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

Prime Mike Tyson would be a nightmare for any era in boxing history.
And especially the last 20 years, and absolutely would annihilate Usyk, Dubois, Joshua, Fury and the rest of what's parading around the heavyweight division of the last 5-10 yrs.
Against specific fighters from different era's would be tough for him.
Like if he didn't get Frazier early, I see Frazier grinding him down.
Prime Bowe would be extremely challenging for prime Tyson.
Prime Foreman's physicality and style would be tough for prime Tyson.
So would Prime Liston, who had all the attributes of prime Foreman, along with elite skill level.
Witherspoon could've been tough for Tyson if his head was in the right place.
Joe Louis would be hard for Tyson and could surprise him with his lightning quick counters, and technical expertise, and power.
A Shavers , Lyle, and Ibeabuchi would be very interesting against Tyson.
So would the extreme size advantages Lennox Lewis would have.
Prime Ali simply had to many tools to work with. Especially his ability to get in opponents head.
Tyson was very fragile mentally at all stages of his career.
Ali would take advantage of that.

 

Holmes also said Norton, Cooney and Shavers would beat Tyson. He said no-one would have heard of him in his era. Holmes says a lot of things, some even believe them.

 

The 60's and 70's are massively overrated. Mike would do just fine, including KO'ing Ali.

 

I remember Larry Holmes was on a show with Joe Frazier making a similar comment and Frazier didn't share the sentiments that Holmes did.

I'm a fan of Holmes and I like watching him fight but he does talk some BS at times.

Virtually only Foreman, Ali, and a prime Holmes in late 70s, would have a realistic chance of beating Tyson.

And even then it would have to be very specific versions of those fighters.

I think only the Ali of Norton 2 who looked razor sharp with his movement and punches could possibly beat Tyson in the 70sm

With Foreman it would have to be within a 2 year period 1972-1974.

And with Holmes it would have to be 1978-1979.

But it also depends when Tyson's prime starts in the 70s aswell. Because whilst he was brilliant at his peak its not going to have the longevity to stay at that level for a whole decade.

 

Could you give more specifics in regard to the opponents, please? Early 70s Ali, Foreman (Norton time frame), Shavers I-era Holmes, early 70s Frazier...cherry pick the Spinks Tyson,

I'm honestly interested, no judgements.

 

This is really interesting, and being a fan of that fight, I think it would have been a fight for the ages.

I guess those guys in the 70s (and 90s) became superheroes to me. I unashamedly revere those fighters...don't hate me, people.

 

Tyson would do well in any era, let's be honest.

 

Tyson is among the very top in both the 60's and 70's. He'd do fine.

 

Singling this out because I, too, think Bowe would have been a nightmare for Tyson.

He slogged against big, strong guys like Bonecrusher and Tucker, and had trouble doing major damage even with guys of stature on a lower tier like Tillis, Blood Green and Ribalta.

Not to mention Buster.

Bowe was a big, strong guy who at his best would have been trouble for Mike on the outside and absolutely chewed him up and spit him out on the inside.

Tyson always has fight-turning power in any punch, but we saw how little good that did him against guys who could manhandle him like Douglas and Holyfield.

 

Another good one,Fergy.

Tyson would have lost to Ali (1964-75) Foreman (1973-74) Holmes (1978r82) I'd make him 50-50 against Frazier. He would have done well against the rest of the top tier guys.

 

Larry also has a habit of making himself seem like part of another era in a way he wasn't. He wasn't fighting Liston, Patterson, a living Ali, Frazier, Foreman (trying to fight him and being avoided later considering) and is mostly just hanging onto the Norton classic (which was great) and the lionization of Shavers as a way of acting like he was in "there" with the golden era when I've heard him discuss it. Which he just doesn't need to do, because what he did do was plenty enough for his own standing. He just wants to bring Tyson down. It's not becoming but it is true to form. As for the question about the H2H matchups, I won't bother rehashing that. Those fighters didn't even exist, really. Evidence has been uncovered by the DOJ that Bert Sugar made most of them up, as I've stated in other threads. The documents will be released soon. There are nearly 140 million of them. Some of them involve the Clintons.

As a massive Holmes fan, I think so.

 

Yes, and anyone who argues otherwise is silly and biased. Holmes is salty because Mike beat him.

 

Especially because so few opponents lasted through the first 11, at least during his pre-prison campaign.

Trying to take Prime Mike into deep waters is largely a fool's errand but it was the only path available.

 

The question then arises as to why Tyson dominated the second half of the 1980s, and not the older Holyfield, even before those wars. Evander himself noticed that Tyson deteriorated after prison, and even before, and anyone who watched the Buster fight knows he completely ignored it.

Tyson had a 41-1 record before prison. After prison, he was 9-5.It's impossible for boxing to suddenly rise so dramatically.
Holyfield should have dominated in this impoverished era, Holmes should have maintained his dominance, and Foreman should have regained his belts.
For some reason, they did it in the next decade. Instead of dominating in the weak Tyson era, they became better in the next, even though they were older themselves, after the wars. What stupidity.