Mike Tyson 80s Vs. the whole "lost generation of the 80s" (alternative history) | Boxing News 24 Fan Forum 3.X 1980. that's the starting point - Holmes defeats Ali and becomes the lineal HW champion. Furthermore, until December 31, 1989, Holmes defended his title(s) against: Trevor Berbick Pinklon Thomas Tim Witherspoon Tony Tucker Mike Weaver Michael Dockes Gerry Coetzee Greg Page Tony Tubbs James Smith (John Tate) John Tate take optional consideration; you can but you don't have to. Some of these fights actually happened, but imagine if HW history went like this instead of Holmes fighting: Frazier, Cobb, and Williams. Would Holmes have gone through the 'lost generation of the 80s' undefeated?
Maybe I’m misreading this. But Is this assuming Mike Tyson never existed ? And even if it does I can’t see Holmes staying undefeated until 1989. It’s even debatable as to whether or not he’d win against some of those guys from 1984 onward. In short, no… I don’t think he goes undefeated under those circumstances. Time simply wouldn’t be on his side.
One on one he could beat them all but that's quite a gauntlet to run through undefeated. I think he's better than all of them but even if he is magically preserved at 29, 30 years of age, he's going to have an off night eventually.
Personally no I don't think so and I'm a big Holmes fan. I think Thomas would beat him between 1984-1985. I don't see a 1987 version of Holmes beating a prime Tony Tucker. Tony Tubbs in 1985 would've also been a very loseable match up for a fading Holmes. The ones that Holmes didn't fight in the early 80s like Greg Page and John Tate I think he would've defeated though. I especially think a 1983 version of Holmes still had enough left to outpoint Page at that time.
I don't see it happening buddy. By 1985 Holmes was slipping. One of those guys would have beaten him long before 1989 .
If you mean best version of Holmes, he’s better than any of these guys. But over the course of a regular career no way. The Holmes that lost to Spinks would not have fared any better against Thomas, Page etc.
Holmes started slipping in 83. It was very noticeable by 84 that he wasn't the same fighter anymore. IMO as a big Holmes fan his decline happened very quickly and was certainly not gradual so no i don't see how this is even remotely possible. Now prime for prime I think hes better than all of them.
This is what chat gpt says I doubt Holmes gets all the way to 1989 undefeated against that entire sequence, especially if we age him naturally through the run rather than freezing him at his 1978–82 peak. The key is that this is a much tougher gauntlet than a single bad matchup. Holmes could beat every one of these men individually, but several were good enough to take advantage once he started slipping. Opponent My lean vs reigning Holmes Trevor Berbick Holmes Pinklon Thomas Holmes, close Tim Witherspoon Holmes, very close Tony Tucker Holmes, close Mike Weaver Holmes Michael Dokes Holmes, close Gerry Coetzee Holmes Greg Page Holmes, close Tony Tubbs Holmes, close James Smith Holmes John Tate Holmes Witherspoon is the warning sign. Their actual 1983 fight was already very close. Holmes won a split decision, and Witherspoon was only 25 and relatively inexperienced. That tells us Holmes could be pushed to the edge before some of these other contenders even enter the hypothetical. Pinklon Thomas would be a particularly interesting fight because he had an excellent jab, good size, durability, and enough athleticism to make Holmes work at his own game. Holmes is better, but this isn't an easy defense. Tony Tucker might become especially dangerous around 1986–87. He was 6'5", long, mobile, durable, and technically competent. An aging Holmes trying to control Tucker solely with the jab could have a frustrating night. Dokes brings tremendous hand speed. His inconsistency is why I'd still favor Holmes, but on Dokes's best night he could make an older Holmes look slow. Page and Tubbs are the other two I'd worry about. Both were inconsistent, but both had enough boxing ability and size to win rounds from Holmes if they arrived motivated. The chronology is what ultimately makes me say no. Holmes was born in 1949. By: 1983: about 33 1985: 35 1987: 37 1989: 39 And Holmes already showed visible decline before Michael Spinks beat him in 1985. Asking a 35–39-year-old Holmes to keep beating fresh contenders such as Thomas, Tucker, Page, Tubbs and others without a single off night is asking a lot. If you froze 1980–82 Holmes and ran him through everybody, I'd probably favor him in every matchup and give him a real chance of sweeping them. If Holmes actually has to age through the defenses, I'd say he probably loses somewhere around 1984–87. He might go 9–2 or 10–1 against the group, but 11–0 all the way to 1989 would be an exceptional outcome rather than my expectation. The fighters I'd rank as the biggest threats are Witherspoon, Thomas, Tucker, Dokes, then Tubbs/Page.
Tucker)Witherspoon)Buster Douglas should beat Holmes. Pinklon maybe it's 50/50. Tubbs, Bruno and Bugner(yes I'm going there) have a healthy chance. Then in 1990 they are reinforced by Bowe and Holyfield. Eventually Moorer. Page is knocked out of contention by early 1986. He would not get the Holmes fight.