Decagon wrote:Although Tyson didn't have his flaws exposed until 1990 (no defense for the clinch, frontrunner, very average after 4 or 6 rounds), those flaws still existed in the 1980s. Larry Holmes was a much more complete fighter.
bullshit, tyson was a different fighter when he left rooney, its noticeable. my dad always told me he noticed alot was different about tyson the night he fought bruno. he told me how tyson looked like he wasnt the same and not being with rooney was the main reason. he talked about tyson not mixing up his combos, not using his once fantastic defense which made him unmpredicatable, and he became a headhunter with no body attack and counterpunches. he also told me how tyson began throwing wider loopier punches and it took some of the effect off his shots. i think its clear tyson showed he was vuinerable in the bruno fight MUCH MOREW than any previous fight. u could notice tyson wasnt himself.
One of his flaws was judgement. You don't let go of a trainer while things are going that well for you. You leave with who brought you to the dance. Tyson's potential was partly brought down by his inability to make good decisions both in and out of the ring. That "trainer" decision was part of who Mike is.
Holmes still has his money and on this very day might stand a better than even chance of beating his younger counterpart. That says a lot.
BoxBuzz wrote:One of his flaws was judgement. You don't let go of a trainer while things are going that well for you. You leave with who brought you to the dance. Tyson's potential was partly brought down by his inability to make good decisions both in and out of the ring. That "trainer" decision was part of who Mike is.
Holmes still has his money and on this very day might stand a better than even chance of beating his younger counterpart. That says a lot.
Tyson had some terrible trainers!
Jay Bright & Aaron Snowell who trained him for Douglas should castrated!
How can you use a rubber glove with water to reduce eye swelling?
The corner men he had for the Lewis fight should hang their heads in shame.
Mike clearly said TWICE at the end of round 7 that he was 'gone'; that he didn't want to fight on, yet they sent him out to be poleaxed by Lewis, who had been battering him since round 2!
Tyson was the top 1980s heavyweight! The only other comparable, Larry Holmes, was knocked out by Tyson, who would have done the same thing if he had been fighting the Larry Holmes of 1980. Holmes had big difficulty against fighters with fast hands and Tyson had some of the fastest ever. Holmes might jab Tyson for three, or four rounds, but the end result would be the same as it was when they did fight...Tyson by knockout.
barry wrote:Tyson was the top 1980s heavyweight! The only other comparable, Larry Holmes, was knocked out by Tyson, who would have done the same thing if he had been fighting the Larry Holmes of 1980. Holmes had big difficulty against fighters with fast hands and Tyson had some of the fastest ever. Holmes might jab Tyson for three, or four rounds, but the end result would be the same as it was when they did fight...Tyson by knockout.
In your dreams, barry.
What 'big difficulty" did the Holmes of the early 80's have with fighters with fast hands?
Who were these fighters who gave him this "big difficulty" in his prime, bazza?
Larry Holmes was the best heavyweight of the 1980's.
Mike Tyson is natuarally second.
why?
tyson beat better competition than holmes in the 80s, and dominated a lot more than holmes.
You're having a laugh!!!.... Tyson beat better comp than Holmes!!!.... that really is one of the silliest things you have ever said Brock!...most of Tysons opponents were faded and had drug problems!!... really, I'm disapointed in you Brock!!! :x :x :x
IF you pull their respective records in that period, you can construct logical arguments either way. If you already have your answer and are simply building a platform to support your answer I think two people could go all day long with arguements and counter arguements.
I honestly don't know where you would land in this arguement if you don't have a personal favorite and decide to let the data lead you to your answer. Even then some of the info will be subjective and subject to interpretation.
The "combined" titles cuts Tyson's way Vs Larry's wish to pump up the prestige of the IBF. Tyson appeared more explosive and exciting but some of his early competition was questionable. But that's how you should build a resume.
Holmes was battle tested by the best in early part of this period and had the linear version until he met Tyson. I think that gives him the better portion of the 80's in terms of "time". Time is a factor that may or may not be important in your decision based on how you interpret the question.
I have to say I was once a true believer about Tyson's dominance of the 80's like Barry, but with some of the great debates that have gone on here I give Holmes more credit these days. Tyson's later performances and demonstration of "will" cast a shadow on his 80's work as well.
However, If I put myself in a time machine and transport myself back to Jan 1, 1990 and you ask me this question. I'd probably go with Mike. I was definately caught in the momentum as well as the "future prospects" which were about to implode in February of that year.
