View Full Version : Best HW of the 80s - Tyson or Holmes?


Rocker
01-04-2010, 10:46 AM
Who do you got?

Slimey Limey
01-04-2010, 11:12 AM
Larry Holmes is one of the more overrated heavyweights. Tyson is mostly ranked in the lower spots of the top 10 where he belongs. But the poor man's version of Ali is actually put at #3 at times.

JAB5239
01-04-2010, 12:23 PM
Larry Holmes is one of the more overrated heavyweights. Tyson is mostly ranked in the lower spots of the top 10 where he belongs. But the poor man's version of Ali is actually put at #3 at times.

Holmes is a top 5 heavyweight. 7 years on top and 20 consecutive defenses says a lot. Who would you rank ahead of him?

Sugarj
01-04-2010, 12:35 PM
Wow, very close......almost too difficult to split!!

If we are just talking the 80s Holmes dominated 1980-1985, whereas Tyson dominated 1986-1990.

I'd argue that Holmes was the better boxer, but Tyson was the more exciting and possibly better for the sport at that time.

Prime for prime I'd fancy Holmes to beat Tyson by a fairly close decision. But Tyson's brutal KO of past prime Holmes in 88 (the only time Holmes was ever stopped!!) just tips it Mike's way for me.

Holmes true prime would be circa 78-79.

BritishBoxing92
01-04-2010, 12:40 PM
hard for me to guess :/...tyson or holmes??? hmmm...well tyson Did beat holmes and Did win the HW belts at 20 Years but holmes did beat Ali and also had 20 title defenses....hmm....

Slimey Limey
01-04-2010, 01:07 PM
Holmes is a top 5 heavyweight. 7 years on top and 20 consecutive defenses says a lot. Who would you rank ahead of him?

Too many gift decisions and sub par opposition. I believe you already saw my swell top 10 in the sticky thread.

JAB5239
01-04-2010, 02:57 PM
Too many gift decisions and sub par opposition. I believe you already saw my swell top 10 in the sticky thread.


One gift decision, Witherspoon. And its funny you would call his opposition sub par and have Marciano ranked 2nd, Dempsey 4th and Tunney 10th.

sonnyboyx2
01-04-2010, 03:10 PM
One gift decision, Witherspoon. And its funny you would call his opposition sub par and have Marciano ranked 2nd, Dempsey 4th and Tunney 10th.

Holmes vs Carl Williams was a very dubious decision

JAB5239
01-04-2010, 03:22 PM
Holmes vs Carl Williams was a very dubious decision

No, I've watched this fight dozens of times. A close fight, yes. Williams could have secure a draw or even a win, but he gave up to many of the later rounds including the 12th. Nothing dubious there my man.

them_apples
01-04-2010, 03:29 PM
Tyson fuked him up to bad for Holmes to win this poll. On the ATG list though, Holmes edges him out.

Slimey Limey
01-04-2010, 03:34 PM
One gift decision, Witherspoon. And its funny you would call his opposition sub par and have Marciano ranked 2nd, Dempsey 4th and Tunney 10th.

Witherspoon, Norton, and Williams. Now I know that you're gonna try to refute these with YOUR opinion mate, as you see yourself as some kind of historian God who is never wrong, but these were all seen as gift decisions by the majority of people not just me. Even some of his losses were close ugly decisions. That's how queer the man fought.

sonnyboyx2
01-04-2010, 03:44 PM
Witherspoon, Norton, and Williams. Now I know that you're gonna try to refute these with YOUR opinion mate, as you see yourself as some kind of historian God who is never wrong, but these were all seen as gift decisions by the majority of people not just me. Even some of his losses were close ugly decisions. That's how queer the man fought.

IMO i had Holmes beating Witherspoon, but i had him losing to Williams & Norton, i also thought he was very fortunate against Bonecrusher Smith (1).... This is a tough call between Tyson & Homes.. but when i think about Holmes vs Spinks/Tyson vs Spinks/Tyson vs Homes... i gotta go with Mighty Mike.

Holmes vs Tyson ITV version.. in the ring after the fight when interviewed by Reg Gutteridge Holmes says,"i could never have beaten Mike Tyson"... The HBO version when Tyson was interviewed in the ring said,"if Holmes was in his prime i wouldn`t have stood a chance".... 2 great sportsmen

Slimey Limey
01-04-2010, 03:47 PM
IMO i had Holmes beating Witherspoon, but i had him losing to Williams & Norton, i also thought he was very fortunate against Bonecrusher Smith (1).... This is a tough call between Tyson & Homes.. but when i think about Holmes vs Spinks/Tyson vs Spinks/Tyson vs Homes... i gotta go with Mighty Mike.

