Larry Holmes vs Max Schmeling

I really do wonder how much Prime Holmes you guys have watched, he was on another level from 78-82. Holmes did absolutely have a faster right hand, he had more variety with it too,using it as a straight, overhand, hook or uppercut, which makes it harder to defend against. His jab is faster too but he's also a better in fighter, people talk about Larry's jab but ignore his excellent in fighting. His toughness is very very underrated, as is his chin, powers of recuperation, he always comes firing back when hurt. His ability to fight 15 rounds at a high pace and lay painful beatings on men is also forgot

I think Holmes may well beat Ali, nevermind Schmelling and you know I rate Schmelling highly

Not to be condescending, oh **** it, I do want to be condescending, HOW MUCH PRIME HOLMES HAVE YOU SEEN. He's a H2H BEAST

 

Yep, he was a h2h monster that´s why he had problems with ancient Shavers and Norton, a green Witherspoon and a journeyman Weaver. In his prime. But of course he would just dominate Schmeling who was better than any of those and poses a bigger problem for him stylistically.

 

Norton has a good case for beating Ali 3 times, Holmes beat him when injured. Shavers is maybe the biggest puncher in history and holmes proved his chin and heart there where as Schmelling was ko'd against his SHavers (Baer), aside from a KD Holmes twice dominated Shavers. Weaver was 1 of the better belt holders of the 80s and Holmes hammered him

Holmes was what 33 against Witherspoon and win in a tough close fight against a very good swarming primed contender and future champ, Witherspoon was young/green but he was probably at his best because he faded after.

And no Schmelling was not better than Norton, his power isn't in thesame stratosphere as Shavers and he wasn't a 6'3 220lb primed pressure machine like Witherspoon, after Tyson/Holy/Holmes Witherspoon may have been the next best fighter in the 80s

 

Yep, prime Norton has a case of winning a series against a past-prime Ali. but this was an ancient Norton Holmes was facing, wasn´t it. Shavers was a good puncher but a bad finisher and no he wasn´t in the league of Baer, nor was he similar in style and of course Baer was in his prime and perhaps best form ever while Shavers was ancient. Foreman would be a better comparison here but okay that one never coming of wasn´t Larry´s fault.
That Weaver was one of the better beltholders then just proves how dire the division was - not as bad as today or the 20s though.

Ah, I see a guy wit less than 20 fights against mediocre opposition is now a very good, primed contender. But of course Joe Louis was green when he faced Schmeling .... at least to some on here.

Schmeling was better than Norton. Their career prove it.
True Shavers hits harder than Schmeling. But he is less acurate, worse in setting traps, worse in countering, worse timing. Well, actually worse in everything else.
And Witherspoon is now a pressure machine. If the Witherspoon who fought Holmes was the next best fighter of the 80s than it´s another good argument for the weakness of that era. Thanks.

 

1. Norton may have been 36 but he was in fantastic shape, his output was incredibly high. He may have been 36 but he had the body of a 25yo. If you thought he won the Ali rubber match 2 years before then he was pretty much unbeaten from 74-78 against Ali, Young, Quarry, Unbeaten Bobick, Middleton, Stander, Garcia, Kirkman - all top contenders or gatekeepers. At no point pre-Holmes or during the fight did Norton look past prime

2. I think Shavers looks better on film than Baer, Shavers was probably at his best against Holmes having pulled off his career best win over Norton between their 2 fights, he was 32 and 34 for those fights, hardly ancient and he paced himself much better than earlier in his career. Some people thought he beat Ali the year before Holmes won a shut out over him. I think Shaver's is a bigger puncher and faster, Baer was a very unrefined boxer himself and that's why he was outboxed by LHWs, he had a better chin and stamina ofcourse

3. Yes I think Witherspoon was at his best, he fought a terrific fight and didn't look in the same shape after that despite picking up great wins. I don't think Louis was green against Schmelling, I think Schmelling had the style to beat him

4. How did Schmelling prove better than Norton? Norton performed better in a 3 fight series against Ali, than Schmelling did in his 2 fight series with Louis. Both have wins over top contenders in Young/Quarry and Sharkey and both disasterous KO losses

5. Agreed for the main part

6. 4th best of the 80s perhaps and I'd pick him over Sharkey/Cernera/Baer of the 30s

 

also: all of those guys were black, schmeling was not

 

says it all.

Yep, he is in colour. :thumbsup
Baer proved that he was better than Shavers. Yeah, he could be outboxed. Shavers could be outboxed and knocked out.

Maybe, perhaps maybe, it wasn´t Witherspoon who was that good but Holmes just not at his best? Or not that good even?

Schmeling has more wins over top contenders than Norton, deeper resume. And he beat a prime Louis while beeing himself slightly past his best. In the second fight he was clearly past it. Norton faced Ali when he was in his prime while Ali was past his best, still great though. Schmeling´s win over Louis is better than Norton´s over Ali while his loss means less than Norton´s.

