Why do certain fighters get a pass?

[CarlosG815]

When it comes to fighting in a weak era?

It seems that Mike Tyson gets a lot of flack for fighting in a weak era of heavyweights, yet he dominated the opposition in impressive brutal knockout fashion.

Yet a fighter like Larry Holmes, who fought in an arguably weaker division gets a lot of credit and praise, yet his opposition was worse, and he lost to a good fighter in Spinks, and the best fighter he faced in Tyson brutally knocked him out.

What is this based on? He did not handle his opposition more impressively, so why is he so highly regarded?

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Holmes should get more criticism of his opposition. I've often said that.

However, while both of them fought in a weak era, Holmes did what was expected of him, & that was sit atop the mountain for a very long time --- Tyson should absolutely have done no worse, but his reign extended to two years, & encompassed two fights. That's pretty stark when compared with Holmes' long tenure.

[CarlosG815]

Holmes should get more criticism of his opposition. I've often said that.

However, while both of them fought in a weak era, Holmes did what was expected of him, & that was sit atop the mountain for a very long time --- Tyson should absolutely have done no worse, but his reign extended to two years, & encompassed two fights. That's pretty stark when compared with Holmes' long tenure.

I've often thought it to be something like this:

Many people feel Tyson is over rated, so they're quick to criticize.

Many people feel that Holmes is underrated, so they're quick to give him credit he may not necessarily deserve.

Tyson still dominated after his loss to Douglas, up until he went to prison.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

You can't dominate the division unless the belt's around your waist, as I see it. You gotta be on top to dominate, & really, looking back, it was a miracle Tyson didn't reclaim the championship. The fact he managed to mangle that was a taste of things to come, in regards to the shocking mismanagement of his career.

The deeper we delve into Holmes' opposition list, the softer he looks as a title-holder. Believe me, he definitely gets a decent shake of the stick from his fans --- no argument there. However, you just cannot ignore that, with much the same rivals, Holmes had seven or eight years at the top, & Tyson, just two.

[Scott9945]

IMO Holmes fought in a deeper division. The problem was that he skipped too many top opponents. Some of his title defense opponents were atrocious. Tyson did sweep out all the contenders in the late 1980's. Same with Marciano, Klitschko's, etc. They fought in even weaker eras.

[NChristo]

Tyson did sweep out all the contenders in the late 1980's.

Would of liked too see him fight Witherspoon..

[Scott9945]

Would of liked too see him fight Witherspoon..

Yes, but the same Witherspoon also never got a well deserved rematch from Holmes.

[Sugarj]

Would of liked too see him fight Witherspoon..

He would have fought Witherspoon had he not been stopped in the first round by Bonecrusher Smith......who Tyson won a lopsided decision against.

Hell if Bonecrusher could stop Spoon in one round, fluke or not.....you'd have to give Tyson a shot at a stoppage win.

[Great John L]

People generally give Larry more praise becauseof his holding the title much longer with many more defenses. While not nearly as popular as Mike Tyson of 1985-1990Holmes didn't experience drama with his career and relationships with his family/managers/trainers. Also, there is a general consensus among some fans that Larry is underrated while some tend to believe that Mike Tyson has been overrated. I think that to some degree Mike Tyson is overrated and Larry Holmes underrated. As a fighter Mike was more exciting to watch and left the viewers with a feeling of awe and wodner. Larry tended to put people to sleep with drawn out 15 round decisions over uninteresting opponents when the general public always appreciates a KO artist of immense strength. Overall Larry had a better career, but I would say that Mike Tyson has a more famous/interesting legacy through everything that's happened in his life. But just going on conduct in the ring and out, Larry just had it all together when Mike didn't.

[Sugarj]

When it comes to fighting in a weak era?

It seems that Mike Tyson gets a lot of flack for fighting in a weak era of heavyweights, yet he dominated the opposition in impressive brutal knockout fashion.

Yet a fighter like Larry Holmes, who fought in an arguably weaker division gets a lot of credit and praise, yet his opposition was worse, and he lost to a good fighter in Spinks, and the best fighter he faced in Tyson brutally knocked him out.

What is this based on? He did not handle his opposition more impressively, so why is he so highly regarded?

It may just be me, but I didn't think the 80s were all that weak. I think we were a little spoilt by the 70s and to be honest, the 90s were pretty good too. But some of those alphabet boys from the 80s were pretty useful.

I watched Holyfield vs Dokes recently from the late 80s.......and I tell you what, Dokes was damn good. He makes the average contender of today look like a joke. Many of the 80s heavyweights on their night would give the Klitschkos a really tough time.

On their day the following were very useful heavyweights:

Gerry Cooney
Michael Dokes
John Tate
Bonecrusher Smith (check out the Holmes and Witherspoon fights)
Tim Witherspoon
Carl Williams (check out the Holmes fight)
James Quick Tillis
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tucker
Buster Douglas

And I've missed a few too, Michael Spinks for one Duh! The problem was that Holmes and Tyson were a good head and shoulders above the rest (who were largely at a similar level........which is why there was so much belt swapping). Many of these guys would have scored useful wins in the 70s or 90s. Would anyone pick the Buster Douglas who beat Tyson to beat 1974 Foreman? I'd give him an honest shot if he could weather the early storm.

Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson are two of my favorites. Their talents are plain to see. Tyson obviously handled some guys like Spinks and Williams better than Holmes because he had much greater power. Holmes's skills were in his jab, combination work and defense........at times he was art, clearly one of the best heavyweights of all time.