BoxRec

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:his 80s title reign was an incredible reign. he did everything a champion was suppose to do, and he finally brought life back to the heavyweight division and offically unified the titles for the first time since 78.

Aaaaah, so ducking the #1 contender for two years is something every champion should do?

wut # 1 contender? im hope ur not implying tim witherspoon. witherspoon wanted no part of mike tyson, after seeing tyson easily dismantle opponents who beat witherspoon. spoon wasnt even facing world class heavyweights after getting flattened in 1 round by tyson.


- if ur implying razor ruddock, well the results speak for itself.




* tyson gets so underated here at boxrec. its amazing how much lack of respect he gets here.




if the question ever applies "who was the better heavyweight of the 1980s" THE ANSWER IS MIKE TYSON

- tyson never lost in the 80s

- holmes lost, though he was over the hill



tyson beat


pinklon thomas
old larry holmes
michael spinx
trevoer berbick
bonecrusher smith
tony tucker
carl williams
frank bruno
tony tubbs
tyrell biggs



holmes beat


trevor berbick
bonecrusher smith
tim witherspoon
gerry cooney
carl williams
renaldo snipes



ITS CLEAR TYSON BEAT FAR BETTER COMPETITION IN THE 1980S THAN HOLMES.


- tyson also dominated his opponents a lot more than holmes did who never gave rematches to witherspoon, williams.



so if anyone ask who was the best heavyweight of the 1980s, the answer is mike tyson. tyson accomplished more than holmes did in the 1980s.



-ITS NOT ABOUT HOW LONG YOUR ON TOP, ITS ABOUT WHAT U DO WHEN UR ON TOP THAT COUNTS. TYSON IN 3 YEARS DID MORE THAN HOLMES EVER DID IN THE 1980S.


-its larry holmes 70s and 90s career that rates him over mike tyson, BUT TYSON WAS THE DOMINANT HEAVYWEIGHT OF THE 1980S.

Holmes is the greatest heavyweight of the 80's but Tyson certainly comes a close second.

Ive said before people here judge Tyson the fighter as Tyson the man, hate the man but for hells sake dont hate him for what he achieved in the ring. Tyson cleared out all top contenders during his incredible reign, some of them who havent even been knocked out prior to their fight with Tyson e.g Pinklon Thomas, Berbick, Spinks, Biggs. People say Tyson had no heart when matched with an opponent who wasnt afraid of him....well Tyson showed his heart when he was taking pulverisng left hooks from Ruddock and proceeded into stopping him in the 7th.

Another point is that Tyson had been floored by one punch like most heavyweight greats - Ali, Holmes, Louis etc, it was always a sustained beating which proves by itself he had a good chin to go with it.

tyson beat


pinklon thomas
old larry holmes
michael spinx
trevoer berbick
bonecrusher smith
tony tucker
carl williams
frank bruno
tony tubbs
tyrell biggs



holmes beat


trevor berbick
bonecrusher smith
tim witherspoon
gerry cooney
carl williams
renaldo snipes

Brockton, you didnt include Norton, Shavers and Weaver on Holmes record - With names like Norton and Shavers I think that quailifies him as the best heavyweight of the 80's. Former crusierweight champion Ocasio is another good name.

no u dont understand. holmes beat norton, shavers, weaver in the 1970s therefore they do not count. im talking the most dominant heavyweight of the 1980s. that award goes to mike tyson since he never lost and he beat better competition IN THE 1980S than holmes did

Decagon wrote:If you're going to give credit to Tyson for beating an old Larry Holmes, why won't you give credit to Holmes for beating an old Muhammad Ali? You're also leaving out Leon Spinks. The toothless one wasn't a great fighter, but he was a champion, a real champion. And I thought Holmes AT LEAST won the rematch against Michael Spinks. Also, he was champion during the 1980s for twice as long as Tyson ever held a title. Tyson didn't win the real title until 1988. Holmes held the Lineal title for five years during the 1980s, while Tyson only held it for a year and a half in the 1980s, and two years overall.

ali was SHOT COMPLETLEY 100% FINISHED, HIS SPARRING PARTNERS HAD A BETTER CHANCE VS HOLMES!


- holmes proved he wasnt shot because 5 years later a older holmes gave a prime holyfield a very hard fight and beat ray mercer.

what did ali do after the holmes fight?

