I have to go with Joe Louis here, probably by late stoppage. If I picked Holmes over Louis, my Granddaughter might very well withdraw her payment for the Fury vs. Whyte fight. Now that she's bought it, I'm looking forward to it.
Holmes recovered and came back to win against guys like Weaver, Snipes, Witherspoon and Shavers. Have a look at Shavers finishing attempts on a very hurt Holmes. It was woeful. Now credit to Holmes doing what he had to do and coming back from the brink but picture a finisher (and infinitely greater fighter full stop) like Louis comparative to those guys. He could well be the best finisher ever and is certainly in the conversation. Surviving Louis in a similar situation is like comparing a crack in the bedroom wall to the grand canyon. The extra difficulty in surviving a Joe Louis or a Mike Tyson is barely measurable. Louis had a defensive deficiency against right hands going into the Schmeling fight and it's heavily documented, including before the fight, that he slacked off in training and was more worried about girls and golf. He had begun to believe his own press. Louis got exactly what he deserved and it was the turning point for him. Blackburn took him aside and spent time shoring up that defensive deficiency and he never dogged it preparing for a fight again. He went on an absolute tear after this. The version of Louis that lost to Schmeling is certainly not indicative of the man at his greatest and definitely won't be the one in best for best fantasy fights. It's an open fight where most seem to lean toward Louis. Louis has one of the greatest rights ever and is brilliant in finding openings for it, be it countering jabs at which he was brilliant, or using his underrated thumping jab to camouflage it. On top of that he can also knock you stone dead with the left so you've got a genuine two handed puncher threatening methodically from both wings. The price of mistakes are costly.
I understand your point but Louis was also dropped and hurt by lesser fighters aswell, more often than Holmes i believe. Correct me if i'm wrong i'm not the most knowledgeable on Joe Louis's career. And i could use same argument, that if a harder puncher or better finisher was in that position what would of happened. As for the Schmeling fight again as i pointed out earlier, i'm not the most knowledgeable on the ins and outs of Joe Louis's career. i'm just going by what i see, and that was Joe Louis getting beaten up. And hit over and over again by right hands and getting knocked out. Holmes had a few off nights and as you said was hurt few times in his career, but was never knocked out in his prime. For me i just feel like Holmes would be pot shotting Louis, who is a bit static with his movement as i said earlier. And he would have trouble finding Holmes, who would be pumping that jab in his face. And another thing is Holmes isn't a devastating puncher, but his right hand has fairly good power. And if he lands a few flush right hands on Louis's chin which isn't exactly granite, it would be interesting to see how Louis's chin holds up to it. Lastly i'm not discounting Louis's chances totally, as you said he is a great finisher. And has dynamite in both hands, but would Louis find him often enough ? and even if Louis did get Holmes in trouble. There's no guarantee he would finish off Holmes, who probably has one of the best recuperative powers in Heavyweight history next to Evander Holyfield.
Louis was dropped and hurt by some hard punchers and was often at his most dangerous when hurt. You don't credit his powers of recuperation whatsoever yet they were as good as Holmes and perhaps even better given he was often at his most dangerous when stung and probably recovered faster. He cleared his head in an instant and looked for openings to finish or turn the fight then and there on overeager opponents. Max Baer had him in a bit of trouble early and Louis turned it around in a heartbeat, lacing him with bombs and having him offensively impotent for the rest of the round before skipping to his corner. Not many hit harder than Baer that's for sure. Louis got knocked down against Galento, got straight up and they were back at it without a 10 count or any rest at all. Have a look how composed he was. He had a few flash knockdowns but always recovered in an instant. Louis' own powers of recuperation are seldom ever acknowledged despite being absolutel top bracket. It's incredible really. The Schmeling stoppage is virtually irrelevant here. It's best for best and it won't be an underprepared Louis struggling about with no answer for right hands. If it were this version of Louis i'd certainly favor Holmes but it's just not and most know the difference. Also Louis has one of the greatest jabs ever himself, and it is stiffer than Holmes. He's also pristine at countering jabs and the more you throw the more chance he has to slip and counter with that booming right hand as he did countless times in his career. As for finding Holmes often enough - he only has to find him once to potentially have him in trouble. Why would Joe Louis need a load of accumulation.
I have no real argument on anything you said, you made good points although i would argue Holmes had a better jab than Louis although that's up for debate. My issue is Louis's static movement how would he find Holmes ? Conn who is a Light Heavyweight totally befuddled and out boxed Louis for 12 rounds, Holmes is bigger/stronger has longer reach. If that's Holmes's in that position pot shotting staying on the outside i think he gets the job done. And i'd also argue that once Louis got Holmes in trouble he'd finish him, as i've pointed out Holmes has amazing recuperative powers. I'd argue that if Holmes did get in difficulty vs Louis that he would be able to over come it. Lastly i'd like to ask you a question, would you agree that Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Billy Conn. Were the best boxers Joe Louis fought skill wise ? and is it a coincidence that Louis with his static movement, had issues against all 3 of them based on there styles ? and none of them are 6'3 Heavyweights with 82 inch reach, they're really Light Heavyweights.