BoxBuzz wrote:IF you pull their respective records in that period, you can construct logical arguments either way. If you already have your answer and are simply building a platform to support your answer I think two people could go all day long with arguements and counter arguements.
I honestly don't know where you would land in this arguement if you don't have a personal favorite and decide to let the data lead you to your answer. Even then some of the info will be subjective and subject to interpretation.
The "combined" titles cuts Tyson's way Vs Larry's wish to pump up the prestige of the IBF. Tyson appeared more explosive and exciting but some of his early competition was questionable. But that's how you should build a resume.
Holmes was battle tested by the best in early part of this period and had the linear version until he met Tyson. I think that gives him the better portion of the 80's in terms of "time". Time is a factor that may or may not be important in your decision based on how you interpret the question.
I have to say I was once a true believer about Tyson's dominance of the 80's like Barry, but with some of the great debates that have gone on here I give Holmes more credit these days. Tyson's later performances and demonstration of "will" cast a shadow on his 80's work as well.
However, If I put myself in a time machine and transport myself back to the Jan 1, 1990 and you ask me this question. I'd probably go with Mike. I was definately caught in the momentum as well as the "future prospects" which were about to implode in February of that year.
Holmes fought Weaver, Shavers, Cooney, Snipes, Williams (when he wasn't shot) Witherspoon, Smith, Norton... who did Tyosn beat??.... Holmes Beat a peak Berbick 6 years before Tyson, he stopped Smith which Tyson had to go to points... Williams and Spinks were shot when they fought Tyson... Mikes handful of defences hardly puts him in the same league as Holmes in reality.... Tyson never fought punchers like Shavers, Weaver or Cooney... when he came up against a decent boxer in Douglas he was beaten....
You continue to make a good case for Holmes. But I think the record from 86 to 90 for Tyson does not represent any timidity. I know your stand, and I don't disagree particulary but where is the deficit in Tyson's record from Berbick to Douglas?
Part of being a champion is simply taking the best fights out there. Do you detect him running from someone during this time? Silkov your a good data person and I don't think you can find a hole in Tyson's work. But I do think you can make an equally good case for Holmes for the snapshot period of Jan 1 1980, to Jan 1 1990.
If you used the BoxRec math who would be in the lead? Probalby Holmes because Tyson did not fight a single pro fight until early '85. However it gets very cloudy when you factor in Tyson's dominance over Holme's himself and Spinks. Holmes was at the end, but Spinks? Why was Spinks washed up? That assertion seems a stretch at best.
With a question like this we are sort of trying to wrestle Jello.
BoxBuzz wrote:You continue to make a good case for Holmes. But I think the record from 86 to 90 for Tyson does not represent any timidity. I know your stand, and I don't disagree particulary but where is the deficit in Tyson's record from Berbick to Douglas?
Part of being a champion is simply taking the best fights out there. Do you detect him running from someone during this time? Silkov your a good data person and I don't think you can find a hole in Tyson's work. But I do think you can make an equally good case for Holmes for the snapshot period of Jan 1 1980, to Jan 1 1990.
If you used the BoxRec math who would be in the lead? Probalby Holmes because Tyson did not fight a single pro fight until early '85. However it gets very cloudy when you factor in Tyson's dominance over Holme's himself and Spinks. Holmes was at the end, but Spinks? Why was Spinks washed up? That assertion seems a stretch at best.
With a question like this we are sort of trying to wrestle Jello.
The fact is though that Tysons opponents were inferior to those of Holmes, just because Tyson koed inferior opposition doesn't make him the best... Tyson stopped Spinks sure, but Spinks was shot, look at his legs, he was wearing supports on both knees, the Spinks of the Tyson bout was not the same guy who fought Holmes.... both his knees were very bad, which is why he went into the fight with little confidence as he knoew he wouldnt be able to move around....
If you shift this timeline from 85 to 90 this is a slam dunk for Tyson.
But with the timelines given it is a good debate. But I would go with Holmes as dominant overall for that decade. He slimly owns the full decade in my book. The Tyson folks won't buy it though.
Here is an interesting fact if I actually have this right. Tyson owned the linear championship for less days than Mike Spinks owned it.
BoxBuzz wrote:If you shift this timeline from 85 to 90 this is a slam dunk for Tyson.
But with the timelines given it is a good debate. But I would go with Holmes as dominant overall for that decade. He slimly owns the full decade in my book. The Tyson folks won't buy it though.
Here is an interesting fact if I actually have this right. Tyson owned the linear championship for less days than Mike Spinks owned it.
