Does prime Larry Holmes go through Wlads resume without a single loss ?

If Norton and Williams can go neck and neck in him with his prime, I think Povetkin walks him like a dog, Joshua and Fury ridiculously huge favorites as well. Holmes vs Ibragimov is a good fight, much less Joshua and Fury.

 

WIlliams fought him well past his prime, and Ken Norton is a Hall of Famer and was champ at the time.

Convince me how Fury and Joshua, neither of whom ever fought anyone as great as even the Norton who fought Holmes, beat him. And let's not bring up old man Wlad, please. That ain't cutting it.

 

He beats them all but the fanboy in me had to vote for Povetkin in the poll.

 

Prime for prime, I'd favour Holmes over all of them, with Fury being the biggest threat. Almost exactly what I'd say of Wlad, except that they have a better chance of beating Wlad because of their proverbial puncher's chance.

The stipulation implied by the thread title is that Larry is in peak condition every night. If so, the question doesn't take long to answer IMO. Looking at Wlad's best wins; Peter has no chance; Haye has no chance; Pulev has no chance (although if it were competitive, I wouldn't be surprised); Povetkin has little to no chance; and the three best southpaws Wlad beat wouldn't have a good chance either IMO. Byrd's head-movement would obviously annoy Holmes, but I don't think Byrd would be landing much on Holmes either. In a boring fight, I think the workrate from Holmes makes the difference in most rounds. Ibragimov and Chagaev could maybe win six rounds between them, but they're southpaw stance isn't enough to even get close to a win IMO. Just trouble Holmes for a short time.

If we look at Wlad's losses, there's no way Purity beats Holmes. Brewster could possibly drag Larry into a Weaver-esque dogfight, but I think Weaver was better than Lamon and Larry still managed to beat him while ill. In Wlad's shoes, I'd almost guarantee losses to Fury and Josh, but I think he whips AJ prime for prime, and squeeks out a close decision over Fury. Sanders may land a big left and rock Holmes, but I have lots of faith in Larry riding out any hard moments and taking over late. Stoppage isn't unlikely.

In a real setting where Holmes ages, he's not probably gonna pick up as many losses as Wlad did, but will likely drop some as he got older. Probably sooner than Wlad did to be fair. Maybe the likes of Povetkin or Pulev can pull off the upset vs the Spinks/Tyson versions of Holmes. The Holmes of say, Mercer and Holyfield, loses fights vs Fury and Joshua; with Fury being very wide and Joshua being very fun.

There'd be some great fights in that mix though. Holmes vs Brewster and Povetkin? Yes, please.

 

Joe Louis wants a word.

 

Why do people rate Fury so highly when we have film of him struggling with small men? He is a big gangly arm puncher who only imposed his will on another tall gangly giant one who happens to be very lazy ands entire tactic is to wait to throw a big right hand while doing as little actual boxing as possible.

 

Sanders KO'd the guy that KO'd Weaver, just sayin

 

Means nothing given the state of their careers.

 

I rate Sanders much more highly than Weaver. The only clear cut thing Weaver does better is come with nice muscles.

 

Correct . Larry would school guys like Sam Peters

I think the difference in performances would be similar to the difference of their uppercuts .

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Debatable but I think Holmes was more sound defensively.

 

If he faces Povetkin in his late 30's, like Wlad did, I think he loses. Prime for prime I think he beats him, but not at that age.

 

Holmes would at the end of the day have a worse record than Wlad.

At his best Homes could hang with most, but he was inconsistent with his performances. Haye and several others could really trouble Holmes. Larry always fought down to the level of his opponents, and never blew anyone away. That gives many of the great fighters Wlad faced plenty of chances.

He wins some and loses some. But he is not going to ever dominate like Wlad did.

 

He lost to Michael Spinks, so probably not. Every all time great heavyweight has lost to inferior opposition except Marciano.

 

He was nearly three years past his prime when he "lost" to Spinks. I still question whether he really DID lose to Spinks...ever. Certainly not the second time.