Larry says his contemporaries would school Mike

I kinda agree with him. I think Mike beats him 9 out of 10 times. Tyson is going to get past Prime Larry's jab at some point in their fight and probably knock him down like he did. Is Larry going to be able to get up? Will he be on stable legs if he does? How does he keep Mike off of him if he does?

 

The big word that surrounds Holmes in the online age is "underrated". This guy has been "underrated" and "underrated" we are told to the extent he is now "overrated" post career. The real words that should be next to him post career in media interviews at least is "bitter" and "egotistical".
A true champion yes, great jab, mobility and right hand. As a businessman and family man he may will be the greatest HW of all time. Opinions will vary but by general consensus he is a top 12 heavyweight in accomplishments and what I call prime head2head. But his bitterness and insistence he beat a "good" Ali who wasn't ill and he wasn't trying to knock Ali out grate. His hypocrisy is evident when only 18 months off a very disputed loss to Spinks he claims he didn't train and had 2 months to prepare for Tyson.
The self proclaimed oracle of boxing John McLaughlin says he can "prove" Holmes wasn't trying to knock out Ali the proof being cos Larry says so!
Holmes opposition during his 7 year title reign was poor in my opinion.If his career had panned out 7 years earlier or 7 years later I see a whole different picture. He managed to not have to fight Frazier, Foreman, a non Parkinsons Ali, he wouldnt be going life and death with a 35 year old Norton in the death throes of his succesful career.
I personally don't think he can deal with the style of a rampaging 87-88 Tyson even in his prime. I may be wrong

 

Rumble in the Jungle*
He never looked good after that imo

 

Which contemporaries? Because I think Tyson might very well blitz Norton, Weaver, Snipes, and Shavers in one night. All men that Holmes struggled with. If Larry is considering men like Ali, Foreman, and Frazier his contemporaries then Id have to ask which of those guys Larry fought anywhere near their prime and which ones wouldnt also school Larry.

 

That’s a very Larry Holmes thing to say—and he’s not just talking trash. He’s making a classic era vs. era argument that boxing folks have been debating forever.

 

Yes Holmes was past his best when Tyson beat him, but there is probably little enough water separating their eras, to say that Tysons dominance would have translated well against Holmes's contemporaries.

It should also be noted that Tyson was the only man who ever dominated Holmes, the way that the heir to the throne should do to the previous king.

An older Holmes woudl go on to beat Mercer, who gave the best of the next generation all that they could handle.

So with no disrespect to Larry Holmes, I have to disagree with him.

Tyson would have smashed all his contemporaries, and the only person who might have stood in his way in that era, is Holmes himself.