Well the Tyson brugade would have you belive that he was the greatest ever heavyweight champion, I don't consider him a great champion, he was too flawed. It's worth remembering also that Tysons people kept Spinks waiting for over two years for a fight, they knew Micheal wasn't getting any younger and had injury probs, had they fought 18 months before it may have been a different fight... certainly the Spinks of '85 would have given Tyson trouble imo.
BoxBuzz wrote:IF you pull their respective records in that period, you can construct logical arguments either way. If you already have your answer and are simply building a platform to support your answer I think two people could go all day long with arguements and counter arguements.
I honestly don't know where you would land in this arguement if you don't have a personal favorite and decide to let the data lead you to your answer. Even then some of the info will be subjective and subject to interpretation.
The "combined" titles cuts Tyson's way Vs Larry's wish to pump up the prestige of the IBF. Tyson appeared more explosive and exciting but some of his early competition was questionable. But that's how you should build a resume.
Holmes was battle tested by the best in early part of this period and had the linear version until he met Tyson. I think that gives him the better portion of the 80's in terms of "time". Time is a factor that may or may not be important in your decision based on how you interpret the question.
I have to say I was once a true believer about Tyson's dominance of the 80's like Barry, but with some of the great debates that have gone on here I give Holmes more credit these days. Tyson's later performances and demonstration of "will" cast a shadow on his 80's work as well.
However, If I put myself in a time machine and transport myself back to the Jan 1, 1990 and you ask me this question. I'd probably go with Mike. I was definately caught in the momentum as well as the "future prospects" which were about to implode in February of that year.
Holmes fought Weaver, Shavers, Cooney, Snipes, Williams (when he wasn't shot) Witherspoon, Smith, Norton... who did Tyosn beat??.... Holmes Beat a peak Berbick 6 years before Tyson, he stopped Smith which Tyson had to go to points... Williams and Spinks were shot when they fought Tyson... Mikes handful of defences hardly puts him in the same league as Holmes in reality.... Tyson never fought punchers like Shavers, Weaver or Cooney... when he came up against a decent boxer in Douglas he was beaten....
I was going to post pretty much the same thing, but you have put it rather eloquently, so I needn't bother now!!!
BoxBuzz wrote:IF you pull their respective records in that period, you can construct logical arguments either way. If you already have your answer and are simply building a platform to support your answer I think two people could go all day long with arguements and counter arguements.
I honestly don't know where you would land in this arguement if you don't have a personal favorite and decide to let the data lead you to your answer. Even then some of the info will be subjective and subject to interpretation.
The "combined" titles cuts Tyson's way Vs Larry's wish to pump up the prestige of the IBF. Tyson appeared more explosive and exciting but some of his early competition was questionable. But that's how you should build a resume.
Holmes was battle tested by the best in early part of this period and had the linear version until he met Tyson. I think that gives him the better portion of the 80's in terms of "time". Time is a factor that may or may not be important in your decision based on how you interpret the question.
I have to say I was once a true believer about Tyson's dominance of the 80's like Barry, but with some of the great debates that have gone on here I give Holmes more credit these days. Tyson's later performances and demonstration of "will" cast a shadow on his 80's work as well.
However, If I put myself in a time machine and transport myself back to the Jan 1, 1990 and you ask me this question. I'd probably go with Mike. I was definately caught in the momentum as well as the "future prospects" which were about to implode in February of that year.
Holmes fought Weaver, Shavers, Cooney, Snipes, Williams (when he wasn't shot) Witherspoon, Smith, Norton... who did Tyosn beat??.... Holmes Beat a peak Berbick 6 years before Tyson, he stopped Smith which Tyson had to go to points... Williams and Spinks were shot when they fought Tyson... Mikes handful of defences hardly puts him in the same league as Holmes in reality.... Tyson never fought punchers like Shavers, Weaver or Cooney... when he came up against a decent boxer in Douglas he was beaten....
I was going to post pretty much the same thing, but you have put it rather eloquently, so I needn't bother now!!!
BoxBuzz wrote:
Here is an interesting fact if I actually have this right. Tyson owned the linear championship for less days than Mike Spinks owned it.
I'm still sort of under the "ether" of this revelation. I know it's just an asterisk in the scheme of things but something I just really thought about today. It should be taken with a grain of salt I know but it still was very glaring aspect as I was purusing the details.
Larry Holmes was the best heavyweight of the 1980's.
Mike Tyson is natuarally second.
why?
tyson beat better competition than holmes in the 80s, and dominated a lot more than holmes.