Holmes vs Tyson ITV version.. in the ring after the fight when interviewed by Reg Gutteridge Holmes says,"i could never have beaten Mike Tyson"... The HBO version when Tyson was interviewed in the ring said,"if Holmes was in his prime i wouldn`t have stood a chance".... 2 great sportsmen

Ah yes, the first Bonecrusher fight. Indeed he might have lost that one as well. Instead of really dominating Smith like he should have, he went ahead and fought a queer fight like he always did.

dde91
01-04-2010, 03:52 PM
Prime Holmes wouldn't get Knocked out by Prime Tyson. But it would be a HELL of a fight. Holmes has one of the greatest CHINS of all time. And Tyson is one of the P4p top Punchers of all time. Being so small of a HW. But Tyson has Great Boxing skills when he first entered the Boxing scene.

them_apples
01-04-2010, 03:57 PM
Prime Holmes wouldn't get Knocked out by Prime Tyson. But it would be a HELL of a fight. Holmes has one of the greatest CHINS of all time. And Tyson is one of the P4p top Punchers of all time. Being so small of a HW. But Tyson has Great Boxing skills when he first entered the Boxing scene.

it's hard to say if he wouldn't have been stopped. My only reason being is, yes he took shavers punch in his prime, but he took Mikes even better - only difference is, Mike followed up and hit him with 6 or 7 hard punches to his dome, that is what ended the night.

Mike hit him clean with a left hook i think, and sent him down. Holmes got up. against Shavers he looked damn near dead. Now, he looked dead against Tyson to, but only because of the combinations he had to endure. Had Shavers had more skill, Holmes would not have got up.

Bigdaddy_Vh
01-04-2010, 05:29 PM
Weird but i have Tyson ranked ahead of Holmes for 80's heavies but behind him in the all time rankings

Slimey Limey
01-04-2010, 05:32 PM
That's because of peer pressure, mate. Try to develop your own opinion and mind.

Sugarj
01-04-2010, 05:41 PM
Interesting quote before by Sonnyboyx2 about the UK afterfight footage. I think Holmes was actually indicating that he would 'never have beaten Mike Tyson' in the condition he was in that night. Thats what his biography seemed to indicate too. That he had a fairly rushed training camp, was 2 years or so ring rusty and was facing a younger, faster Shavers type puncher with an iron jaw!!!

I've heard Holmes say since losing to Tyson that he would have beaten every heavyweight in history in his prime. He wasn't short of ego. I think he said this at the end of the Champions Forever documentary.

Tyson's words seemed genuine, he could be very respectful. It was terrific to see at times.

TheGreatA
01-04-2010, 05:50 PM
Interesting quote before by Sonnyboyx2 about the UK afterfight footage. I think Holmes was actually indicating that he would 'never have beaten Mike Tyson' in the condition he was in that night. Thats what his biography seemed to indicate too. That he had a fairly rushed training camp, was 2 years or so ring rusty and was facing a younger, faster Shavers type puncher with an iron jaw!!!

I've heard Holmes say since losing to Tyson that he would have beaten every heavyweight in history in his prime. He wasn't short of ego. I think he said this at the end of the Champions Forever documentary.

Tyson's words seemed genuine, he could be very respectful. It was terrific to see at times.

I've also heard him say that he could have beaten Larry Holmes when he was 15 years old.

Holmes did some of his best work in the late 1970's (and scored a decent win over Mercer in the 90's) so it's not outrageous to have Tyson ahead of him in the 1980's, yet have Holmes ahead of Tyson all-time.

TheGreatA
01-04-2010, 05:55 PM
I don't know how Holmes was "lucky" against Bonecrusher Smith. Holmes' jab cut him to bits and he was well ahead at the time it was stopped.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ZDg4ZVxk5g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ZDg4ZVxk5g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

them_apples
01-04-2010, 07:12 PM
hows is tis a debate though, they fought in the 80's and Tyson knocked him the fuq out...is the Tyson hate really that huge?

it seems athletes who do bad things outside of there career somehow get rated lower. watch, Tiger woods will suddenly be an average golfer.

One more round
01-04-2010, 08:30 PM
You kidding me? Holmes.

Tyson is so overrated, I can't believe people still hold him upsome sort of beacon of invincibility.

One more round
01-04-2010, 08:32 PM
Well admittedly it is close, but I was very suprised by the lopsided nature of the poll.

JAB5239
01-05-2010, 01:32 AM
Witherspoon, Norton, and Williams. Now I know that you're gonna try to refute these with YOUR opinion mate, as you see yourself as some kind of historian God who is never wrong, but these were all seen as gift decisions by the majority of people not just me. Even some of his losses were close ugly decisions. That's how queer the man fought.

No, they were seen as close fights. He beat both Witherspoon and William, in my opinion, and the Norton fight could have been a draw. The judges however saw fit to give the nod to Holmes in all and thats all that matters. "The majoprity of people", lol, what a joke! The majority of people hated Holmes and WANTED him to lose. Sorry but that doesn't just make it so. And both your opinion and mine are meaningless here since its a FACT he did win those fights.

