Best HW of the 80s - Tyson or Holmes?

[them_apples]

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.

[Suckmedry]

You kidding me? Holmes.

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

[Suckmedry]

Well admittedly it is close, but I was very suprised by the lopsided nature of the poll.

[JAB5239]

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 ***** 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]

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 ***** fight like he always did.

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

[Slimey Limey]

[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 "*****"? 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"?

[StarshipTrooper]

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]

[QUOTE]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.