So what we have after all is said and done is high potential partially achieved in the early years, with a total and complete breakdown based on a weak psyche and poor values/choices leading to an early demise.

On this day he would be an even bet against today's Riddick Bowe who may fit a similar pattern.

How do you rate guys like these? For example I tend to look to Archie Moore as the gold standard of functional careers, peaking high for a long period of time and enduring beyond all imagination. Squeezing just about all the potential out of himself during that time.

I can say an old Trans-Am was the best car I ever had because on it's best day the ride, and response were top notch but it fizzled out like an Alka Seltzer. Sort of like Tyson and Bowe. I just have a hard time rating either one of them as great because they showed and delivered some promise and then fizzled out.

The great ones don't do that. However Just like my Old Trans Am they sure had some great days.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:no u dont understand. holmes beat norton, shavers, weaver in the 1970s therefore they do not count. im talking the most dominant heavyweight of the 1980s. that award goes to mike tyson since he never lost and he beat better competition IN THE 1980S than holmes did

Ok I get what you are saying. But in terms of competition I think Holmes did beat the better opposition, he may not have knocked out everyone in his path like Tyson but he sure did outclass top fighters like Berbick, Bonecrusher, Shavers, Cooney etc.

Decagon wrote:Holyfield was the #1 contender for two years before he finally fought Douglas. Tyson was always afraid of Holyfield, after they sparred in 1984.

-seeing as holyfield struggled dearly with beating a over the hill drug addict in 89, he was not ready for tyson until 1990.

Decagon wrote:Again, Holmes hadn't fought in two years, and took the fight on four-weeks' notice.

I dont buy the exuses, nor do i buy a much older holmes was better in the 1990s. also holmes chin was certainly the same when he fought tyson.

Holmes was 38 years old and coming off a layoff. This win does not seem very significant. I also think Holyfield may have been ready for Tyson by 1989.

Holmes's chin wasn't the problem. It was his balance and defense that caused him to get knocked out by Tyson.

no it was the fact that he was facing a peak mike tyson and not a 1990s tyson.

Caulk Rocket wrote:There wasn't any legendary HW's in the 80's for the prime Tyson to prove how truly great he was. The division at least wasn't as weak as it is today, where champs go all 12 with jobbers, whereas Tyson took out the lame competition in the first or second round.

You have to look at more than just Tyson's record, look at his ability as well. "He beat this guy, Holmes beat that guy, but Holyfield beat..." That can go on forever. Tyson never would have lost to Moorer like Holyfield did. Tyson would have mowed over Moorer, Holyfield, and Bowe easily. He was totally emotionally wrecked in his fight with Douglas, and still knocked him down to the count of 9.5, almost winning by a hair. Tyson never would have been KO'd in his prime by Rahman, like Lewis was, either.

The only thing Lennox Lewis has on Tyson is he beat more champs after their prime, just like Tyson did with Holmes. Lewis never KO'd, or even fought a real legend fighter in their prime. Lewis fought an old Tyson, old Holyfield.

As for Holyfield, I think he had a longer prime, but he has even more upsetting losses than Tyson. KO'd by Toney, lost to Byrd, and John Ruiz (!!!!!), Bowe 2x, Lewis 2x. Holyfield was knocked around worse at the end of his career than Tyson was.

i agree with most of this

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Holmes's chin wasn't the problem. It was his balance and defense that caused him to get knocked out by Tyson.

no it was the fact that he was facing a peak mike tyson and not a 1990s tyson.

His chin held up twice against Earnie Shavers, who was not only a better puncher than Mike Tyson, but could go more rounds. Tyson himself said that he wouldn't stand a chance against a prime Larry Holmes. How come you don't agree with your hero?

shavers was a harder hitter, BUT NOT GREATER PUNCHEWR. tyson was a greater puncher than shavers because he had much fast handspeed, threw far better combinations, more accuracy and timing in his punches, threw shorter punches, better body attack, more snap on his punches etc. ALSO, tyson was a far better finisher than shavers

when I told my father that holmes said "shavers hits a lot harder than tyson" my father who covered boxing and followed it extremeley closely in the 70s-80s said "thats because he doesnt remember getting hit by mike tyson."



shavers could go more rounds than mike? well i guess that will be your little secret. i mean there only about 10 times shavers lost in his career due to stamina issues.


my hero? tyson is defintley not my hero, im simply rate him high

Regardless of prime Holmes, the version Tyson faced was clearly not the best version. Tyson in the 1990s was still very formidable however.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Regardless of prime Holmes, the version Tyson faced was clearly not the best version. Tyson in the 1990s was still very formidable however.

tyson of 96 was like the dempsey of 26, both far past it.