JAB5239
01-05-2010, 01:35 AM
Ah yes, the first Bonecrusher fight. Indeed he might have lost that one as well. Instead of really dominating Smith like he should have, he went ahead and fought a queer fight like he always did.

Lol, he fought "queer"? This coming from an armchair fan who's never laced a pair of gloves up before. Beautiful, just beautiful!

Slimey Limey
01-05-2010, 10:39 AM
[COLOR="Navy"][FONT="Tahoma"]No, they were seen as close fights.]

Seen as robberies by many. With so many close fights, in such a WEAK era, that tells you how "great" Lar was. An overrated fighter who sometimes gets ranked in the top 3 HW's.

He beat both Witherspoon and William, in my opinion, and the Norton fight could have been a draw.

Your opinion. How many times do I need to tell you mate that a man who's as biased as you has useless opinions?

The judges however saw fit to give the nod to Holmes in all and thats all that matters.

That's all that matters to you. When people rank fighters, they need to look at how dominant a fighter was.
Atleast when Tyson was eating up his weak arse era he left no doubts in his fights unlike Holmes in so many occasions.

"The majoprity of people", lol, what a joke! The majority of people hated Holmes and WANTED him to lose. Sorry but that doesn't just make it so. And both your opinion and mine are meaningless here since its a FACT he did win those fights.

Oh yes, lets forget about every single robbery in boxing history and choose not to talk about them because you become uncomfortable. Lets do that lad.

Lol, he fought "queer"? This coming from an armchair fan who's never laced a pair of gloves up before. Beautiful, just beautiful!

And I'm sure you "beeez dat dude who been boxin fo real"?

Ziggy Stardust
01-05-2010, 02:27 PM
hows is tis a debate though, they fought in the 80's and Tyson knocked him the fuq out...is the Tyson hate really that huge?

it seems athletes who do bad things outside of there career somehow get rated lower. watch, Tiger woods will suddenly be an average golfer.

When you fight them is as important as who you fight. Holmes was clearly past it when he fought Tyson (not to mention other factors) and that's always going to count against a fighter's resume. That's why Lennox doesn't get a whole lot of credit (and shoudn't) for beating a washed-up Tyson; and why that beating against Lennox DOESN'T detract very much from Tyson's credit (and shouldn't).

Poet

JAB5239
01-06-2010, 04:02 AM
Seen as robberies by many. With so many close fights, in such a WEAK era, that tells you how "great" Lar was. An overrated fighter who sometimes gets ranked in the top 3 HW's.

Sorry son, a robbery is when one fighter CLEARLY wins and doesn't get the decision. Please, name a fight where Holmes was CLEARLY beaten only to get the nod. Every champion has had close calls from Ali to Louis to Marciano etc. AM I WRONG?

Your opinion. How many times do I need to tell you mate that a man who's as biased as you has useless opinions?[/QUOTE]

And who's opinion is valued more amongst other fans and historians? Hint......its not you.

[QUOTE]That's all that matters to you. When people rank fighters, they need to look at how dominant a fighter was.
Atleast when Tyson was eating up his weak arse era he left no doubts in his fights unlike Holmes in so many occasions.

Again, out of 20 defenses, how many occasions was it?

Oh yes, lets forget about every single robbery in boxing history and choose not to talk about them because you become uncomfortable. Lets do that lad.

Look, you're a clown. I know it, you know it, everybody else who posts here knows it. We're still waiting for you to name all the heavyweight champions who faced better comp than Louis and were more dominant. Lol, cats had your tongue on that one for months now. I'll tell you what though, pick a subject to debate and I'll happily embarrass you as always. :lol1:

And I'm sure you "beeez dat dude who been boxin fo real"?

Thats right, I use to "beeez dat dude". Never turned pro, but was in the ring with plenty of them. How bout you armchair, what have you ever done?

donkim
01-06-2010, 05:59 AM
Why do you set out your responses like this? It just complicates matters and takes far more time and effort just to organise your qoute to respond to it.

The Iron Man
01-06-2010, 08:14 AM
This is a great question and one ive considered before.

If we are soley looking at the 80s :

Tyson: Overall 80s Record - 37-0-0

Holmes : Overall 80s Record - 16-3-0

I would favour Tyson, he was totally dominant in the 80s steamrolling past opponents. Where as Holmes was passing his peak years around 83-85. Overall as heavyweights i would say Holmes ranks above Tyson. But there are few (if any) heavyweights that were as dominant as Tyson was in the 80s.

Slimey Limey
01-06-2010, 08:51 AM
[QUOTE]
Sorry son, a robbery is when one fighter CLEARLY wins and doesn't get the decision. Please, name a fight where Holmes was CLEARLY beaten only to get the nod. Every champion has had close calls from Ali to Louis to Marciano etc. AM I WRONG?

