Was Larry Holmes right about Mike Tyson?

Timing would be crucial, so giving Tyson the benefit of the doubt, I'd say he has a good chance at the very least to beat post FOTC Frazier and post Zaire Ali and Foreman, provided he had the work ethic and dedication he had in the first 3/4 years of his career. His route to those fights however, would be through the likes of Quarry, Bonevena, Ellis, Shavers, Lyle and a few others. Assuming his matchmaking isn't so friendly he may run into some sooner than he is ready. Norton who I left out doesn't match up well against a puncher on Tyson's level, well for me anyway.

That's best comes to best though. When Tyson falls off anything could happen and I doubt it would be pretty. I do struggle to envisage Leon Spinks getting one over on him, assuming he fights Holms later on I think he looses. Cracking the top 3 in the decade would be an astonishing achievement, Sadly I don't see Tyson being consistent enough to do that. Fighting the biggies at the right time would be the only plausible reason for me to think otherwise.

 

:good

 

Holmes is the most notorious HW champ in history for disrespecting every HW in history who A. Was not himself and B. Was not someone he beat, and in very few situations C Was not someone beaten by someone he beat.

Literally every other HW in history is **** except for those three kinds of fighters according to Holmes. Very vain, conceited, non self aware dude.

 

prime Tyson could beat some of those guys on points, not just the KO. He could maybe outwork a 32 year old Ali but I still give the edge to The Greatest. I think he could have trouble with Foreman but would stop joe and Norton. I think he knocks out the rest or wins soundly on points. I think prime Tyson would have been up there with the best at that time, cus would be younger as well!