This is a great question. Mike Tyson is more popular than Larry Holmes, however, boxing isn't about popularity. Here is a brief rundown through each fighter.
Larry Holmes
Wins: 69
Losses: 6
Draws: 0
KOs: 44
Notable wins: Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, Mike Weaver, Muhammad Ali, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, and Gerry Cooney.
Mike Tyson
Wins: 50
Losses: 6
Draws: 0
KOs: 44
Notable wins: Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, and Donavan Ruddock.
Like you said, Mike Tyson had 6 title defenses while Larry Holmes had 21.
Although Mike Tyson defeated Larry Holmes, I believe that Holmes was not quite at his best. He was coming off those two close losses to Michael Spinks, and after that, hadn't been in the ring for 2 years. He had a lot of ring rust.
Holmes is a top 5 Heavyweight, while Tyson is barely a top 10 to some. Tyson did become the youngest champion and undisputed champion as well, but Holmes was greater.
Hands down, Larry Holmes.
Mike Tyson is not a great heavyweight, he was a heavy puncher, but not a very good boxer. Larry Holmes on the other hand was an all time great, top ten rated heavyweight. It isn't even close, Holmes was far superior to Tyson in every comparable category save punching power. I don't even rate Mike Tyson in my top twenty best Heavy Weights all time, and I have Larry Holmes in the top five best all time. Losing to McBride is not a black mark against Tyson's legacy, any fighter can lose on any given day to another, but quitting on your stool is not something a "Great" champion does, and Mike quit on his stool. It's not that you lose, it's how you lose that matters
Larry Holmes was far greater than Mike. Honestly I can think of at least a couple dozen all time greats that were far superior to Mike Tyson.
Larry Holmes is greater than Mike Tyson. Holmes had much more longevity. He had 20 title defenses from 1978-1985. He had heart, determination, a great jab and right hand. I think what made him so great was he was adaptable. He could fight any style boxer or slugger. Tyson was on his way from 1986-88 to becoming a great, great heavyweight ,right up with Ali, Louis, Marciano and Holmes. However his life and personal problems interfered with his career. It is too bad. Yes Larry Holmes is top 5. Tyson I would put bottom near 10,11 or 12.
The Easton Assasin had the best CONSISTENT left jab that I ever saw, and I started watching the sport during the 1964 Olympics. Ali's was the best, but he didn't always use it like he COULD have; Thomas Hearns, #3 jab. When these guys SERIOUSLY threw the jab as a weapon - as Holmes did so well - its hard for armchair fans to realize; these guys are six feet away from their opponent and snapping their heads' back, period!
That said, Tyson never trained for 15 rounds, and in his prime, Holmes would dust anybody, from Russia, North America, or the UK whose come along since he hung it up.
Tyson should have never left Rooney; his legacy would be far more respected today, if he'd stayed with him....Holmes, awesome!
Larry was the greater fighter than Tyson. Holmes was always a good boxer, while Tyson's prime lasted only around 4 years(86'-90'). Larry could even beat Eric Esch at the age of 50, as obese! Of course Esch was never a great boxer, but Larry is the only heavyweight boxer who still made with 50 a good impression inside the ring. I know that Tyson did drugs and was in prison, but here it's all about competition and that Tyson makes a worse impression. That Tyson beat an out-of-prime Holmes doesn't mean anything. Every boxer who is out-of-prime and out-of-shape could have been beaten(even Ali). Tyson was beaten by Lewis, Louis by Marciano, Ali by Holmes, Moore by Ali, Walcott by Marciano, Dempsey by Tunney, Jeffries by Johnson, Holyfield by Valuev, Liston by Martin and Foreman by Briggs. Nobody cares, because this doesn't mean anything. We all get older and there will always be a younger and fitter guy who will beat you when you're too old. That's the circle of life and has nothing to do with greatness. Holmes and Tyson were both great fighters in their prime, but Tyson destroyed his potential and that for I see Holmes as the greater of them. Larry never had a chance in being great, since he was chocked for his similarities with Ali in the 70's and was robbed his victory over Spinks in the 80's, when the ring judges voted against him(even though he boxed better than Spinks). Tyson had the chance to be great, but he threw away his career because his own personality was in his way. I'm happy that Tyson changed his personality and became nowadays a humbling and nice person. I have deep respect for both of them, but I think Larry is the greater of them, not because he defeated a better competition, because he never let himself down, even though everyone in the business tried to keep him down. You can't keep a good man down!
Holmes has the better resume, because of the big names on it, but if you don't count Tyson beating Holmes, don't count Holmes beating Ali. Also Holmes first Two losses, were to Spinks. Tyson basically put Spinks into retirement. Holmes has the better resume. Prime vs. Prime Tyson wins the fight. Holmes was a jabbing machine. A great boxer. Top 5 all time easily, but a Prime Tyson to me wasn't going to just eat jabs for 12 rounds. He would dodge weave, and knock people out.
Holmes all day. His achievements say it all: heavyweight champion for 7 years, 20 successful title defenses and went 48-0 before getting his first defeat. Holmes copied Ali's skills and incorporated his own, particularly his power, which is quite underrated. He also had arguably the best jab in all of boxing: long, quick and stiff. You also have to admire his longevity, as he won bouts even in his 40's, notably against Ray Mercer. Tyson was highly-skilled and physically gifted, but he self-destructed and messed up what could've been one of the greatest heavyweight careers of all time.
Who is greater?
Larry Holmes, not only in the ring, but out of the ring, because character matters!
You start looking at the biography of Mike Tyson and you find things regarding his life that are even worse than what most people know about.
Prime vs Prime Tyson would knock Holmes out I believe. But maybe on overall record and legacy Holmes is "Greater"
It's crazy people aren't giving Tyson credit for his win over Holmes but are giving Holmes credit for beating on the corpses of Muhammed Ali and Earnie Shavers.
By Youngblood's logic, Bobby Joe Young is one of the best JWWs of all time cause he stopped Aaron Pryor. Worse yet Uriah Grant is an ATG for beating Hearns!
Back to the question, Holmes has undoubtedly the stronger resume and accomplishments, I want to touch on the skills of Holmes since we agree on that.
Holmes one of the best ever at controlling distance with his trademark jab (Snap that jab like a towel!) and his sharpshooting ability. Other HW champs also could like Ali, Wlad and Lewis but unlike those guys, once the distance is closed Larry was great on fighting on the inside with hooks to the body and uppercuts where Ali, Lewis and Wlad would just clinch and rely on the ref to break it cause they couldnt fight inside like Holmes
Holmes was more well rounded and had no weakness. Great at long range, great on the inside. Could fight light on his toes and out-box opponents or could fight flat footed and out-fight opponents. He had options unlike many other HW champs with only plan A
Other HW champs who were well rounded, Sonny Liston and Riddick Bowe, didnt have the longivity that Holmes had, so Holmes also gets the edge over them in terms of ATG status cause he did it all
Personally i think Holmes defeated better competition. He also had far more title defenses as the universally recognized heavyweight champion. Tyson had 6, Holmes had 21.
Larry Holmes easily. His resume is lightyears ahead of Tyson's. No contest.
Holmes is a top 3 all-time heavyweight IMO.
Tyson doesn't even make my top ten, the resume just isn't there.
Larry
tyson beat holmes
Larry...because you said it and you are Jesus..so I must agree with you.
