Joe louis vs larry holmes

I love the primed late LMAO... your physical prime is your physical prime... Just because you increase your boxing IQ later after you had to learn on the job with little training.. no backing... and fighting part time.. DOESN'T mean anything other than your Boxing IQ and skills improving. Walcott's physical prime would never be.. just like it isn't for any other human in his late 30's.. That wasn't his prime, sorry.

 

Holmes' hands were much quicker in general; hooks, body punches, jabs or whatever.

 

You're on mushrooms. Next you'll be telling me Hagler was quicker than Roy Jones jnr.

 

Post a video of Louis at his quickest and Holmes at his. You'll see Holmes was faster.

 

Actually the first gif wasn't slowed down.

 

With prime on a boxing forum we generally mean the time when the fighter was at his best.

Walcott in his physical prime still wasn't at his best because his brain still had to mature.

 

I can see Holmes boxing circles around Louis. I can also see Holmes making that one mistake that against Louis will result in a ko loss to Louis.

 

In general, across the board, Holmes had quicker hands. Not even close either.

Ali-Holmes-Louis...........Holmes is closer to the speed of Ali, than Louis is to Holmes.

 

Many people are looking at Holmes dominating Louis for as long as it lasts or winning on points. And others are looking at Louis knocking out Holmes.

When Holmes got up off the floor against Shavers it was the best recovery of a knockdown I've ever seen. Taking into account the power of Shavers and how good the punch was that connected. Holmes in his prime had great recovery powers. As shown against Snipes as well when he was knocked down and smacked his head off the ring post.

I feel that Holmes has enough power to knockdown Louis. And trust me, Holmes was a deadly finisher when he had a man hurt, outwith the late in the Spinks fights when he was about 2-3 years past his best.

 

Mike Tyson at 215 and 3 quarters Knocked him the **** out, damn that 3 quarters of a pound made a whole world of difference. Carl Williams took him to the brink at 209 pounds ... dropped by earnie shavers, you guessed it under 215 pounds. Mike Weaver gave him a tough battle in what many consider to be Larry's prime years (79-82) 202 pounds. Ken norton and Tim Witherspoon where both 220 pounds giving him his two toughest contests closest to his best. Infact the only fighter of any note he fought that was under 200 pounds (Michael Spinks) handed him his first loss. So pretty much the only fighters of Larrys first 10 years as a champ where either less than 215 pounds or smaller than him, further proving my point that Larry is much better at fighting bigger men as they offer a much bigger target for his incredible jab. Joe on the other hand, performed much better against bigger opponents and again it seemed to be smaller opponents that troubled him

Holmes prime weight was 215 pounds, Louis about 200. So Holmes has a 1 inch height advantage and 15 pounds on Joe.

In all honesty the minuscule size difference appears to work in Joe's favour rather than Larry's.

 

Did Louis ever fought a man who was not only bigger but also faster than him?

Plodders he eat, but Holmes is no plodder

 

What about Ossie Ocasio, who beat Jimmy Young twice in a row to get his shot at Holmes? He extended Lewis, Carl Williams, Mercer, Qawi, Biggs, and Seldon the distance, yet Holmes took him out in devastating fashion in 7. It took Holyfield 11 rounds to stop him.

Alfredo Evangelista, who Holmes dominated and knocked out with 1 punch in 7?

Leon Spinks, whom Holmes destroyed in 3?

Marvis Frazier, who Holmes took out in 1?

All of them were small heavies, Ocasio and Frazier being elusive and quick. Spinks being awkward and quick advancing, and Evangelista who simply plodded after Holmes. All of them were completely dominated and destroyed.

Holmes, in his prime (1978-1982, the Cooney fight), only had real trouble beating Mike Weaver. Holmes had the flu in that fight and it showed in his sluggishness and in his voice in the postfight interview.

Giving examples of guys troubling Holmes when he was slipping rapidly and past his best shows as much as using Louis's fight against Charles as an example of how he'd do against the Holmes of 1980. It makes no sense.

Louis destroyed guys who stood infront of him and walked in straight lines at him. Even then, he was put on his ass many, many more times than Holmes ever was. Holmes was down in 4 out of 75 fights. Louis was down in twice as many fights and had 6 less fights than Holmes had.

Look at the guys who boxed Louis. They gave him trouble. Conn and Walcott being the most famous examples. Louis had issues with people who had a good jab, good movement, and had enough pop to keep him honest. Holmes had all 3 of those and more. Holmes also did best against guys who had slower footwork than himself and against guys who were continually advancing on him.

Louis not only had slower footwork than Holmes, he had slower hands, shorter reach, had issues with boxers, and tended to get dropped a lot.

Holmes, with a great chin, amazing jab, great footwork, very good defense, good power, very good strength, and a wide variety of punches (powerful uppercuts and straights, good body punches) and incredibly quick recovery powers does not spell a good style match up for Louis.

 

.*

You honestly think Ossie was in his prime for the Larry Holmes fight with just 13 fights under his belt? He beat an out of shape and disinterested Young in the first fight and the rematch was an absolute snooze fest that deserved to be a draw

God damn you know Holmes has a weak ass resume when your using how he did against Leon Spinks, Marvis Frazier etc as an argument to how he'd do against Joe Louis. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Bill, but I think showing examples of where Holmes struggled is much better evidence to where he excelled, as the fighters he struggled with where levels above the 4 you listed, but still levels below Louis

A very defensive point of view in terms of Holmes prime. I've seen the Witherspoon fight and Larry was in impeciable shape, maybe lacking a bit in stamina, but still, how did Larry come out of this mythical prime period in 82? Witherspoon plodded at times and did it very effectively, countered Larry's jab or beat Larry to the jab and his left hook was very apparent throughout the fight. I don't think many fighters where better at countering the jab or had a better than Joe Louis and not too mention the best straight right the heavyweit division has seen.*
*

Like I said, was Holmes really past his best against Witherspoon? He was 95% of the fighter in his prime at the least. Louis was 16 years into his career when he fought Charles, not quite the same as being slightly past your prime against Michael Spinks

All I'll say is Louis fought much better punchers than Larry. The opposite is not true.

I honestly think the Conn fight may have been an off night for Joe, but thats just excuses talking I guess, but still Conn was much smaller than Holmes and probably more elusive. I just feel if the Louis from Schmelling II came out for blood against Conn, he'd probably stop him inside 5. Witherspoon didn't have great footwork and was effectively aggressive all night against Larry, enough for me to give it a draw in fact

Shorter reach isn't the be all and end all, one of the best trainers of all time in Angelo Dundee will tell you that. I repeat; It's a very deceptive thing and it's more about where you place your feet I the pocket in comparison to your opponent Also Witherspoon with 1 inch on Louis' reach was able to out jab Holmes. Louis hit much harder, had a wider variety of punches, was one of the best at countering the jab etc. Do you see where this is going :-lol: I mean if Louis had a glass jaw Schmelling would have stopped him with the 100th clean punch he landed on Louis, not the 200th. I don't see Larry having the fire power to stop Louis. His power is getting very overrated here.

I mean the fact you think Holmes has a better punching variety than Louis just tells me all I need to know and this argument is going nowhere. I think both pose men pose equally awkward stylistic threats to each other so I'm going with the man more proven against better fighters which without a doubt was Louis. It was fun while it lasted Bill, we'll do it again sometime :good