics.

Any challenge to your facts results in you throwing up imaginary fortifications to protect yourself from the coming onslaught.

I am hardly a fan of Tyson, but I saw what I saw, and the guy had even the old schoolers wetting themselves when he hit the ring. That sure wasn't happening in Holmes' day and it didn't really happen to Ali until his Foreman victory, and that didn't last long as even Cosell could spot his deterioration well before he retired.

Since I rate Tyson and most heavies fairly close to IBRO rankings, I'm fairly close to the consensus in my evaluations of him and them.

What I've done is chopped Holmes down to size in anticipation of his drop in rankings. I've already seen Ali drop a bit, and Johnson has slipped more. I anticipate that Lewis will start cracking the consensus top 10 in the future.

I ran the timeline on Tyson/Holmes head to head defense matchups, and it's simply ridiculous to see how weak Larry's comp matched up. The only competitive bout was Berbick/Norton. What happens is Tyson's life falls apart, so he ends up with King, Givens, Douglas and prison instead of battling for titles and Holmes carries on against the Cobbs, Franks, Rodriguez's and finally lands his money fight against Cooney where he gains a measure of finances and respect he felt was lacking.

It's the classic story of a young punk from the streets who couldn't find a family life to settle him down and out of jail vs a hungry kid from a poor family who marries, starts a family, and works hard and keeps his nose clean.

Berbick was 18-1-1 against Holmes. The only win against anyone other than a journeyman was a KO of the ill fated Tate after his 15th rd KO by Weaver. The Holmes fight is a year before Berbick met Ali, who described Berbick as a big strong prospect. Clearly Berbick met much stiffer comp after Holmes and a much better fighter as wins over Bey and the undefeated Green and Thomas indicate just before Tyson, who had to fight him to unify at any rate.

Smith was just a big strong guy who didn't even start boxing until 28 and had only faced journeymen until he got his bizarre upset win in England over Bruno. Even lacking any boxing sophistication, he made Larry work his tail off to beat him. He was always going to be a work in progress, up and down, but he put together a good streak with consecutive wins over Weaver, Ferguson, Bey, and Witherspoon, and again, holding a belt, so Tyson had to fight to unify. A much smarter and cagier fighter better qualified than when Holmes fought him.

Williams a big strong talented prime fighter with only 3 yrs experience against journeymen save a Tillis victory before he met Holmes. I would remind you that many thought Holmes was whupped that night. Williams completely shut his eye and Holmes not a popular victor that night. Williams much better experienced coming into the Tyson bout with wins over Ferguson, Cooper, and post Tyson Berbick.

So, your contention that Holmes fought younger, better competition than Tyson is just so much hogwash. Like I stated, 9 yrs total with other bigger, stronger, more experienced and prime heavies knocking each other off for the other two titles than what Holmes was usually fighting. Holmes never the unified champ, though the claim is that because he beat "Ali" he became the lineal champ.

Larry tried to make himself a legend in his own mind and is convinced The Man screwed him against Spinks, when in fact you can see he was becoming slower and more one dimensional with every defense after Cooney. Plug in the Norton, Shavers, or Cooney tapes and compare. Couldn't even recognize Larry any more against Spinks. Barely a serviceable jab, no right hand left. Had that been the Frank rematch instead, Larry gets his 9th rd TKO and Rocky record and more for you to hyperventilate about.

It would be like me trying to defend an obviously deteriorating Tyson for closing the title show against Cobb, Rodriguez, baby Spoon, 15-0, Frank, baby Marvis, 10-0, Smith, 14-1, Bey, 14-0, Williams, 16-0. You'd be screaming about him fighting journeymen and prospects. Well, guess what, Tsyon ended up fighting Holy instead, thinking he was getting a shot fighter. No different in that regard than Holmes, going after low laying fruit. It's what King wanted and they were willing to go along to get along. It's generally human nature to prefer easier, more managable risks to hard ones.

