How do we feel about Larry Holmes saying Tyson wouldnt have survived the Golden Era?

He didn’t say that, though. He said of Tyson, “you’d have never heard of him.”

 

The average person would have never heard of him. Have most people heard of fringe HW contenders?

 

He wasn’t referring to the average person. He was stating Tyson would never have made any kind of mark in Boxing had he come along in that era. I say, “that era,” & not, “his era,” because Holmes really has no business claiming he was a member of the golden age of Boxing.

 

I think Tyson would “ survive “ the golden era in the sense that he’d have a strong presence and for a reasonable length of time. Would he be the dominant unbeatable force that he was from 1986-1989 ? Not likely

 

We can all agree on that. & we should all be able to laugh at Holmes’ pitiful assertion Tyson would be an unknown.

Mike Tyson was undisputed World’s Heavyweight champion before Larry Holmes had even turned pro

 

I don’t get the joke

 

Holmes has a lot of nerve being so disrespectful to a fighter who not only crushed him like a bug, but had the crown on his head before Holmes had even mustered the balls to turn professional.

 

Ok now I get it. You were referring to the ages that they both turned pro. While I agree with what you say in principle we have to consider that Tyson was taken under an all time great trainers wing at age 13 and raised in a home that was run sort of like a monastery for young boxers. Holmes didn’t have those beginnings. So naturally Tyson blossomed earlier.

 

True, but all fighters have their advantages. Tyson was born small in a big Heavyweight age. He didn’t receive Holmes’ height & reach. We could go round & round with special privileges.

 

I guess. But my point was the simple fact that he didn’t start as early for a reason and it had nothing to do with being taller

 

I'm Not a big Tyson fan, nor am I an apologists or excuses maker for him.
But unlike some I do give credit where it's
do.
Tyson defended the undisputed heavyweight championship nine times Between 1986 and 1990.
His title run was dominant during that time frame. Or his prime "era"
I always fall back on what Emmanuel Steward said about Tyson in about 1985.
He basically said because of the frenetic pace he fought , he probably wouldn't have a very long career at the top of his game, as he aged he wouldn't be able to continue to use such a physical style. Steward was absolutely right, and I was seeing Tyson’s decline as early as 1989. that was without all the personal and professional demons of his lifestyle.

• But he also said Tyson was one of the greatest heavyweights in history.

Tyson defended the undisputed heavyweight more than all but one or two heavyweight champs in history. He cleaned out the division.
A lot of heavyweights have just sat on the championship, and avoided the best available opponents. ( Holmes was one, especially after he fought Cooney)
Give credit where it's do. Semantics aside...

 

He defended it 6 times, but really he did it twice as he wasn't really undisputed until he beat Spinks.

 

He made two defenses of the undisputed, & linear, title. Two. Before losing it to Douglas, aged 24, & never re-capturing it. The idea he was physically fading at 23 is absolutely laughable. Fighters like Tyson do burn out earlier, but we’re talking early 30’s…maybe late 20’s, at most severe.

He dominated the division as a whole for a few years, granted. But he did so as champion for a small section of that time, lost the belt very quickly (to a nothing opponent), & never re-claimed it.

It’s nothing to do with how much credit one does, or does not, give Tyson. He simply didn’t dominate an era.

 

Your opinion.
My opinion you're wrong...
Laughable? I'm sure you know more about the physicality of the sport than Emmanuel Steward.
And if you actually watched the fighters instead of patting yourself on the back for how much you think you know. You would be able too see Tyson wasn't as sharp as he was in 1989 as he was only a few years earlier.
Look up the definition of "era". I'll help you with it.
" a period of time beginning with some special date or event".. The special " event " was Tyson winning the heavyweight championship.
"Era "doesn't have to be a specific length of time.
I think you're missing that.

 

Being a fan of Holmes is such a pain. You have to ignore anything he’s ever said, just go off his fights and his conduct not in front of a mic.

because he was a great fighter, a credit to the sport, and a normal stable dude with his head on straight. But every time he opens his mouth, he tries to undo all that with salt.