Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[them_apples]

On a who would beat who basis, Tyson get's rated high..on an achievement basis he gets number 10 (for being the youngest HW)

[Jim Jeffries]

On a who would beat who basis, Tyson get's rated high..on an achievement basis he gets number 10 (for being the youngest HW)

People rank him much too high on a who beat who basis, imo, because of his impressive performances against mediocre opposition, and only by making excuses for his losses when he finally did fight anyone good.

[StarshipTrooper]

People rank him much too high on a who beat who basis, imo, because of his impressive performances against mediocre opposition, and only by making excuses for his losses when he finally did fight anyone good.

I see you've made the aquaintence of them_apples: One of the most obnoxious Tyson nuthuggers who post here LOL!

Poet

[The Iron Man]

Both Tyson and Holmes fought in eras of around the same level imo. And poet i remember you saying the same thing while helping me make my list? well i think you did lol

[Hawkins]

Both Tyson and Holmes fought in eras of around the same level imo. And poet i remember you saying the same thing while helping me make my list? well i think you did lol

They did to a certain extent. I think the era Holmes fought in was a little better because he fought alot of the same guys Mike did, yet when they were younger.

[LondonRingRules]

They did to a certain extent. I think the era Holmes fought in was a little better because he fought alot of the same guys Mike did, yet when they were younger.

** Nonsense. Mikes era starts only 2 yrs after Holmes era ends, and I can see in spite of my best efforts, you are still in denial. It was Tyson who cleaned up the division that Holmes split up by not fighting top contenders. Of the few fighters in common they faced in their eras, Tyson at least got them in their physical and boxing primes.

Bonecrusher only 14-1 against Holmes, Williams only 16-0, Frazier only 10-0, just stole them from the crib. Berbick 18-1-1. Spinks just coming up from LH, unsure of himself. Tyson faced him still undefeated with several heavy bouts and KOs under his belt.

Holmes 4-2, 3KOs in 73 rds, Tyson 5-0, 4 KOs in 18 rds.

Really ridiculous math. Stats don't tell the whole story, but all of those fighters better and more experienced when Tyson got them. More importantly, 3 held versions of the belt Mike was unifying. Holmes never unified, period.

[them_apples]

People always try to downplay Mike Tyson because of his later ring antics and popularity..devils advocates...

[Hawkins]

** Nonsense. Mikes era starts only 2 yrs after Holmes era ends, and I can see in spite of my best efforts, you are still in denial. It was Tyson who cleaned up the division that Holmes split up by not fighting top contenders. Of the few fighters in common they faced in their eras, Tyson at least got them in their physical and boxing primes.

Bonecrusher only 14-1 against Holmes, Williams only 16-0, Frazier only 10-0, just stole them from the crib. Berbick 18-1-1. Spinks just coming up from LH, unsure of himself. Tyson faced him still undefeated with several heavy bouts and KOs under his belt.

Holmes 4-2, 3KOs in 73 rds, Tyson 5-0, 4 KOs in 18 rds.

Really ridiculous math. Stats don't tell the whole story, but all of those fighters better and more experienced when Tyson got them. More importantly, 3 held versions of the belt Mike was unifying. Holmes never unified, period.

In spite of your efforts? And what efforts would that be? Being a complete and total Tyson 'nuthugger' as they say? You are no better than the rest, you go to insane lengths to build Tyson into something he wasn't.

You throw around all of these stats in your attempt to discredit others so Tyson can seem larger in scope than he actually was. Holmes fought the better competition, and he fought most of Mike's opposition first.

Despite that they were both in weaker eras in the history of the division ; no one can dispute that. However, having said that Larry Holmes is by far the better heavyweight - especially if you base it around stats.

[Hawkins]

People always try to downplay Mike Tyson because of his later ring antics and popularity..devils advocates...

No, actually, most people on forums such as these take such an aggressive stance against Tyson's "legacy" because of "fans" such as yourself.

[LondonRingRules]

You throw around all of these stats in your attempt to discredit others so Tyson can seem larger in scope than he actually was. Holmes fought the better competition, and he fought most of Mike's opposition first.

** You've got no stats to toss and just made a major misstatement. Holmes never fought most of Mikes opposition period. Could be you've got no talent for analysis, instead offer up touchie feelie sentiments like Holmes faced better, younger opposition.

I'm sure Mike would have racked up an extra dozen title defenses against the likes of the Beys of the rings. Six of Holmes' defenses against fighters with 16 or less fights. I didn't include the 10-0 infant Frazier since that was a non title fight. Then you get into all the journeymen like Zanon, Rodriguez, and LeDoux who had no business near a title fight, and that's damn near half Larry's title defenses right there.

Just more stats for me to toss around and land on top of your touchie-feelie sentiments. Not my fault "they make Mike larger in scope than he actually was." Maybe he just looks bigger after Larry's record is chopped down to size.