By the way i'll reply to you tomorrow if you comment again it's late here, and i've stayed up bit too long but good debate so far i've enjoyed it. @JohnThomas1
Most would agree Holmes had a "better" jab, for sure. He's known for it. I only said the Louis jab was "stiffer" even tho Holmes is plenty stiff in itself. Louis has a great underrated jab tho and he'd be working it as well looking to land missiles behind it while also looking to counter the Holmes jab. Holmes had a habit of dropping his jab coming back and Louis is the perfect candidate to take advantage of that. Louis isn't as "static" as he's portrayed. It sounds so simple for Holmes to just pot shot from the outside and cruise past Joe Louis but it just wouldn't work out that way. If you watch enough of Holmes fights he almost always ended up in exchanges, particularly against better opponents. Joe Louis didn't go undefeated for 14 years and set all sorts of records for no small reason. He's not going to just shuffle along following Holmes all night and saying shucks when he loses the decision. Weaver, Snipes, Witherspoon, Norton, they all got to Holmes. Louis will too. Most invest far too much in the Conn fight. If it meant near as much as some try to make out he wouldn't have won half the fights he did. He also knocked Conn out in the blink of an eye - in the 13th round. Louis carried his crackling power all night. He can take you out at any point in a fight. Holmes movement is going to be slowing a long way before the 13th. You also commented earlier that Holmes "had a few off nights". Surely Louis is entitled to some leeway (same as the recuperation rating) as well. Louis beat plenty of big men. Sure they weren't as good as Holmes but he's certainly capable of icing bigger stronger men. If Holmes got into the same level of trouble he did against Snipes or Shavers it's over. Louis is considered by many the greatest finisher in history. He's considered by a great many the "greatest" puncher ever. Surviving those guys is a walk in the park vs surviving Louis. The argument for Holmes IMO would rest on him not getting into that level of trouble. Well if you are going to bring up Walcott and Charles we may as well talk Willliams, Spinks and Tyson because they are about as relevant to this peak vs peak fight as those two. They are perfectly comparable per the career stages of Louis/Holmes. I won't waste pointless words on them tho because Holmes was way past his peak - just like Louis. They are irrelevant in this just like Schmeling....unless we talk about the level of improvement and devastation Louis showed in the rematch at a career stage tat was definitely relevant. Sure Max had aged a bit but Louis, wow. Spinks was really a light heavyweight tho btw. Walcott most certainly wasn't a light heavyweight. Lastly i don't think Louis' footwork was near as bad as many seem to imply. His record bears that out.
Hey no worries dude - enjoyed it!!!! You'll love it here at ESB and you're doing great in here. I'll let you have the last summation as we are already going a little in circles and i try and stay out of too many lengthy debates these days. I've pitched about as many points as i'm probably going to.
I think It would be Louis's right hand that carries the day. Joe was a smarter boxer than noted for. Holmes tended to get predictable with his jab and he left his chin up in the air at times. The BrownBomber had quick hands and exceptional timing. Joe Louis right cross was a laser. Powerful, fast, accurate.
I would say Larry could but Joe should. Holmes could win but he would have to fight a near perfect fight.
Great, on point breakdowns on Joe Louis, JT! I hear you on lengthy debates. Often, neither parties fault, but without due discipline exercised, they can become circular and repetitious. Kudos to both you and @Dynamicpuncher for a civil, courteous and progressive discussion. A good read for everyone. PS - Shane Warne’s farewell actually exceeded my expectations - truthful, raw, funny replete with amazing and seemingly sincere celebrity tributes - overall, very entertaining and insightful. The man squeezed a lot into his 50 years, and we’re not just talking his monumental achievements in cricket! A bit like the old Errol Flynn. LOL. Did Warnie have an ego? Hell, yeah! It’s a prerequisite for a lot of ATG athletes. I loved the anecdote re his designing personalised emojis of himself to tag onto his personal messages to friends. He was very mindful that he looked “just right”, even in cartoon form. Ha!
Holmes is certainly the favorite. Most points are already covered here, but I will note the original post was repetitious in giving different words for accuracy-but none for the Louis powerm hand speed- & combinations. Holmes does not have a stylistic advantage here, that is pretty neutral. He does not have a significant size advantage-I would take the experienced 1942 Louis. The points about his ability to finish fighters is crucial. It was much better than anyone who had Holmes down. Now Larry could remain world class when older-but Louis was better when young-but at their best, Louis had more tools. Ali had enough speed, elusiveness & volume which would be enough to get him through against Joe. Not Holmes.
I just read your response i don't feel i need to reply anymore, we both made good arguments nothing was biased or outlandish. I'm in the same boat as you, i tend not to like going back and forth for pages upon pages. In my short time here i've seen how some debates, spiral out of control going on for like 100 pages haha. So if the person i'm debating with makes good points and we've had a little back and forth, i tend to say "good argument mate we both made good points i respect your opinion lets leave it at that". But nice to share some thoughts with you until the next time.
