Not a fight I’ve really thought about I’ll give Tyson Fury the familiar territory and make it 12 rounds. Given the recent success of our new undisputed champion I think these matches would be fun to review. I favour Larry but I’ll think about it.
I'm going to say Holmes would have had trouble with him. The awkward boxer-types gave him issues. It was the more basic brutes that he made look ridiculous.
The real question is could Larry Holmes beat Francis "The Predator" Ngannou? The absolute worst version of Tyson Fury to ever step foot into a ring lost to an extremely muscular and lean 6'4 270lbs man that had the size to neutralised Fury's reach and strength advantages, his main advantages.
Tyson Fury can occasionally catch lightning on a bottle. Larry Holmes had the very rare quality of consistency over time. We should not underestimate Fury, based on his recent difficulties, but I think that we have to go with Holmes at this stage.
Ngannou is the type of guy that Holmes would have made look ridiculous. I'd put better than even odds that Holmes wins every single round against Ngannou. In retrospect, Fury fighting Ngannou was a horrible choice. Why fight a guy he absolutely did not have to fight, who had the size, strength, and experience to negate some of Fury's usual advantages? By experience here I mean the deep innate understanding of leverage and grappling that a former UFC champ like Ngannou would have, basically taking Fury's grabbing/mauling tactics off the table.
Holmes was more skilled than Fury is but Tyson`s size and reach would bother him, it would have been a battle of the long jabs but I`d give the edge to Holmes in a close fight.
Nah I honestly don't know. But I do think it can probably be debated. The argument would be Snipes over Wilder and a young Weaver over an old Klitschko. I don't know too much about Snipes' career but man Wilder has a dismal wins column so it can't be too far off. But a young Weaver vs an old Klitschko I think thats definitely a valid debate