Barely or clearly is the same thing as a win. The point is that Holmes had too many fights were he left doubts on wether he actually won without a doubt. That deminishes his so called greatness and leaves him way outside the top 5 ATGs. That is of cource not uncluding you, since you wouldn't know what objective means if I slapped it across your face with both hands, mate.

And who's opinion is valued more amongst other fans and historians? Hint......its not you.

There are none in this website. Unless you think your fellow Louis arse lickers qualify as historians:luvbed: And I know i'm not very loved by them, mate.

Again, out of 20 defenses, how many occasions was it?

They were already mentioned in this thread, old man. I know you're slow and everything has to be repeated to you so you understand what's going on, but I'll let you do the work. It's good for you.

Look, you're a clown. I know it, you know it, everybody else who posts here knows it. We're still waiting for you to name all the heavyweight champions who faced better comp than Louis and were more dominant. Lol, cats had your tongue on that one for months now. I'll tell you what though, pick a subject to debate and I'll happily embarrass you as always.

That one stung didn't it mate? You went completely off topic on an emotional rant here. I think I did my job yet again. I broke you down.
Next time don't debate me like a woman. Think with your brain(as slow as it is with your age, but still) and not your feelings.

Thats right, I use to "beeez dat dude". Never turned pro, but was in the ring with plenty of them. How bout you armchair, what have you ever done?


Ah, now we know that this lad isn't just a tough guy on the internet, but he was a real fighter ladies and gentleman. Educate us more on your boxing legacy mate, we want to know what a killer you were in the ring.

Slimey Limey
01-06-2010, 08:52 AM
Why do you set out your responses like this? It just complicates matters and takes far more time and effort just to organise your qoute to respond to it.

Him and Poet not only debate like women, but they need to have their letters in a pretty color to make their words somehow more significant haha.

GJC
01-06-2010, 04:25 PM
Don't think you can give thier fight in 88 much weight in the argument although I would have favoured Tyson at any time from 85 ish as Holmes was slipping. Few have mentioned that Tyson gets the nod for the 80's and Holmes ranks better all time, that seems pretty fair to me. Prime for prime I'd fancy Holmes in a match up overall.
As for the close fights of Holmes, I think Witherspoon could count himself unlucky but I would have given Holmes the nod over Norton and Williams. Bonecrusher I didn't really see as close at all.

JAB5239
01-07-2010, 12:02 AM
Barely or clearly is the same thing as a win. The point is that Holmes had too many fights were he left doubts on wether he actually won without a doubt. That deminishes his so called greatness and leaves him way outside the top 5 ATGs. That is of cource not uncluding you, since you wouldn't know what objective means if I slapped it across your face with both hands, mate.

Lots of great fighters have had close fights throughout their careers yet you choose to single out fighters you don't like personally. Imagine you having the nerve to say Im not objective. Pathetic!



There are none in this website. Unless you think your fellow Louis arse lickers qualify as historians:luvbed: And I know i'm not very loved by them, mate.

There are plenty of them here, they just don't agree with you. Neither do these more universally known historians.


Bert Sugar, 1991

1.

Jack Dempsey
2.

Joe Louis
3.

Muhammad Ali
4.

Jack Johnson
5.

Gene Tunney
6.

Rocky Marciano
7.

Joe Frazier
8.

Larry Holmes
9.

Sonny Liston
10.

Mike Tyson


Arthur Harris, 1992 (Nov 1992 Boxing Scene)

1.

Muhammad Ali
2.

Joe Louis
3.

Jack Dempsey
4.

Jack Johnson
5.

Gene Tunney
6.

Rocky Marciano
7.

Larry Holmes
8.

Jersey Joe Walcott
9.

Joe Frazier
10.

Sonny Liston


Nigel Collins, 1997

1.

Muhammad Ali
2.

Joe Louis
3.

Evander Holyfield
4.

Larry Holmes
5.

George Foreman
6.

Jack Johnson
7.

Rocky Marciano
8.

Joe Frazier
9.

Jack Dempsey
10.

Sonny Liston


Herbert Goldman, 1997

1.

Muhammad Ali
2.

Joe Louis
3.

Sonny Liston
4.

Mike Tyson
5.

Larry Holmes
6.

Jack Johnson
7.

Jack Dempsey
8.

George Foreman
9.

Rocky Marciano
10.

Joe Frazier


Steve Farhood, 1997

1.

Muhammad Ali
2.

Joe Louis
3.

Jack Johnson
4.

Larry Holmes
5.

Rocky Marciano
6.

Jack Dempsey
7.

Jim Jeffries
8.

Evander Holyfield
9.

Mike Tyson
10.

George Foreman


BBC Sports, 2004

1.

Muhammad Ali
2.

Joe Louis
3.

Jack Johnson
4.

Larry Holmes
5.

Jack Dempsey
6.

Rocky Marciano
7.

Lennox Lewis
8.

Mike Tyson
9.

George Foreman
10.

