kingpawn wrote:Tyson certainly is unique in terms of what we've all seen him do vs. what his overall body of work looks like in the end. To posters like Brockton and wlvrne, it's hard to argue that the pre-Douglas version of Tyson was certainly a mountain for any fighter to climb. As I stated earlier, there was a time (however brief) when I think Tyson was capable of beating any HW who ever laced on a pair of gloves.
This was the Tyson before his separation from everyone who ever participated in his climb to the top -- D'Amato, Rooney, Cayton, Jacobs, etc. He was a well-oiled, well-handled, fighting machine at that time, and I believe that version of Tyson was as near to unbeatable as anyone who ever wore that tag before him.
By the time of the Douglas fight, Tyson (if memory serves correctly) had gotten rid of all of these people. That's when a lot of things he used to do started disappearing from his repertoire -- the bobbing and weaving, the double jabbing, the working the body, etc. -- and Tyson became less and less multi-dimensional as a fighter. He was surrounded by a bunch of dummies by that time. We all saw it in Tokeo that night. Random useless advice coming from everywhere in his corner. The balloon filled with tap water to stop the swelling. Pretty bad ...
Brockton ... I tried to see it as objectively as I could (see above). The Tyson as described above was, as I said, about as near to unbeatable as anyone ever fought. No one, of course, ever really was unbeatable (Marciano 49-0 or not), but there was a time when even I, looking across the landscape at the time, wondered who the hell could beat this kid.
Ezzard did finally appease wlvrne, however, when he came up with what seemed like a pretty logical recipe for Holmes (whether it would've happened that way or not). And having read it and thought about it, it occurs to me that Pinklon Thomas fought Tyson on pretty even terms through about five rounds of their fight. Thomas, of course, had the good jab and decent boxing skills. He did, however, lack the wilyness and movement Holmes would have brought against Tyson, and he was definitely never in as good a shape.
So there are questions. Whatever the case, I still say the Tyson that could've/would've beaten a prime Larry Holmes existed only within a tiny little window in time. Anytime pre-Berbick or post-Douglas, I think Holmes wins without too much trouble.
Tyson should never be seen as a great fighter and as such no objective person should ever claim he'd beat a modern great in Holmes. Holmes always found a way to win when faced with adversity. Tyson always found a way to lose when faced with the same circumstances 
for the first 4 rounds but Larry has shown he has a concrete chin and would survive until mike had given his all he would knockout him out in 15 rounder and outpoint him in a 12 rounder
nice use of 'tendentious'