Who was a greater boxer Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson ?

[FinitoxDinamita]

Id Larry Holmes given his consistency against top oppositions, but I wouldn't disagree with somebody who says otherwise. When you look at their peaks, Tyson looks out of this world and it's tough to name three fighters who can beat him confidently. Cus D'Amato programmed him and groomed Tyson into a near perfect Boxing machine.

[15round]

I go with Holmes. He knew how to survive in the ring and win. He was a winner. A younger Holmes would be too much for Tyson. By the fifth round Tyson would go into survival mode.

[Silence]

The problem is Tyson beat Holmes too easy. Holmes was past prime but his style was the same. I don't know what could do younger Holmes better than his older version except withstanding a few more rounds.

As an answer to the question, Holmes. He is Tyson's best win by margin.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

In terms of technical ability Holmes by a country mile.

[TheIronMike]

Got Larry higher on my TOP 10 HW list.

Larry is in the top 5, whilst tyson is around 7 or 8

[Hooded Terror]

To the OP, define "greater". Some thoughts, though. A prime Tyson would tear through foes looking near invincible, where at times, Holmes would struggle. But therein lies the beauty of Holmes. He'd hit the deck, wake up and shine. Another thought. When Tyson hurt and finished Holmes in the 4th of their classic showdown, Holmes really made Tyson work for it. Many of his tactics seemed to frustrate Tyson leading up to the knockdown and thereafter. It could be argued a prime 210lb, non-rusty Holmes would have had that half second advantage over the rusty, 225lb 38 year-old and put his stuff together better to avoid being finished.

Credit to Tyson for taking on Pinklon Thomas. Holmes wouldn't.

[PRINCEKOOL]

Peak for peak on pure performance, Mike Tyson reached a higher level.

Also? People speak of Mike Tyson as if he was a lesser Champion 'Right now there is no current active Heavyweight who statistically is a greater Champion than Mike Tyson'.

Not statistically or even on pure performance 'When Mike Tyson blasted out Michael Spinks, we have not witnessed a fighter in this modern era duplicate that type of level 'Spinks was a Olympic Champion, Undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion, and IBF World Heavyweight Champion' And had beaten Larry Holmes twice, whether one of the fights was close 'Fact of the matter is he fought Holmes twice and got the win'.

Relevant of those times, Spinks was the Usyk of that era 'Mike Tyson blasted Spinks in just over 90 seconds'.

Currently right now apparently there is some monster called Tyson Fury, who still has not signed to fight Uysk.

Mike Tyson was the first Heavyweight to Unify all the Heavyweight titles 'Undisputed Heavyweight Champion, unequivocally the best Heavyweight of his era at a certain point'.

In total Mike Tyson had 16 World Championship fights.

He recorded a total of 12 wins at World Championship level.

He recorded a total of 10 successful Championship defenses.

Not only was Mike Tyson a great fighter in terms of ability, he was a great Champion. We also need to factor in how he won his world titles and defended them.

Out of the 12 wins a World Championship level, 10 of those wins were won via Knock out.

Even still Larry Holmes as a Champion is most likely rated higher 'Larry Holmes is one of the greatest Heavyweights of all-times'.

Note: People need to understand, that there is current no Heavyweight active right now who even comes close to Mike Tyson or Larry Holmes. People can fantasize about head to head match ups, but Tyson Fury as a Champion has only achieved 3 World Championship defenses 'And has record a total of 5 Championship fights'.

[IronDanHamza]

Definitely Holmes.

[Willy Wanker]

Bigger fan of Tyson, but I rank Holmes higher.

[Marchegiano]

The problem is Tyson beat Holmes too easy. Holmes was past prime but his style was the same. I don't know what could do younger Holmes better than his older version except withstanding a few more rounds.

As an answer to the question, Holmes. He is Tyson's best win by margin.

Truth, people say age like that alone is an excuse to lose. It's so accepted no one seems to feel the need to qualify age with a list of what had slipped.

Holmes was old, no need to claim his chin had gone, or his reflexes, or speed, or timing, nothing. Just age.

It's only a good argument if you're claiming something actually deteriorated due to age. Age itself is no reason to lose a fight.