So, thug Tyson and your hero Holmes have more in common than you thought. I see Tyson for all his talents and faults, but you can't see where Larry falls short, but it's heresy, 20 consecutive title fights, Rocky Marciano, living legend. Whatever.

Good tough champion in the mix. Just not the big name he wanted for himself and it shows, the inferiority complex in every interview. He never gives any credit to Spinks or Tyson and still slags on Foreman. I guess Larry thinks he went 60-0 or so before being beat, or maybe still undefeated.

And of course you think I'm a fan of Tyson. LOL.

[wpink1]

london Rules...Man I write long novels too, but at least it is not 90% of the way through before one can tell what your point is that your trying to make. I leave this debate to you and Hawkins, however if your implying that Tyson fought good competiion and Holmes didnt. then I have to say your drinking.

I dont believe either one of them had competition like Ali had, but to hear you say you tore down Ali too, is a joke also. How can you tear down a man who in his leading up to peak years destroyed everyone....then sat out his peak years..came back and after 1 or 2 tune ups immediately started fighting and almost always beating the best in the diviision for another decade. To say that Ali had some gift decisions is true but only 5% of the story, another part of the story is that these fighters were fighting him after...I mean clearly after he had lost his movement, and was fighting these fighters on what he had left, which is simply more than you see in what Tyson showed he could muster when he was simply imprisoned.

Yes Tyson caused a lot of fighters to shake in their pants...Hmmm so did Liston, and look what Ali did to him. Shavers, Foremean,,,etc...Just because you cause fear doesnt mean your better. Holmes style may not have caused fear but he was just as effective if not more.

I already said I pick Tyson to beat Holmes, that is only because a young tyson did have a style that I think all the fighters of today and Tyson's era simply do not have the toughness or the skillz to deal with. However, I think that Tyson loses to a Holmes that uses the jab which he would do, and some movement behind it for the 1st couple of rounds. Tyson has no chance vs the Fraziers, Foremans, Shavers, Lyles...as they would not stand across the ring and be scared, and we know what happens to Tyson once someone is not scared of him and hits him back in the lip....YOu see his invincibility and confidence leave right before your eyes. I have never seen a fighter simply come into the fight a beast and once he is hit back, and the other fighter continues to hit him,,you see the thug or bully simply morph into hmmmm Lionel Richie.

[LondonRingRules]

however if your implying that Tyson fought good competiion and Holmes didnt. then I have to say your drinking.

** Norton was the most credible "contender" save perhaps Young by the time Larry finally got a title shot. Shavers, Jones, Snipes, Cooney legit contenders.

Evangelista, Weaver, Zanon, LeDoux not even close, though Weaver tightens up his career and gets into the mix of things briefly later. Good for him, but 19-8 going into his title challenge.

I can understand the impetus that compelled Larry to fight Ali and Spinks, but lets not kid ourselves that these guys were really any threat in what they had to offer. Every fighter has these kinds of gimmee bouts.

Rodriquez, who? Cobb? I was at my brother in laws house when I expertly commandeered the TV, turned on the introductions and was greatly embarrassed as he started laughing when Cobb was introduced. Turned out to be historically significant as Cosells' last magnificent pontification in boxing though. By golly, when he retired, he meant it!

Thought Holmes barely did enough against baby Spoon, but come on man, Spoon won 40 more fights after that split decision that the public wanted a rematch on.

I never said, "Ugh, Tyson all good, Holmes all bad, Ali all bad." The latter did have more than their fair share of questionable title comp though.

[Hawkins]

** I would say your talent lays in histrionics.

Any challenge to your facts results in you throwing up imaginary fortifications to protect yourself from the coming onslaught.

Histrionics? Oooook. This coming from the guy who is one of the best spin doctors on the entire forum...Add in the fact that you are one of the more overly-dramatic cats on here and you level the histrionic charge at me? Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

I am hardly a fan of Tyson, but I saw what I saw, and the guy had even the old schoolers wetting themselves when he hit the ring. That sure wasn't happening in Holmes' day and it didn't really happen to Ali until his Foreman victory, and that didn't last long as even Cosell could spot his deterioration well before he retired.

