Shavers lost to a litany of journeymen and frequently couldn't KO them. He was short, chinny, crude and slow with a suspect engine, didn't spark men like Wilder does, didn't stop men as big as Wilder frequently has and his power dissipated in the later rounds. Holmes never fought anyone of remotely Wilder's dimensions with that speed, power or determination, didn't have much power himself, he was a sucker for right hands and would be bombed out.
You would have to favour the better technically boxer, which is larry holmes. Larry has shown with his fights that he had very good durability, great stamina with top par recovery rate, so it's not like Wilder can knock Holmes out with one punch, so therfore Wilder gets outboxed by the better boxer. Simple as that.
Ppl r really using the Tyson fight as an example? His face would fall like that girl from the new Silent Hill game trailer
This matchup is insulting to Holmes. Holmes would out-think, out-box, and out-fight Wilder. He would likely stop Wilder in mid rounds. Fury would likely last the distance with Holmes, but wouldn't win either.
You're right about Shavers, his power is overrated. But you're wrong about Holmes fighting Wilder IMO. Wilder is technically so bad Holmes would of had a field day on him. Holmes is a guy who beat prime Mercer when he past his prime and also gave a prime Holyfield a competitive fight past his prime. There is no universe where Wilder is anywhere near those guys in terms of boxing ability. I'd give Wilder a punchers chance which translate to about 10% on landing a bomb and knocking Holmes out. He loses the other 90% of the time.
I'd say so. He one-shotted Helenius with what looked like a tap to close range. Looked like nothing, yet Helenius's eyes were rolling around in his head as he lay on the canvas. This said, Holmes has faced plenty murderous punchers and, other than getting blown out by a prime Tyson, the usual result was Holmes KO'ing or stopping the punchers, even if he had to get up off the canvas to do it. On the other hand, Wilder has not face anyone with near the skill of Holmes. I'd expect this fight to look something like the Shavers fights -- all Holmes unless/until Wilder lands. Dangerous as hell fight for Holmes though. Could easily go wrong. If Wilder catches him early in a round, Larry may not be able to recover after getting up in time to not get caught again.
Wilder's primary skill is landing a right hand (a shot Holmes was susceptible too) on your head and thus far, he's landed his bomb on everyone he's fought. This includes ATG slickster Fury, who is 5 inches taller than Holmes with 4 inches more reach, with unparalleled boxing ability for a man of his size. Fury changed his style for Wilder in the rematch as he believed that trying to pointfight Wilder for 12 rounds was a very dangerous game even when 100% healthy and matchfit. Having success pointfighting against short underpowered heavyweights like Mercer and Holyfield is a different ball game altogether from avoiding right hand bombs from an extremely long, fast, experienced, durable and mentally tough opponent for 36 minutes: a combination of attributes that the underpowered Holmes never remotely experienced because they simply didn't exist back then. If Wilder and Holmes were to fight, the idea that Wilder would be a 9/1 underdog as you're implying is cloud-cuckoo land. Most of the time Holmes would be ending up in a heap.
Wilder has literally struggled with Euro level opposition. If he can’t land his power shots, he’s extremely vulnerable. Yes, he’s very dangerous. He’s unpredictable. His flaws actually make him extremely dangerous. He’s dangerous to anybody. But you’d have had to have favoured Holmes. For me, it would be 9/10. Sure Holmes as never seen anyone quite like Wilder before. That’s because Wilder is simply unique. But he has fought much better fighters. And in a career that spanned 20 years, he was only ever knocked once in 75 fights. Now look from Wilder’s perspective. How many real quality technicians as he fought? One. A guy who he couldn’t beat in 3 attempts. So apart from having a punchers chance, why on earth would you have favoured him over an ATG HW who had one of the best jabs of all time? Wilder has done absolutely nothing in his career for you to have favoured him over a prime version of Holmes. If you evaluate all of the available evidence to hand, your money would have been on Holmes. There’s just not enough evidence to have favoured Wilder.
