Larry Holmes vs Max Schmeling

I think Jerry Quarry had an excellent shot at being a champion had he been peaked between 1930 to 1935...... Or, for the matter, had he peaked in 1983 to 1986 and was campaigning as a WBA contender....... Quarry boy just fought in an awesome era in which a group of bad-ass mutha's were simply a wee bit better.....

MR.BILL

 

Blah, blah, blah Young, Quarry and all the others would have been champion in any other era ... blah, blah, blah.

He couldn´t even beat Ellis for a title but suddenly he beats (border line) atgs. :roll:

 

Don't laugh, Bodhi.... But I give Jimbo Ellis from Kentucky more credit than many others do... Yeah, he was a little on the brittle side, but for a naturally smaller man of 190 or so pounds, he could box very well... So he got whacked by "Ali, Shavers and Frazier." Many dude's did too....... WORD!

MR.BILL:bbb

 

Exaclty. That´s the only similarity there is. They are completly different.

What´s next, Louis and Wlad are similar because they both are boxer-punchers?

 

I think Quarry and Ellis beat Sharkey, Carnera but not Schmelling, Quarry could beat Baer too imo. I think Quarry is more similar to Sharkey than Schmelling, who he isn't similar too

 

Depends which Sharkey shows up.

He could also be a handfull for anybody on his best day.

 

Quarry is a poor man´s Sharkey, yeah. :thumbsup With Sharkey and Baer it depends on the effort they make, at their best nights both beat Quarry and Ellis and quite clearly too. Due to fairness we´ve got to pick the best versions of all fighters involved. So, no neither Quarry nor Ellis would beat Sharkey and Baer. Carnera is debatable for Quarry but I´d still make the Italian a slight fav. Schmeling not anyway.

 

Quarry is a better technician with better footwork than Sharkey, he has a better chin and is tougher too, there styles are similar. So that's why I see him beating Sharkey, he's just that little bit better, but it would be a very good contest

Yes you can use the best versions, but the best version of Baer still gets outboxed by a good technician with good movement, Baer didn't lose to Loughran and Bradock because he wasn't prime, he lost because his footwork as too slow with a wide stance making him imobile, his punches too wide and easy to see coming, his defense wide open. A greater powerpuncher but if he can't land and his opponent can box and move, he tends to lose. Thats a bread and butter style for Quarry who prospered against big punchers that were slow, ie Lyle, Shavers, Foster. A great win against Schmelling but Schmelling tends to stay in the pocket, which makes him susceptable to being ko'd. Quarry uses more movement and has a better chin

 

That´s all right, you just have the names the wrong way around.

Yeah, because Lyle, Shavers and Foster were as good as Baer and slower too, at least Lyle. Oh, and he lost to Chuvalo in his prime who wasn´t faster than Baer. Tell me, when during his prime at hw was Schmeling KOed by a fighter in Chuvalos class? He beat the Chuvalo of his time two times, probably three times.

 

OH MY GOD!

This can't be ****in real?

Schmelling didn't have the height, reach, speed, power or grace to make Larry Holmes drop a beed of sweat. You guys are completely out of your ****in minds!

Awe that's made my day

 

This content is protected

 

Earth to TG1

Larry Holmes is about an inch taller than Joe Louis, has about an inch extra striking range. He isn't actualy that big!

Some prety average fighters gave Holmes a hell. To suggest that a former lineal champion could not make him drop a bead of sweat is preposterous.

You don't even understand the basic facts of your argument, and you say that we are out of our minds!