Evander Holyfield


IBRO Member Poll, 2005

1.

Joe Louis
2.

Muhammad Ali
3.

Jack Johnson
4.

Jack Dempsey
5.

Rocky Marciano
6.

Larry Holmes
7.

James Jeffries
8.

George Foreman
9.

Sonny Liston
10.

Joe Frazier


ESPN, 2007

1.

Joe Louis
2.

Muhammad Ali
3.

Jack Dempsey
4.

Jack Johnson
5.

Gene Tunney
6.

Rocky Marciano
7.

Ezzard Charles
8.

George Foreman
9.

Joe Frazier
10.

Larry Holmes


Richard O'Brien (SI Senior Editor) 2009

1.

Muhammad Ali
2.

Joe Louis
3.

Sonny Liston
4.

Larry Holmes
5.

Jack Johnson
6.

Jack Dempsey
7.

George Foreman
8.

Joe Frazier
9.

Rocky Marciano
10.

Lennox Lewis


That one stung didn't it mate? You went completely off topic on an emotional rant here. I think I did my job yet again. I broke you down.
Next time don't debate me like a woman. Think with your brain(as slow as it is with your age, but still) and not your feelings.

Nah, Im not going off topic. Just proving a point that you make all sorts of crazy claims yet refuse to back them up. Its a fact, thats why I've made you famous bu putting you in my sig.


Ah, now we know that this lad isn't just a tough guy on the internet, but he was a real fighter ladies and gentleman. Educate us more on your boxing legacy mate, we want to know what a killer you were in the ring.

If I had any respect for you I'd tell you everything. I don't though so I won't. Anyone else who wants to know my background in this sport is welcome to PM me. If I know and respect you, no prob. If I don't I'll politely decline until I feel more comfortable talking to you about my personal life.

Slimey Limey
01-07-2010, 10:42 AM
Lots of great fighters have had close fights throughout their careers yet you choose to single out fighters you don't like personally. Imagine you having the nerve to say Im not objective. Pathetic!

That's exactly why I am objective. I bring balance to the forum.
You know why I single out those 2? Because nobody else has/had the bollocks to say it about them. It has become blasphemy to say something negative about them. So the site needs someone like me.


There are plenty of them here, they just don't agree with you. Neither do these more universally known historians.

Name me the boxing historians on this website.

And thank you for proving me earlier point. I already said that the myth about Gay Robinson was started by the old timers, and kept alive by the new generation because they'll eat anything up.

Nah, Im not going off topic. Just proving a point that you make all sorts of crazy claims yet refuse to back them up. Its a fact, thats why I've made you famous bu putting you in my sig.

Read that part again. It had nothing to do with the topic and you talked about things in the past as well. You became too emotional, and proved it by reporting me today because of this thread. I didn't know you were this sensitive mate.


If I had any respect for you I'd tell you everything. I don't though so I won't. Anyone else who wants to know my background in this sport is welcome to PM me. If I know and respect you, no prob. If I don't I'll politely decline until I feel more comfortable talking to you about my personal life.

Then why did you bring it up chap? This is the same lad that claimed I didn't want to talk about something even though I brought it up, yet you're blatantly doing the same thing here.
So another tough guy attempt failed miserably here mate.

JAB5239
01-07-2010, 03:38 PM
That's exactly why I am objective. I bring balance to the forum.
You know why I single out those 2? Because nobody else has/had the bollocks to say it about them. It has become blasphemy to say something negative about them. So the site needs someone like me.


Speaking the truth is fine. Trying to force illogical opinions and flat out lying is what you do, and its been proven time and time again. This site would be better off if you weren't here, but its nice to have something to kick around from time to time.

Name me the boxing historians on this website.

Im not going to make a list of the better one on this board because I don't want to insult anyone by forgetting them. Bottom line though, everybody who studies boxing history is a boxing historian. Some are just more knowledgeable than others.

And thank you for proving me earlier point. I already said that the myth about Gay Robinson was started by the old timers, and kept alive by the new generation because they'll eat anything up.

Lol, so its being KEPT ALIVE by people who will eat anything up? Why can't it be that the majority of people just see the same things in him and his career?

Read that part again. It had nothing to do with the topic and you talked about things in the past as well. You became too emotional, and proved it by reporting me today because of this thread. I didn't know you were this sensitive mate.

Look at you, still trying to to do anything to avoid explaining your reasoning. Sad.

Then why did you bring it up chap? This is the same lad that claimed I didn't want to talk about something even though I brought it up, yet you're blatantly doing the same thing here.
So another tough guy attempt failed miserably here mate.


I never brought me up, you did.

Slimey Limey
01-07-2010, 06:31 PM
Speaking the truth is fine. Trying to force illogical opinions and flat out lying is what you do, and its been proven time and time again. This site would be better off if you weren't here, but its nice to have something to kick around from time to time.