Of course you do. Next up on PowerPuncher´s hypothetical heavyweight boxing history: why Sam Peter would have dominated hw boxing from 1920 to 1950 - big, black and fueled with modern nutrition and training!

I´m all for giving Larry his due and I rank him highly but what´s going on in this thread and quite often on this board is more than giving him his due. Excusing all the wrongs he did and twisting them around to some glorious achievements - Witherspoon for example. Sorry, that´s going over the top. Isn´t it enough that he is a Top5/6 hw with the second highest numbers of defences, great longevity, some good contenders on his resume? Do you really need to turn him into some kind of superfighter? Really? He was human. He struggled with some old fighters, with green fighters and none of them was as good as Schmeling but somehow he would cruise to an easy win against him. You really think that´s reasonable? Well, we´ve got to disagree then.

 

1 big advantage not yet mentioned is the experience factor of Schmeling. He had more than the title challengers added up Larry fought. Most were barely 10 round fighters and that experience edge always turned out to be a big advantage late in fights. When he fought Spinks, that was the first guy in a long long time that had championship experience in late rounds that knew how to fight and how not to fade. The only other experienced 10 round fighters were who, brother Leon and who actually thought he had a chance? And Ali. Before that Shavers and Norton. Lots of inexperience in between. And Max Schmeling is not one of those guys.

 

1. There's allot of reasons why Norton was at his best there

2. Each man does certain things better I'll leave it at that, Baer isn't some amazing HW monster

3. Holmes was on the downside and past prime but I think Witherspoon proved how good he was in subsequent fights

4. Louis was more primed than Ali although Ali was only 28 in the first fight but according to some Louis was not at his best, maybe that's BS who knows. I'd say there isn't much in their resumes

5. Now you're being silly, I don't rank Peter at all but Witherspoon beat Bruno, Bonecrusher Smith, Prime Tubbs, Prime Page, Prime TIllis, Carl Williams and 2 very close loses to Holmes and Thomas. His resume is better than Carnera and Sharkey and it would be better if King didn't shut him out of the HW picture after the freak loss to Smith. Even in his late 30s he was putting in good performances beating Gonzalez and having a very close fight with Mercer. He's technically better boxer than most of the 30s HWs and a monster size wise

6. The thing is your critisizing him because he had some close fights or he was momentarily hurt and came back fighting, he was more dominant against his opposition than anyone else and some of the things. His competition is generally still underrated and he was incredibly dominant for a long time.

I can do the same thing you've done to Holmes with Joe Louis - outboxed by a SMW for 11rounds, arguably lost to journeyman Farr in his prime, knocked down by journeyman Braddock, dominated in his prime and knocked out by Schmelling, completely outboxed by Walcott getting a gift decision (same age as Holmes was against Witherspoon), lost to Godoy in the first fight being given a gift.

See how easy it is In all seriousness Holmes was far more dominant than Louis, was knocked down far less and had less disputed decisions

7. This is where we disagree, I think you underrate Holmes opposition, I think some where tougher styles and on par with Schmelling. Fighters have tough fights and no champions haven't had occasional tough fights, Holmes is no exception, it doesn't mean fighter X would beat them because of that.

I also think we disagree on the style - I think it is a bad style for Schmelling, you think it's a bad style for Holmes. I think it's a bad style because Holmes is quicker, bigger, an equal technican, better inside fighter and incredibly durable.

 

He was 29 and beat Shavers 18months beforehand, past prime yes, but I didn't think Marciano fans cared about opponents being past prime

He was 32 and was generally considered past prime in '36

 

Yep, fighters at 36 are at their best. Oh, man, do you realize how far you´re stretching there?

Nope, he isn´t but he was a better fighter than Shavers.

Yeah, right, close fights against the best competition in a mediocre era. :roll:

Yeah, Ali was only 28 ... and in other threads people Argue he was past his prime 2 years before against Frazier. Stop it! We both know I´m right.

That wasn´t silly, it was satire. Man, you Brits have no humour.

Witherspoon also lost to Smith in one round and those wins over the best were close SD or MDs. Tillis? Williams? Come on ...

Yes, he was all that. That´s why he is an ATG and highly rated. But we are not discussing his resume and achievements. I don´t critizise his close fights, nor that he never gave rematches. What I do is using those fights as examples why Schmeling would be a tough match-up for him.

Again, we are not discussing resume here and even if, Louis´is better by quite a bit, despite those things you mentioned. Which are all true but exagerated - wich I didn´t. And btw. the difference between Louis and Schmeling is that Louis put all losses or close fights right in a rematch until he was done. Holmes didn´t.

Yeah, right Norton, Witherspoon and co were on par with Schmeling. That´s why their careers were as successful.

You disagree due to your agenda which makes you blind for the most obvious things but it´s all hypothetical anyway. I made my point, you made yours. That´s it.