Since I rate Tyson and most heavies fairly close to IBRO rankings, I'm fairly close to the consensus in my evaluations of him and them.

What I've done is chopped Holmes down to size in anticipation of his drop in rankings. I've already seen Ali drop a bit, and Johnson has slipped more. I anticipate that Lewis will start cracking the consensus top 10 in the future.

You saw what I saw too. A young fighter going thru alot of has-beens and never-weres. Despite your best efforts that is all that was remaining of the heavyweight division of the 80's. Granted, Larry's wasn't much better in the overall scheme of things, but come on...no one who has an unbiased opinion would ever claim Tyson fought better competition than Larry Holmes. It's just not there.

You've seen Ali drop? Uh, if anything he has risen in most people's rankings.

I ran the timeline on Tyson/Holmes head to head defense matchups, and it's simply ridiculous to see how weak Larry's comp matched up. The only competitive bout was Berbick/Norton. What happens is Tyson's life falls apart, so he ends up with King, Givens, Douglas and prison instead of battling for titles and Holmes carries on against the Cobbs, Franks, Rodriguez's and finally lands his money fight against Cooney where he gains a measure of finances and respect he felt was lacking.

It's the classic story of a young punk from the streets who couldn't find a family life to settle him down and out of jail vs a hungry kid from a poor family who marries, starts a family, and works hard and keeps his nose clean.

Berbick was 18-1-1 against Holmes. The only win against anyone other than a journeyman was a KO of the ill fated Tate after his 15th rd KO by Weaver. The Holmes fight is a year before Berbick met Ali, who described Berbick as a big strong prospect. Clearly Berbick met much stiffer comp after Holmes and a much better fighter as wins over Bey and the undefeated Green and Thomas indicate just before Tyson, who had to fight him to unify at any rate.

Smith was just a big strong guy who didn't even start boxing until 28 and had only faced journeymen until he got his bizarre upset win in England over Bruno. Even lacking any boxing sophistication, he made Larry work his tail off to beat him. He was always going to be a work in progress, up and down, but he put together a good streak with consecutive wins over Weaver, Ferguson, Bey, and Witherspoon, and again, holding a belt, so Tyson had to fight to unify. A much smarter and cagier fighter better qualified than when Holmes fought him.

Williams a big strong talented prime fighter with only 3 yrs experience against journeymen save a Tillis victory before he met Holmes. I would remind you that many thought Holmes was whupped that night. Williams completely shut his eye and Holmes not a popular victor that night. Williams much better experienced coming into the Tyson bout with wins over Ferguson, Cooper, and post Tyson Berbick.

So, your contention that Holmes fought younger, better competition than Tyson is just so much hogwash. Like I stated, 9 yrs total with other bigger, stronger, more experienced and prime heavies knocking each other off for the other two titles than what Holmes was usually fighting. Holmes never the unified champ, though the claim is that because he beat "Ali" he became the lineal champ.

Larry tried to make himself a legend in his own mind and is convinced The Man screwed him against Spinks, when in fact you can see he was becoming slower and more one dimensional with every defense after Cooney. Plug in the Norton, Shavers, or Cooney tapes and compare. Couldn't even recognize Larry any more against Spinks. Barely a serviceable jab, no right hand left. Had that been the Frank rematch instead, Larry gets his 9th rd TKO and Rocky record and more for you to hyperventilate about.

It would be like me trying to defend an obviously deteriorating Tyson for closing the title show against Cobb, Rodriguez, baby Spoon, 15-0, Frank, baby Marvis, 10-0, Smith, 14-1, Bey, 14-0, Williams, 16-0. You'd be screaming about him fighting journeymen and prospects. Well, guess what, Tsyon ended up fighting Holy instead, thinking he was getting a shot fighter. No different in that regard than Holmes, going after low laying fruit. It's what King wanted and they were willing to go along to get along. It's generally human nature to prefer easier, more managable risks to hard ones.