"Forcing" now? If anything you lads are the ones trying to force the same nuthugging ideals to everybody else who doesn't kiss certain fighters' arses. Don't worry, I won't be following you around trying to change your mind mate. Don't get paranoid like thegreatA-hole now.

Im not going to make a list of the better one on this board because I don't want to insult anyone by forgetting them. Bottom line though, everybody who studies boxing history is a boxing historian. Some are just more knowledgeable than others.

I will ask again: Name me the boxing historians on this website.
Don't refuse. You're always trying to rag on me for not trying to waste me time answering your petty questions.

Lol, so its being KEPT ALIVE by people who will eat anything up? Why can't it be that the majority of people just see the same things in him and his career?

The majority of people haven't even seen his fights. They'll just buy into the hype and be too affraid to disagree with you Hyenas.


Look at you, still trying to to do anything to avoid explaining your reasoning. Sad.

How about you EXPLAIN to me who the boxing historians on this website are, mate? Or how much of a killer you were as a fighter. Or why Gay is better than Louis. Hypocrisy much.

I never brought me up, you did.

You, the TOUGH GUY, was the one that brought up the fact that you beeez a fighter for real, trying to make up for your insecurities.

DeepSleep
01-08-2010, 12:59 AM
I think Tyson did more in the eighties than Holmes did. I would fancy prime Holmes over prime Tyson though. I agree with Poet's reasoning that you can't put too much weight into Holmes loss to Tyson just like you can't put too much weight into Tyson's loss to Lennox.

crold1
02-20-2010, 03:53 PM
No, they were seen as close fights. He beat both Witherspoon and William, in my opinion, and the Norton fight could have been a draw. The judges however saw fit to give the nod to Holmes in all and thats all that matters. "The majoprity of people", lol, what a joke! The majority of people hated Holmes and WANTED him to lose. Sorry but that doesn't just make it so. And both your opinion and mine are meaningless here since its a FACT he did win those fights.

Funny thing with Norton was that he won the 15th and I still think he decisively lost. Holmes won most of the first ten rounds as it took Norton a while to really get into it and had Norton hurt bad in the 13th. Great, great fight though.

Obama
02-20-2010, 04:00 PM
If we just evaluate the fighters career in the 80s and the 80s alone, then I have to go with Mike Tyson. Overall career, Larry Holmes.

CarlosG815
02-20-2010, 08:18 PM
Tyson was the most dominant fighter during the 80's. The only other boxer to do for the sport what he did was Ali, and they did it in two totally different ways. Ali by being the "mouth" and Tyson by spectacular knockouts and decimation of all opponents.

Tyson beats a prime Holmes by KO under 8.

I've always read about Holmes and heard people talk about what a great boxer he is, and I've watched at least 20 of his fights, and I don't see what was so great about him. Pretty lame to watch if you ask me, even when he would dominate people.

I think when it comes to these old greats it's a thing of nostalgia more than anything else. Was Holmes really that great? I don't think so, but that's just me.

Tyson cemented his dominance by killing people in the ring. So Holmes outjabbed a bunch of guys and won some decisions. :gives:

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2010, 08:52 PM
Tyson was the most dominant fighter during the 80's. The only other boxer to do for the sport what he did was Ali, and they did it in two totally different ways. Ali by being the "mouth" and Tyson by spectacular knockouts and decimation of all opponents.

Tyson beats a prime Holmes by KO under 8.

I've always read about Holmes and heard people talk about what a great boxer he is, and I've watched at least 20 of his fights, and I don't see what was so great about him. Pretty lame to watch if you ask me, even when he would dominate people.

I think when it comes to these old greats it's a thing of nostalgia more than anything else. Was Holmes really that great? I don't think so, but that's just me.

Tyson cemented his dominance by killing people in the ring. So Holmes outjabbed a bunch of guys and won some decisions. :gives:

Yep! I had you pegged right on the money: Another fan-boi who overrates knockout punchers and pulls his pud over tomato cans hitting the canvas :ugh:

Poet

CarlosG815
02-20-2010, 09:36 PM
Yep! I had you pegged right on the money: Another fan-boi who overrates knockout punchers and pulls his pud over tomato cans hitting the canvas :ugh:

Poet


Eat this tomata' can!
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0901/history.january22/images/tyson-holmes.jpg

Now take a nap.
http://www.supersportscenter.com/images/product/icon/1284.jpg

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2010, 09:45 PM
Eat this tomata' can! Now take a nap.

PLEASE DADDY I'LL BE A GOOD BOY!

http://jr3134.k12.sd.us/Year/buster-douglas-mike-tyson-knockout.jpg

boxingfan4lif
02-20-2010, 09:51 PM
Who do you got?

