Holmes 78 vs holy field 96

When they fought in 92 it was a ugly fight. Holmes was good 10 yrs past his prime but still was
like a cagey old fox and very cunning with his experience . Holyfield was inexperienced at hw
at that time but in 96 more experienced but being in some brutal fights.
This fight under this scenario would be like Holmes vs Weaver a very exciting battle. Holyfield
has better chin so no stoppage Larry on points.

 

Or like Holmes - Norton but slightly more rounds won by Larry.

I pick Holmes by decision in 15 exciting rounds

 

holmes, and maybe by KO

 

Me too.

 

Holmes wins a one-sided decision or possibly late stoppage.
Holyfield was way past his best by 1996, he was 34 and had been in too many wars and had come out of retirement twice already.
Holmes was 28 years old and right in his prime in 1978.
Prime for prime I would pick Holmes anyway by clear decision in a competitive fight. But with the 1996 Holyfield it would be a complete shellacking.

 

In 1978, Holmes fought a 34 year old Ken Norton and got a split decision win. in 1996, Holyfield was 34.

So, I'm asking the question; "Is a 34 year old Evander Holyfield better than a 34 year old Ken Norton? And is he so much better, if you think he is, that he can turn a narrow decision loss into a win?"

Bear in mind that a 37 year old Holyfield gave ATG Lennox Lewis all he could handle. A 37 year old Ken Norton was knocked out in the first by Gerry Cooney.

Obviously boxing cannot be so easily broken down that if a beats b, then he beats c who got a draw with b etc. But it is a bit of context. I make Holyfield a much better fighter than Norton but Larry's mobile style may be too much for him in 78 and deny him the opportunity to counter effectively. I can go along with those calling this a Holmes win. But it wouldn't be a stoppage. Larry was no big puncher so I would bet my mortgage on Evander taking him the distance.

 

In my opinion:
No, Holyfield at 34 was not better than Norton at 34. It's the wear and tear. Holyfield had taken more prolonged gruelling fights than had Norton at that point and had had retirements and health issues. Norton had had a few tough fights but he hadn't absorbed the beatings or had as many epic efforts as Holyfield had been through (for example, the Ali trilogy wasn't as tough on Ken as the Bowe trilogy was on Evander).
Holyfield probably never had the stamina at heavyweight that Norton had anyway. Also, I believe perhaps Norton's style was better suited to boxing Holmes.

Of course, Norton had a tough fight and a LOSS to Holmes in 1978 and kind of went downhill from there.
Whereas Holyfield got a nice win against Tyson in 1996 and from that managed to stick around a champion for a few more years (though of course he really had no business hanging around as long as he did ... another 15 years !)

 

I think Holyfield would give him an excellent fight. He's an underrated technician at times and i think he would be extremely competitive. Holyfield even at 34 is a much more rounded fighter than guys like Weaver and co and Weaver gave Larry all he could handle. A 34yo Holyfield would be the best guy Holmes ever faced during his reign imo.

 

Holmes by decision in an extremely competitive bout

 

I like the Holmes that crucified Cooney, he was at his peak and would win a unanimous decision.Evander couldn't handle Norton either , Evander would have to go to war with Norton and Ken hit harder.