Prime Larry almost got ktfo by Earnie Shavers. Wilder has a puncher’s chance but I’m going with Larry to outbox him easily.
"Wilder has literally struggled with Euro level opposition." This is a myth repeated by those who do not understand Wilder's style or the politics of his fights. And it's a myth that serves him well because an arrogant Holmes would go in thinking he could dance around and not get nailed by any right hand bombs over 36 minutes. "But you’d have to favour Holmes 9/10." Lunacy, Holmes wasn't favoured by anywhere near such margins against inferior fighters in his own era. How many savage punching KO artists did Holmes fight? How many times did he get put down heavily? And how many of them were as dangerous as an "extremely fast" 6'7 killer like Wilder? Maybe one of them and Holmes was laid out in 4, having looked tentative and fearful for the first 2. "How many real quality technicians as he fought?" Fury x3 and Ortiz x2, Fury being a more elusive boxer than Holmes and even he felt he had to change his style to front-foot pressure + inside fighting for the rematch, something a much smaller Holmes couldn't do effectively against Wilder. Ortiz would have been by far the best southpaw heavyweight there had ever been if he fought in Holmes' era or before. How many good southpaw heavyweights did Holmes fight? 0. So it becomes redundant to inquire about vastly experienced undefeated skilled southpaw counter punchers with big power. Holmes fought a decent southpaw puncher in the amateurs (who went on to be a low level journeyman in the pros) and he got KO'd twice. "ATG" is relative to the era, it's meaningless in a H2H matchup. Many would say that Floyd Patterson is an "ATG", no one with any sense is favouring him over modern 6'5+ KO artist champions.
Redbeard7, A myth? Ha! Please. Do you think we’re stupid and haven’t seen the fights? I’ve seen almost all of them. There’s no myth. He’s extremely dangerous, because he’s fast, powerful and confident. But again, he’s left vulnerable if he can’t land his power shots, as he’s a very flawed fighter who’s lacking technical skills. Killer? Stop. Wilder would have had a punchers chance and nothing more. There’s no myth. Again, he’s a heavily flawed fighter who has struggled with low level opposition. So we can’t just assume that he’d go and knock out Larry, just because he’s powerful. Again, Larry was only knocked out once. Once by a peak Tyson. A Tyson who had superior skills than Wilder, who could slip inside of range and get close, where he could land 2 handed power shots to the head and body. A completely different offense to the one that Wilder has. Tyson Fury was robbed of a win in their first fight, when he was nowhere near 100%. Wilder then had another 2 attempts to beat him, but claimed that Fury cheated and that his costume was too heavy for him. Yet this is a guy who you’re convinced would beat Larry. Larry wouldn’t have needed to have fought Wilder like Fury, as it would have been a completely different stylistic match up. Your southpaw argument is completely irrelevant. Holmes didn’t get the opportunity to fight any top level southpaws in his prime, and who cares what happened in the amateurs. The fact is: You are convinced that Wilder would beat an ATG technician in Holmes, on the back of ZERO wins against Fury, and 2 against an old guy who caused him issues. That is all the evidence you have. An ATG is not just relative to the era. We can look back and see that Holmes is a consensus top 10-15 HW across all eras. Your posts aren’t in any way objective. Dismissing Holmes’ performances over Foreman and Ray Mercer when he he was in his 40’s, etc, whilst trying to tell me that it’s a myth that Wilder struggled with low level opposition? No. Again, I respect Wilder. He’s exciting and dangerous, and he’s great for the HW division. He would have been a threat and had a punchers chance against any HW in history. Come back and have an objective debate.
“As I always say, these guys have to be perfect for 12 rounds, I only need to be perfect for two seconds, .." I am no fan of Wilder however his above statement is true, i favour Holmes beating Wilder inside the distance, but a briefest of openings and Wilder does have that fight ending power, that tears up the odds book
