Larry Holmes: Mike Tyson wouldn't thrive in the classic era.

Larry Holmes has often said that Tyson wouldn't do well in the classic era ( 60s -70s).
Mainly because of elite Jabbers, clinching,15 rounds fights and tougher styles.

Do people agree with Holmes ?
Or is he underrating how dangerous prime Tyson was?

How do you realistically see Tyson doing against fighters like Ali, Holmes, Frazier,Foreman, Norton , Liston etc?

 

It's just an old head talk. Just like some people saying Usyk wouldn't thrive in the 90's or 70's.

 

Who knows, but he certainly wouldn't call the green Berbick the strongest fighter he's ever fought.

We all know Holmes has a problem with Tyson. We also know his story of being snatched from his bed by Don King and forced into the ring with Tyson in his pajamas, even though he'd been negotiating the fight for almost a year.

 

It's offputtingly broad and dismissive, but to Larry's credit that kind of statement is very Larry Holmes. I don't think he has another way of putting things, you either like (and/or maybe admire) or hate it.

Mike would have been great in the 70s, but I personally don't see him getting past Ali (70-75), Foreman, Frazier, Holmes.

I can see him slapping the crap out of top tier guys like Jimmy Young and quite probably Ken Norton, Shavers, Quarry, Ellis.

I'm positive Mike would have won one of the burgeoning alphabet titles...most likely scenario he stops Ken, beats Jimmy for the open title, loses it to Holmes.

I'm a big fan of Iron Mike, I think h2h he is right at Walhalla level. But for all my lavish admiration, I can't see him having a chance of making the distance against the Big Four I mentioned above. They just had unbelievable endurance and heart, and particularly in the case of Ali and Holmes, sensationally high ring iqs and levels of adaptibility. I think only guys like Holy, Lewis, Usyk, and possibly Wlad are anywhere near those guys since, they truly were the Kings.

 

Larry would think th opposite if he’d beaten Mike.

 

Yes. Its probably coming from a place of jealousy but that doesn't mean hes wrong. No neck is right that if Holmes had beaten Tyson he'd be the President of the Tyson fanclub.

I think Tyson would be lower top 10 at the peak of the 70s and in other periods would do better but would not be Tyson dominant.

 

Holmes just has sour grapes over Mike beating him lol. Objectively I really don't see Mike doing bad in a division where he isn't the smallest guy anymore while still having a huge speed and power advantage over almost everyone in the division. Only Ali, Foreman and Holmes would be able to beat him and I think Tyson has a good chance against all of them.

 

Prime Tyson obliterates everyone in the 70's.

 

Probably right, especially against the likes of Foreman and Ali, who would have got in the ring with no fear and actually met him head-on in the ring; that was Tyson's kryptonite. As soon as he faced people who pushed through that fear and had a huge heart, they exposed his limitations, and Ali probably had the biggest heart in HW history.

 

This is a stupid clichee that has no grounding in real life.
Plenty pushed back and he still beat them.

 

B-grade opposition, yeah, as soon as he got in there with live A-grade opposition, he was found out.

 

He only lost when he was unprepared or washed up.

 

He's 4 years younger than Holyfield and had been involved in far fewer wars, and still got outgunned in there. Douglas did the same to him in Tokyo, and he was far from elite. Mike was incredible for the sport and exciting, but he was limited, a very small HW, and his best win was against an LHW. Still a legend and a HOFer, but overrated in the grand scheme of things.

 

Finally. Someone says the quiet part out loud.

 

Thomas, Berbick, Tucker, Ruddock, Carl Williams, Biggs all got in with no fear and I think Spinks fear is overblown.