Tyson is one of those RARE BREED of fighters, Like Manny Pacquiao. This guys are ONE in EVERY GENERATION.

just telling the TRUTH

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5v0vl6iTlC4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5v0vl6iTlC4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HliNmW06zfc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HliNmW06zfc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uksSKeYGlUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uksSKeYGlUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>

CarlosG815
02-20-2010, 09:59 PM
PLEASE DADDY I'LL BE A GOOD BOY!

http://jr3134.k12.sd.us/Year/buster-douglas-mike-tyson-knockout.jpg

My pic implies Tyson is better than Holmes.

My implication is at least debatable.

Are you insinuating that Buster is better than Tyson? I need some of what you're on.

As usual, you bring nothing to a debate, just take cheap shots at people who don't agree with you.

them_apples
02-20-2010, 10:00 PM
Funny thing with Norton was that he won the 15th and I still think he decisively lost. Holmes won most of the first ten rounds as it took Norton a while to really get into it and had Norton hurt bad in the 13th. Great, great fight though.

Norton had some success in the mid rounds but he didn't beat Holmes. He almost got stopped at one point even.

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2010, 10:06 PM
Tyson is one of those RARE BREED of fighters, Like Manny Pacquiao. This guys are ONE in EVERY GENERATION.

just telling the TRUTH

Drink the potion son :trink26:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h298/tweetay/grape_koolaid.jpg

them_apples
02-20-2010, 10:08 PM
Tyson defined the Hw division in the 80's. He battered Holmes and smashed the man that beat Holmes twice. not much of a debate here. Holmes kinda took over that lull after Ali left.

I have a hard time picking him over any of the other ATG's. Even norton at his peak might have been able to edge Holmes out. Frazier I'd most certainly pick over Holmes as well. (Holmes lackluster defense being the factor here). Foreman I'd pick him to stop Holmes.

EDIT: I'd pick Holmes over Lewis, and a slew of other good, near great fighters however.

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2010, 10:15 PM
My pic implies Tyson is better than Holmes.

My implication is at least debatable.

Are you insinuating that Buster is better than Tyson? I need some of what you're on.

As usual, you bring nothing to a debate, just take cheap shots at people who don't agree with you.

PLEASE MR. HOLYFIELD DON'T HURT ME NO MORE!

http://myboxingfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/box_g_tyson_holyfield_580.jpg

As usual, you bring nothing to a debate, just simpering hero-worshipping nuthuggery. Dude, you got a hammerlock on Leg-Iron Mike's gonads so hard you're embarrassing your fellow nuthuggers :rofl:

Poet

Verstyle
02-20-2010, 10:16 PM
IMO i had Holmes beating Witherspoon, but i had him losing to Williams & Norton, i also thought he was very fortunate against Bonecrusher Smith (1).... This is a tough call between Tyson & Homes.. but when i think about Holmes vs Spinks/Tyson vs Spinks/Tyson vs Homes... i gotta go with Mighty Mike.

Holmes vs Tyson ITV version.. in the ring after the fight when interviewed by Reg Gutteridge Holmes says,"i could never have beaten Mike Tyson"... The HBO version when Tyson was interviewed in the ring said,"if Holmes was in his prime i wouldn`t have stood a chance".... 2 great sportsmen

You should hear Holmes talk about Mike when Mikes Ringside was on. He was going crazy, saying if he was younger he would of won, he got his hand stuck in the ropes.

CarlosG815
02-20-2010, 10:16 PM
In your list you have Holmes over Frazier and Tyson.

Verstyle
02-20-2010, 10:22 PM
I can see that fight like the Tyson- Tillis fight, lot of jabs from Holmes. I think he can frustrate Tyson a lot. I have it 7-5 Tyson due to Tysons ring aggression that would edge him the win.

them_apples
02-21-2010, 12:18 AM
I can see that fight like the Tyson- Tillis fight, lot of jabs from Holmes. I think he can frustrate Tyson a lot. I have it 7-5 Tyson due to Tysons ring aggression that would edge him the win.

you also have to keep in mind that a top fighter brings his A game to his biggest fights.

I mean, Ali lost to spinks because he didn't bring his A game. Generally, good boxers realy push themselves in big fights.

Style wise Michael Spinks should have been able to do what Tillis did only much better. Same goes for Holmes. You can bet Tyson really prepared himself for those fights, just like Ali did against Foreman. Watching Ali prior to the Foreman fight I wouldn't have given him a chance at all.

CarlosG815
02-21-2010, 01:41 AM
PLEASE MR. HOLYFIELD DON'T HURT ME NO MORE!

As usual, you bring nothing to a debate, just simpering hero-worshipping nuthuggery. Dude, you got a hammerlock on Leg-Iron Mike's gonads so hard you're embarrassing your fellow nuthuggers
Poet

Damn I'm good. I beat all the washups Tyson knocked out 3 years ago. I'mma bad ass. Uh oh, now I got my ass kicked by mediocre competition. Maybe I'm not the real deal after all. I hit like a cruiser weight, but why'd the Lawd give'd me such a big dome?
http://blogs.sohh.com/atlanta/evander-holyfield15.jpg

I got's an idea! A feather fisted ***** like me can throw my monstrous dome around and have a chance at being THE REAL DEAL CONTENDER!!!