Caulk Rocket wrote:
My main argument is that Holyfield and Lewis lost to chumps in their prime, without the personal problems Tyson had.

This is my gripe in a nutshell. Tyson gets all the plaudits but none of the criticisms. How do we know what was going on for Lewis and Holyfield? What are legitimate personal excuses? Tyson can't be excused his defeats to Douglas and Holyfield. After that then yes he was gone. Even so there were plenty of people predicting he would KO Lewis.

There are plenty of guys with psychological and emotional problems but we don't dig them out everytime we discuss them. If Tyson ahd these problems then they were a part of who he was and you can't have one without the other.

Ezzard wrote:

Caulk Rocket wrote:
My main argument is that Holyfield and Lewis lost to chumps in their prime, without the personal problems Tyson had.

This is my gripe in a nutshell. Tyson gets all the plaudits but none of the criticisms. How do we know what was going on for Lewis and Holyfield? What are legitimate personal excuses? Tyson can't be excused his defeats to Douglas and Holyfield. After that then yes he was gone. Even so there were plenty of people predicting he would KO Lewis.

There are plenty of guys with psychological and emotional problems but we don't dig them out everytime we discuss them. If Tyson ahd these problems then they were a part of who he was and you can't have one without the other.

why does the holyfield loss count? he was recentley inactive for 4 years!
you can defintley count the douglas loss and anything pre prison. but nothing post prison cause he was far past it then!


hoylfields title reign is a bit of a disaster. he knocks out a fat out of shape unmotivated douglas. he struggled dearly with two heavyweights well into there 40s who are far past his prime. he nearly gets knocked out by a late sub journeyman. he then loses to bowe, only to win it back, and then lose it to a glass jaw southpaw who never made his name in heavy division. too me thats a horrible title reign.

tysons late 80s title reign far exceeds holyfields.

I would argue Tyson could still be considered prime or close to it in 1990s. He continued to demolish opponnents through the 1990s and still had a devastating offense. His weight remained fairly low.

BB49 I think you have a point. Tyson was never the same after he went to prison. Being locked up for years killed him. No amount of training will substiute for actual boxing fights. I'm not a Tyson fan but he cleaned up a relatively poor HW scene BUT got beaten in his prime by one of the biggest underdogs in any sport ever. No excuses; he didn't train, different trainers or whatever. Other fighters go through rough periods and come through it. He got beat fair and square by Douglas. However unlike Lewis for example he never came back and revenged that defeat and was never the same fighter again. The Lewis defeats made him better. The Douglas defeat destroyed Tyson and one of his biggest weapons...fear, intimidation and an air of invincibility! After that defeat people went in with him knowing he could be beat. Fair enough some boxers still got scared i.e. Bruno. As I've said before Tyson would be competitive in any era of boxing but he certainly isn't the best and comes in around 15 in top HW of all time. Tyson would always have trouble with good boxers, with some size who would not be intimidated.

As for Holyfield he does have a funny career. If you disect it it can look ordinary but on the whole he dominated one division, stepped up to another and done a pretty good job. I think his main problem was when he came up to HW he came up against bigger guys and he couldn't KO them. But he could certianly outbox them. If he was bigger I think Holyfield would be unbelievably good.

Holyfield has much better boxing attributes than Tyson the main one being mental strength. I think thats why people rate him better than Tyson not because he beat him. Overall he is just a better boxer with better attributes. Like other match ups of the past Holyfield just had Tyson's number. No matter what the time or place Holyfield would always beat Tyson. Remember, when he did Holyfield was past his prime like Tyson so I think it was a fair fight in terms of primes, being past it etc. Tyson was a big favorite for that fight remember.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I would argue Tyson could still be considered prime or close to it in 1990s. He continued to demolish opponnents through the 1990s and still had a devastating offense. His weight remained fairly low.

you can make a case for 90-91. but DEFINTLEY not post prison.


was ali or joe louis in there prime after 3-4 year layoffs? NO FIGHTER COMING OFF 3 YEAR LAYOFFS WAS EVER THE SAME AGAIN!

tyson was 8 years past his prime, holyfield was only 2-3 years past his prime.


tyson fought only 8 rounds in the past 5 years, holyfield fought 97 rounds in past 5 years. tyson was far more ring rusty.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tyson was 8 years past his prime, holyfield was only 2-3 years past his prime.


tyson fought only 8 rounds in the past 5 years, holyfield fought 97 rounds in past 5 years. tyson was far more ring rusty.