So, thug Tyson and your hero Holmes have more in common than you thought. I see Tyson for all his talents and faults, but you can't see where Larry falls short, but it's heresy, 20 consecutive title fights, Rocky Marciano, living legend. Whatever.

Good tough champion in the mix. Just not the big name he wanted for himself and it shows, the inferiority complex in every interview. He never gives any credit to Spinks or Tyson and still slags on Foreman. I guess Larry thinks he went 60-0 or so before being beat, or maybe still undefeated.

And of course you think I'm a fan of Tyson. LOL.

I'm not going to go thru and dissect every opponent in an attempt to make my point seem more logical. Like I said earlier we can all put the spin on these guys anyway it suits our argument. But it doesn't change the fact they both fought in weak eras of a once deep division.

It's ok though, keep doing your thing. I suspect you're too set in your ways to think any differently, and I'm well prepared for your assertations that I didn't refute any of your stats or findings because of flaws in my analytical skills. It's all well and good though, no matter how anyone spins it neither 'era' is any better than it actually was.

And for your information - Larry Holmes is not my hero.

[LondonRingRules]

I suspect you're too set in your ways to think any differently, and I'm well prepared for your assertations that I didn't refute any of your stats or findings because of flaws in my analytical skills.

** Set in my ways?

You know nothing of me then. I've grown in knowledge and changed my outlook accordingly.

Yeah, true, you didn't refute my breakdown of Holmes/Tyson comparison. Any fighter of note usually has as few fighters of note for whatever reason he never faced in his era. Holmes at least a dozen, maybe more.

Tyson under D'amato/Jacobs fought everyone possible and unified as well as "linealized" the title. After they passed, King manipulated him for other purpose, not unlike the way he manage Holmes, except Tyson had something like a 50 million asset pool to tap into.

All part of the historical record that has yet to come to full consensus on such a dramatic figure that inspires such awe and hatred in equal measure.

[wpink1]

From what I am reading and my view...Hawkins never said Tyson ducked anyone. simply that the quality of fighters during tyson's era were a bit less than Holmes.

I will say this, how can you tout tysons foes, and say in another breadth that Ali drops in legacy.......Hmmm you better go get your turkey my friend.

[them_apples]

You saw what I saw too. A young fighter going thru alot of has-beens and never-weres. Despite your best efforts that is all that was remaining of the heavyweight division of the 80's. Granted, Larry's wasn't much better in the overall scheme of things, but come on...no one who has an unbiased opinion would ever claim Tyson fought better competition than Larry Holmes. It's just not there.

If that's the case then why doesn't every good fighter get an obscene amount of first round Ko's..since it's so easy.

Tyson cleaned out his division, he beat top contenders and beat the hell out of the the belt holders. You give him no credit at all, he simply made everyone look bad.

I'm assuming you will say Spinks was a washed up Lw? He DID beat the still game Holmes, even when it went late rounds.

Bruno went toe to toe with Lennox Lewis, tony Tucker was 35-0 when he fought Tyson, Ruddock also gained notoriety from his devastating knockout power.

Even when he was younger, a lot of his opponents had better records than him.

But alas, continue to try your hardest on downplaying him. Do you think a fighter get's world popularity by being a joke?

[LondonRingRules]

I will say this, how can you tout tysons foes, and say in another breadth that Ali drops in legacy.......Hmmm

** I must note the above comments completely out of context to what I have posted. One has nothing to do with the other.

Ali shot up to most #1 heavy lists, and even greatest and p4p lists after the Foreman bout. Joe Louis now occupies many if not most #1 heavy lists and Ali seldom mentioned as #1 p4p fighter any more although some still think him absolutely the greatest fighter ever. That is a drop and it has absolutely nothing to do with Tyson fighting Spinks, McNeeley, or Godzilla.