Eat this!
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/carlosg815/headbutt1.jpg

"hehe ref thought it was a accident. You like dat dome Mikey? lol Sry"
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/carlosg815/headbutt2.jpg

"LOL he pissed off now, I got dis in the bag. OH NOES MEH EAR!!!"

::And he goes on. A true champion, holding onto his title for his next 3 fights before losing it::

"Damn I'm a bum. 1 win in my last 5 fights. These fella's is learnin bout meh dome!!

I'mma have to train hard for my next fight!"

::And so it goes. Evander trains day after day, slamming his head against a wall. He gets dumber, but his head all the stronger, ready to do some serious cranial damage to his next opponent::

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/boxing/news/2002/06/01/rahman_holyfield_ap/lg_rahman_all.jpg

"Sorry Hasim, it was an accident."

"Damn that was close barely pulled off this win and damn near split that mans skull in two! I gotsa train harda!!"

::But his attempts were futile, as he got his ass kicked in his next 3 fights. The toll his cranium took from the countless butt's throughout his career was undeniable. Unfortunately, the damage suffered to his own brain leads him to believe he can still fight.::

Ziggy Stardust
02-21-2010, 11:05 AM
Damn I'm good. I beat all the washups Tyson knocked out 3 years ago. I'mma bad ass. Uh oh, now I got my ass kicked by mediocre competition. Maybe I'm not the real deal after all. I hit like a cruiser weight, but why'd the Lawd give'd me such a big dome?

I got's an idea! A feather fisted ***** like me can throw my monstrous dome around and have a chance at being THE REAL DEAL CONTENDER!!!

Eat this!

"hehe ref thought it was a accident. You like dat dome Mikey? lol Sry"

"LOL he pissed off now, I got dis in the bag. OH NOES MEH EAR!!!"

::And he goes on. A true champion, holding onto his title for his next 3 fights before losing it::

"Damn I'm a bum. 1 win in my last 5 fights. These fella's is learnin bout meh dome!!

I'mma have to train hard for my next fight!"

::And so it goes. Evander trains day after day, slamming his head against a wall. He gets dumber, but his head all the stronger, ready to do some serious cranial damage to his next opponent::

"Sorry Hasim, it was an accident."

"Damn that was close barely pulled off this win and damn near split that mans skull in two! I gotsa train harda!!"

::But his attempts were futile, as he got his ass kicked in his next 3 fights. The toll his cranium took from the countless butt's throughout his career was undeniable. Unfortunately, the damage suffered to his own brain leads him to believe he can still fight.::

:bottle: Awwwww, here come the excuses from the Tyson KoolAid Drinkers :trink26: Drink that potion Junior!

Poet

GameGod
02-21-2010, 03:37 PM
I would take Tyson very narrowly due to his immense dominance in these periods. Had it been a prime Holmes, the prospect of a fight would have been mouth-watering, but I would go with Tyson by U.D..

The Iron Man
02-21-2010, 06:34 PM
You should hear Holmes talk about Mike when Mikes Ringside was on. He was going crazy, saying if he was younger he would of won, he got his hand stuck in the ropes.


Haha you gotta love that, i remember watching that and just laughing. He said something of the line of i was lining him up for the uppercut and got my arm caught in the ropes which left me open!!

ZONE
02-21-2010, 06:40 PM
:bottle: Awwwww, here come the excuses from the Tyson KoolAid Drinkers :trink26: Drink that potion Junior!

Poet

This is exactly what the self-proclaimed poet does. He tries to back out of an argument that he starts.

crold1
02-21-2010, 06:51 PM
A case could be made for either guy really. Holmes best period in the 80s, 80-82, was just as good as Tyson's late 86-89. They were both dominant, both won a MEGA fight, but stylistically are different so the means to ends are different. Because he was at and then passing peak, we have the end of Holmes best years happening in the decade too whereas Tyson's fall doesn't start until the 90s (depending on how one counts decades; technically it would be 81-90 but it's not done that way for sports awards stuff).

In retrospect, because I believe Holmes to be the better and greater fighter, I might look at the early 80s as giving him an edge but Tyson's late 80s run is why he's going to the Hall next year.

A better debate might be who was the third best of the decade...does Evander's late 80s run trump Witherspoon's decade?

CarlosG815
02-21-2010, 07:17 PM
This is exactly what the self-proclaimed poet does. He tries to back out of an argument that he starts.

As long as you agree with his top 20 list you won't hear a peep from him. I've never seen a 41 year old guy act so childish and say the things he does in my entire life, and I've been on a lot of forums throughout the years.

His post habits speak volumes about his life, and to be honest I sincerely feel sympathy for him, so I don't give him a hard time.