How would holmes have done against tyson in different circumstances?

It is a shame that you cant see the same logic with Joe Louis and others.

 

Holmes would EASILY out box Louis...Louis did not have Tyson's counter punching /power /footwork or jab and Louis MUCH easier to hit( Tyson out jabbed Holmes and was never out jabbed under Rooney) Unless you can show me a REAL fight that louis shows me he wins against such a tall fast smart boxer like Holmes be my guest bc i can show you fights where louis loses and a guy named Conn out boxes him with a jab with limited footwork.

 

Old Holmes is overrated.
Prime Holmes is underrated.

 

The bottom line is that Holmes was neither fish nor fowl.

He couldn't go toe to toe with the most dangerous finishers, and he couldn’t stay away from them either.

Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, and Tyson, would all have beaten him in my humble opinion.

 

Its not about going toe to toe which he did with shavers and even out boxed a prime Mercer at 42/43, went distance with Holyfield and also ate Cooney shots so the odds of louis knocking out holmes without cutting the ring off if Holmes boxes is slim with that long sting jab. your not going to beat Holmes without being either a slick fighter or a power puncher who has speed and can effectively cut the ring off. Cooney was 6'6 with a 81 inch reach,the guys you named did not have that and if you watch his fight with a guy like rocky Pepeli thats exactly how guys like Marciano would try and get in on him,he would eat them up . there is NO way 5'11 grinder Marcianos 68 inch reach is getting to Holmes its just not.

 

Holmes went toe to toe with Shavers? Also, when did Cooney land his best punch?

 

IMO, Prime Holmes would have beaten all those fighters listed.
Some of those fights would have been tough for Larry, while others(Rocky) would have been easy.

 

I've grown to appreciate prime Holmes again a lot more.
I'd probably make prime Holmes a favourite over Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson.
Not sure about Joe Louis, who was an excellent all-round boxer with skill in Holmes's class too.

 

I don't know why people think Holmes could beat Tyson. Holmes got in all sorts of trouble against Shavers and Snipes, and was destroyed by Tyson himself. Aside from Holmes, Tyson beat an assortment of fighters who fought a lot like Holmes did. Holmes would beat Tokyo Tyson, or maybe the version who fought Bruno (maybe at best), but that's about it.

 

yeah, I'm of the belief that Prime Tyson always beats Holmes. Tyson wouldn't respect his power, and the jab isn't going to deter Tyson enough to make a hill of beans. Tyson, isn't Shavers who wasn't near the finisher Tyson was. Holmes wasn't the best at holding, nor was he the best mover in the ring, nor was he hard to hit. He liked to come back with fire when hurt, and he'd get brutalized by Tyson if he tried that with him. Obviously it's a lot more competitive, and Tyson is even cut up some, by he'll end it late, and convincingly so.

 

If Tyson wasn't at his best for Bruno and Douglas, then perhaps you should consider that Holmes wasn't as his best against Shavers 2 and Snipes.
(The fact that he totally schooled Shavers the first fight should be noted here too.)

Holmes went 2-0 in those two fights you cited.
Tyson went 1-1 in the fights you cite.

So, why do people think this points towards a Tyson win ?
As always, people don't see objectively when it comes to Tyson. He's always given more benefit of the doubt that all others. He gets thrashed by Douglas on his "off night" but for some reason that means less than Holmes winning against Shavers, Weaver, Snipes etc. in fights where he was slightly or more than slightly "off".
Tyson gets allowed a bad defeat but Holmes isn't even allowed a less-than-perfect win.

Larry Holmes at 38 was severely past his prime, at least 6 years, closer to 10 years past his best. That's not Tyson's fault, and Tyson was brilliant in 1988, but let's not pretend that tells us anything about how he'd do against prime Larry Holmes.

 

Holmes went 2-1 in the fights I cited and was seriously hurt in all three. What exactly is reasoning behind saying Holmes wasn't in top form against Snipes and Shavers? Tyson consistently showed spotty technique and/or conditioning from Bruno on although there was obviously denial of this until **** hit the fan against Douglas.

If you line up their common opponents, Tyson outperformed Holmes hands down and even smashed up Pink Thomas whom Holmes avoided. Add to it that Tyson beat a slew of world class opponents with stylistic similarities to Holmes while Holmes never fought a guy like Tyson. Objectivity points to Tyson in this one.

 

Holmes had the right skills to beat Tyson, but I feel like he would get into risky exchanges and Tyson would finish him.

 

Marciano beats Holmes?

Uh, no.