Modern Day Super-Heavys that defeat Holmes of 1978 ?

I think there's a bit more to it. Tyson's a bit of an enigma and hence endless and passionate debate about him. I think he devolved pretty quickly both mentally and technically due to a variety of reasons. Rooney's become a cliche but he really was a lot more mature and calmer fighter under him. He stuck admirably to his task vs a faded Holmes often spoiling. It would have been interesting what would have happened without the jail time tho he was already a lesser fighter imo. He was very one dimensional against Ruddock but at the same time showed heart, durability and lack of fear.

So much is open to personal interpretation with him. I think he would have bombed out his share of ATG's, and some would have rolled him.

 

Do you seriously think that Trevor Berbick and Larry Holmes and Frank Bruno and Razor Ruddock didn't try to stand up to Tyson?

 

Issue was none of those fighters mounted any sustainable offense. None won many rounds to fluster or make Tyson think. Those that did typically beat Tyson and in process made him look quite ordinary. Tyson was a front runner of monumental proportions.

 

Coming back to win tough bouts such as Holmes fight with Weaver is a clear indicator of all time greatness (combined with other factors). CERTAINLY remove Holmes and put Tyson in the same scenario that night vs Weaver and he is not coming out victorious.

 

Holmes commits to the jab. Wlad does not cause he is afraid to get hit.Holmes jab is punishing, Wlad has a scoring jab.Obviously both have good accurate jabs

 

tyson lost, holmes won.

there is a difference between win and loss.

 

Yes they all tried to stand up to Tyson but Tyson often had an unfair advantage. Against most of his name opponents they were inactive and lacked recent form over decent opposition. Tyson was literally the only active world class heavyweight who fought exclusively against rated guys, the advantage he had was he was very active at that level and nobody else was.

Tyson fought 13 times in 1986 including three really good ten rounders with Tillis, Green and Ribalta. Where as Trevor Berbick had 4 fights in the last two years. Whilst this was a good legit win, I can't help thinking Berbick might have been a bit sharper if he had as much target practice as Mike had.

When Larry Holmes got to fight Tyson, Larry had not even won a fight during the entire duration of Tysons first 32 fights. It was appalling match making.

Who knows, maybe Frank Bruno might have gave a better account of himself against Tyson if he had he had actually beaten a live contender more recently than Gerrie Coetzee way back in 1985 some three years earlier?

Same with Ruddock. Whilst Ruddock had at least fought as many times over the last 3 years as Tyson had where as Tyson was meeting Guys like Stewart, Tillman, Douglas, Williams, Bruno and Spinks for his 5-1 on that period Ruddock was meeting but has beens like old man Dokes, Smith, James Broad and never wasers like Mike Rouse, kamel Odin and reggie Gross.

Like most great fighters, Tyson always had the career timing.

 

I'm not going to chastise Tyson for being busy. That was part of the recipe to gear him up to an early run at the title. His physical assets and deficiencies were not that of a fighter whose style would age well. He was a small guy who relied on speed, balance and an early pace.

 

It could be any or none. Depends. Holmes was a great 15 round fighter, very fast, durable and tough. 15 rounds would help him.

12 or less, Holmes might lose. Remember he won via narrow margin vs Norton and Witherspoon, who were quality boxers, but not quite as big or rangy, or power as say Lewis, Bowe or Klitschko.

Holmes did not face man large men. Cooney was tall, and not that heavy, and certainly not as skilled as the 6'4 to 6'7" super heavies, and probably won 5 round vs Holmes, gassing out in round 13 behind on points.

I think Lewis, either Klitschko, or Bowe was a bit better than Cooney.

 

While I agree with most of this, you are aware that Vitali Klitschko has the most rounds won to round lost ratio among champions at all weights, with no man ever being up on the cards vs him past three rounds. That is impressive and the sample includes Lennox Lewis and Chris Byrd, one fight had a bad cut, the other a shoulder injury.

This suggest he was very good at boxing, maybe from a technical purists stand point, but by moving, counter punching, using his height and reach, and throwing a lot of punches.

 

Wlad's jab, by necessity of his style and limitations, is more multi-faced. It varies in speed and snap in order to set range for his hook and right and as his defense. Wlad's jab was plenty punishing.

 

BS. Wlads jab as is his entire offense is tentative as he was afraid to get hit.

Winning rounds fighting nobodies is no great feat. The best he faced knocked him out.

 

Povetkin, Ibragimov, Byrd and Hate KO'd him?