Probably Tyson as he never lost in the 80s and fought all comers, being extremely convincing while doing so, whereas Holmes avoided a couple of challengers and struggled with some. Holmes had the overall better career, but Tyson was the man of the 80s Btw I voted for Holmes
Tyson left a bigger impact on the history of the sport but it is clear that Holmes had more ability than Tyson. He would have beaten Tyson silly if he was in his prime.
A prime holmes beats a prime tyson imo. Had probably the best jab in his era and possibly in boxing history. He would have had the tools to beat tyson.
Clear to who? You? Not clear to me. Tyson had incredible ability. Top three all time fastest hands for a Heavyweight. Power spoke for itself. In his prime he had great head movement also. Solid chin. Prime for Prime, I may still pick Tyson in a head to head to be honest with you. Who did Holmes beat that prepared him to beat Tyson..silly? Norton? Cooney?
Holmes had a pretty ideal style for Tyson. Mike gives him an exceptionally hard fight at any point. In fact I'd pick Tyson.
It's a fair debate. I would pick Holmes in a prime-for-prime battle, but Tyson has every chance to prove me wrong, & definitely would get his chances. Tyson would be by far & away Holmes' most dangerous & capable opponent --- & the first top-notch finisher he faced in his prime (there wasn't a single one on Holmes' ledger through all his reign). It'd be close. As for the more pertinent issue regarding the question --- namely, who achieved more --- that's a fair debate, too. Between them, they almost perfectly cover the two halves of the decade. Holmes was champion, largely untested & unchallenged, from 1980-85. Tyson didn't actually clinch the title-proper until 1988, but his presence was immediately known, from 1985-onward. He swept the back-end of that decade as Holmes fell from grace by decimating the field. Thinking about it, I might say Tyson edges him out. Holmes' resume is really no better, & he had a few close shaves Tyson didn't. Tyson also unified the belts, something Holmes would not do. I'll vote Tyson, but it's tough.
Hmmm... Larry Holmes' Record Up til 1990 was 45-3, 35 KO's...He Beat Shavers (2x), Norton, Ocasio, Evangelista, Weaver, LeDoux, Ali, Berbick, Spinks, Cooney, Cobb, Witherspoon, Bonecrusher, Carl the Truth & Other Lesser Fighters.... Tyson's Record Up Until 1990 was 36-0, 32 KO's...He Beat Ferguson, Tillis, Green, Berbick, Boncrusher, Pinklon, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno & Carl the Truth... Holmes has SLIGHTLY More DEPTH to his List of Opponents but the Thing is, he was Nearly KO'ed by Shavers & Renaldo Snipes...Moreso, Holmes had the CLOSE Call w/Norton & Arguably LOST to Tim Witherspoon (& Carl the Truth, to a LESSER Degree)....Holmes Also NEVER Fought Michael Dokes, Greg Page or Gerrie Coetzee, who were All PERENNIAL Contenders of his Era... On the Flipside, Tyson WIPED HIS ASS w/Everyone in his Wake....He was UNDISPUTED Champion & Left NO Stones Unturned in the Name of Opponents...On Paper AND In Memory, Mike Tyson was the TOP Heavyweight of the 80's.... REED:hammert:
Mike for sure. At his PEAK, there aren't too many heavyweights I would take to beat him. Including Holmes. Mike also accomplished more than Larry. And he DOMINATED everyone he was in there against and he did it in style. Holmes didn't always do that. My vote goes to Mike.
If we are talking just 1980s, I'd be inclined to give the nod to Tyson, because I think Larry was at his peak in the late 70s and very early 80s... Head to head, I think Larry would beat Mike at his best but I think Tyson's absolute best years are concentrated in the 1980s where Larry was a better fighter in 1978 or 1979 than he was at any period during the 80s... so I'd have to vote Tyson for this thread
Sure...taking their entire careers into account, I have Holmes streets ahead of Tyson for achievements. Streets. However, answering the question specifically, involving 1980-89, I'd give a fairly close advantage to Tyson.
Tyson had a hard time tracking old Larry down when they fought. He would have been schooled by Holmes and with his penchant for meltdown in adverse conditions, he would find a way to lose.
I think that's a little harsh (the assessment of Tyson pursuing Holmes, not his fragile mental state). Tyson was still just a fairly-inexperienced, rather young man going up against a living legend. We should expect some degree of awe & trepidation to seep into the young up-&-comer. I don't believe Joe Louis, for instance, would've lasted eight rounds with Rocky Marciano had they fought again a few months later (just as Charles, Walcott & LaStarza could not hang with Marciano for as long on return). Tyson showed respect to Holmes, & had a little trouble negotiating the jab, but at no point was he really ever tested, or in even the slimmest danger of losing the fight. Once he found Holmes (still early in the fight), it was over very quickly, & without any controversy. To this day, Tyson is the only first-class finisher Holmes ever fought.
Personally I have to go with the guy that defended the linear HW title 16 straight times over the guy that defended it twice. Unifying the titles was a remarkable accomplishment for Tyson; however, he did win 2 of the 3 belts from guys (Berbick & Smith) that Holmes had already defeated years earlier. In my opinion, the only thing that makes this question reasonable is the fact that the mid 80's marked the end of Holmes career and included the Spink's loses and the ill-advised comeback against Tyson himself. That being said, I still go with Holmes. Larry proved his championship worth during the 80's by defending the title 16 times and often overcoming adversity to do it. Tyson, on the other hand, cleaned up a division littered with marginal talent highlighted by guys that Holmes had already defeated.
This is a strong case for Holmes. I respect it. I've voted for Tyson and still believe that but you have produced a compelling argument for Holmes no doubt.
Holmes overcame adversity, yes --- but his reign isn't all that impressive in a lot of areas. Take a look at this (never-discussed) fact... Beginning in 1981, Holmes fights Trevor Berbick, marking a persistent theme in his title tenure. At this stage, Holmes is 36-0-0. Berbick's record is a green 18-1-1. Next comes Leon Spinks, who has had fourteen career fights, up against a man with nearly forty at that point. Tim Witherspoon? Fifteen. Scott Frank? Twenty-one. Marvis Frazier? Ten. James Smith? Fifteen. David Bey? Fourteen. Carl Williams? Sixteen. If this isn't padding your ledger to chase the record of a certain fighter who never lost, I don't know what is. Truly. It makes for pretty shocking reading, but no one ever brings it up. While I fully-acknowledge there is plenty the numbers don't tell (Spinks was obviously a known figure, & Witherspoon was on the up-swing in his young career), the consistency of inexperienced foes for a man of such experience --- all of these fights occurred plumb in the middle of Holmes' formidable prime --- is pretty startling. Williams & Berbick were better fighters when they met Tyson than they had been for Holmes, for instance.
You do realize that the Holmes Tyson caught was old and coming off of a near 2 year layoff right? Now imagine a Prime Holmes.
Of course I realise that...& I don't feel Tyson did anything less than what was expected of him there. He had minimal trouble with Holmes, & then obliterated him in a manner no one ever had, or would do, again. I favour Holmes prime-for-prime, to be clear --- but Tyson absolutely battered him with room to spare. I don't place a lot of credence in the fight for the reasons you outlined, but Tyson hardly fell short of expectation, all things considered, & I do feel a prime Holmes would be no sure thing to beat Tyson.
Well, I'm not saying Holmes defended the lineal title 16 times in the 80's versus a murderer's row. I am just saying that his run, regardless of the opposition, is better than only defending against Bruno and Carl Williams. Hell, the 16 defenses by Holmes in JUST the 80's stacks up against any HW Champion's reign in history short of Louis.