You're having a laugh!!!.... Tyson beat better comp than Holmes!!!.... that really is one of the silliest things you have ever said Brock!...most of Tysons opponents were faded and had drug problems!!... really, I'm disapointed in you Brock!!! :x :x :x
ok take a look at the facts...............
tyson beat IN THE 1980s
trevor berbick
pinklon thomas
tony tubbs
michael spinx
carl williams
quick tillis
tony tucker
bonecrusher smith
tyrell biggs
alfonzo ratliff
Marvis Frazier
frank bruno
old larry holmes
holmes beat IN THE 80S
lorenzo zanon
leroy jones
scott ledoux
a shot version of ali
trevor berbick
gerry cooney
leon spinx
renaldo snipes
tex cobb
marvis frasier
scott frank
david bey
bonecrusher smith
carl williams
tim witherspoon
i think its clear if u look at that list, TYSON DEFINTLEY BEAT BETTER COMPETITION IN THE 1980S
Trivia....which we all know the answer to but I find interesting. (I do not share this as an argument for or against any fighter, but interesting nonetheless)
Who held the HW linear title for the least amount of time.
A. Larry Holmes
B. Michale Spinks
C. Mike Tyson
D. George Foreman (second reign only)
A question that may be relevant.....For each given year in the 1980's which fighter would be able to notch a W in his column between Tyson and Holmes.
tyson beat better competition than holmes in the 80s, and dominated a lot more than holmes.
You're having a laugh!!!.... Tyson beat better comp than Holmes!!!.... that really is one of the silliest things you have ever said Brock!...most of Tysons opponents were faded and had drug problems!!... really, I'm disapointed in you Brock!!! :x :x :x
ok take a look at the facts...............
tyson beat IN THE 1980s
trevor berbick
pinklon thomas
tony tubbs
michael spinx
carl williams
quick tillis
tony tucker
bonecrusher smith
tyrell biggs
alfonzo ratliff
Marvis Frazier
frank bruno
old larry holmes
holmes beat IN THE 80S
lorenzo zanon
leroy jones
scott ledoux
a shot version of ali
trevor berbick
gerry cooney
leon spinx
renaldo snipes
tex cobb
marvis frasier
scott frank
david bey
bonecrusher smith
carl williams
tim witherspoon
i think its clear if u look at that list, TYSON DEFINTLEY BEAT BETTER COMPETITION IN THE 1980S
As a huge Tyson fan myself I think Ill have to agree with Blockbuster here. Holmes did beat Norton and Weaver in 78 and 79 and an opponent like Norton is better than anyone Tyson has faced. But strictly in the 80's Tyson swept through the competition that Holmes in general struggled with. Berbick who was comming of a spectacular win over Thomas was steamrolled by Tyson, Tyson also knocked out the Truth in a round the same Williams who gave Holmes a hell of a fight but you could however argue that Holmes was sliding.
Bonecrusher also gave Holmes a good fight but against Tyson he dared not to fight and kept holding until the 12th.
However if you count his reign from 78 onwards than Holmes has beaten the better opponents....but only slightly.
Decagon if you ever read this, what's your take on how far past his prime Spinks was? I have always thought he was simply "psyched" by Mike. I think that's the popular take. How far past his prime was he, and who took their toll on him? Was it the fights with Larry?
Decagon wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:The Tyson-Spinks battle was prime vs prime so thats totaly legit.
BoxBuzz wrote:Decagon if you ever read this, what's your take on how far past his prime Spinks was? I have always thought he was simply "psyched" by Mike. I think that's the popular take. How far past his prime was he, and who took their toll on him? Was it the fights with Larry?
Decagon wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:The Tyson-Spinks battle was prime vs prime so thats totaly legit.
Is that some sort of joke?
I thought it was a well known fact that Mikes legs were gone... he had knee trouble going right back to his early career, but by the time he fought Tyson both his legs were 'gone'. Mikes age and inactivity in he run up to the Tyson fight didn't help... theres no way Spinks was in his prime against Tyson and he wasn't scared in a normal way, he was 'scared' because he knew that he could do what he needed because of his legs...
My bad for not being in know on this, however I think I chalked it up to "excuses". I've never been good with keeping those in my memory.
So it was just a gradual aspect of his physical condition which sort of atrophied in an ongoing way and sort of spelled the end of his capabilities?
Or was there a particular fight or group of fights that aggravated the situation? He wasn't battling Antonio Inoki in Japan was he? Cuz that'll take the starch right out of your legs.