Yeah but think Holyfield was more battle hardened. He had been in alot of tough fights so I think that evens it up a bit. Also the type of fighters they are mean Holyfield would always have fought more rounds no matter when they fought so again I don't think that counts.

Caulk Rocket wrote:Lewis, Holyfield, and Tyson have all been knocked out by chumps. Holyfield and Lewis may have beat better competition, but only a couple times, not every single title defense they had was a top caliber contender. I break down my ranking of Tyson above Lewis and Holyfield like this.

1. Holyfield and Lewis were viciously knocked out during their careers, Tyson never was his entire career, even after prison.

2. Tyson never would have lost to Rahman or McCall like Lewis did, even out of his prime. Moorer, Donald, Ruiz, and Byrd never would have beat Tyson even out of his prime, like they did with Holyfield.

3. When faced with the same chumps Lewis and Holyfield fought, or with medium level contenders, Tyson KO'd the competition more often and faster than Lewis and Holyfield.

Tyson had a better chin than both Lewis and Holyfield, and more speed and power. He had less boxing skill and defensive abilities than both.

Caulk I think you are wrong on several points.

1. When was Holyfield viciously Koed? Tyson vs Lewis may not be a vicious KO but it certainly was a systamatic destruction which ended with a KO. How do you define a vicious KO? Because if you are saying Holyfield was then Douglas' KO of Tyson is.

2. But Tyson lost to Douglas!!! That was one of the biggest upsets ever in any sport. I'm sure the odds were up around 40-1, Lewis against McCall or Rahman wasn't. Holyfield wouldn't have lost to McBride, Williams or Douglas even out of his prime.

3. Tillis went the distance with Tyson holyfield Koed him. Holyfield Koed Thomas 1rd later than Tyson. Holyfield Koed Douglas who Koed Tyson. Holmes went the distance with Holyfield who Tyson Koed. Biggs went 7 with Tyson and Lewis Koed him in 3. Ruddock went 7 and 12 with Tyson and Lewis Koed him in 2. Tucker went the distance with Lewis and Tyson. Bruno went 3 and 5 with Tyson and 7 with Lewis. Lewis Koed Golota in 1 and he went 3 rounds with Tyson. Leiws beat Holyfield who beat Tyson. Both went 5 rds wiht Tyson and Lewis Koed him in 2.

So apart from Holmes and Bruno its not much of an argument.

As for the chins Tyson certainly hasn't got a better chin than Holyfield. Lewis and Holyfield have been stopped twice. Tyson has been stopped 6 times. Lewis and Tyson when they got beat it was always a stoppage. Holyfield when he lost it was mainly points.

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Holmes's chin wasn't the problem. It was his balance and defense that caused him to get knocked out by Tyson.

no it was the fact that he was facing a peak mike tyson and not a 1990s tyson.

His chin held up twice against Earnie Shavers, who was not only a better puncher than Mike Tyson, but could go more rounds. Tyson himself said that he wouldn't stand a chance against a prime Larry Holmes. How come you don't agree with your hero?

Earnie Shavers was a far harder puncher than Tyson but that doesnt mean he was better, Tyson was faster, more accurate and had great power though in one shot terms Shavers takes it.

But as for as endurance, Tyson had better endurance. Shavers got tired after usually after 5 or 6 rounds. Shavers punched himself out against Ron Lyle after doing so well in the early rounds nearly knocking Lyle out in the 2nd with a left hook, his stamina beat him in the Tex Cobb and Mercado fights where Shavers was ahead and Shavers looked like he was dead with exhaustion against Holmes in their second meeting. Only the Ali fight proved that Shavers didnt tire out like he usually did.

Shavers is a good fighter and a great person but prime for prime, Tyson is the better fighter.

I think one could argue the 95-97 Tyson was still in his prime based ion his strenth, quickness and performance in various fights.