Larry Holmes vs Joe Louis? 15 rounds

More people need to come to this realisation about Shavers. He was not good, in the context of world-class fighting.

 

I have a hunch that Louis may as well break Holmes down. But my money would be on Holmes to score the UD.

 

More "revisionism" on this site....Joe Louis by murder...

 

I'm taking issue with you equating Baer's power with Shavers.Buddy did not hit as hard as his brother or Shavers . Godfrey did not have Shavers power either .

 

Louis was floored by men who did not carry Shavers power,I think that is unarguable.
I'm basically saying everyone has trouble with a good jabber.
Mercer did well using the jab against Lewis,and Williams had a terrific jab ,unfortunately he did not have much else.
Louis had a great jab,Holmes had the best jab of any heavyweight I have seen.
The shot that Snipes floored Holmes with was not ,"light".

 

Based on what?

 

It was as hard a shot as the light-punching Snipes could muster, but he was never a puncher of any note. That shot was an anomaly, for both he & Holmes. If we looked at that knockdown, we’d say Holmes would, “definitely, 100%” be knocked out by the punch Shavers didn’t knock him out with, wouldn’t we?

Think of it another way - past-prime Ali beat peak Foreman. How many people would pick Louis at an equivalent point in his career to beat that Foreman? A definite minority, as about half would pick Foreman against even the best Louis. But you know what? Almost all of us would pick against Ali of 1974 against Foreman too, if it didn’t actually happen.

Louis was never, or next to never, hurt by punches that floored him, with the big exception of the first Schmeling fight. Even then, he was up pretty quick. The rest of his knockdowns he appears to recuperate from nigh instantly, I suspect because he wasn’t hurt. Balance, timing, & some luck played their role. He was hit clean by Max Baer & didn’t seem too worried.

No sure things in a Boxing ring, but I don’t see compelling evidence that Louis would have been knocked out by the shot Holmes survived, personally. He was never badly hurt by a non-puncher like Snipes, so if Holmes can take it I suspect Louis could too. I think Holmes had a better chin than Louis but it’s debatable who recovered faster getting off the deck.

 

I don't really see anything tangible to argue about here.

 

Then it’s back to the fight. Holmes never saw a jab within 100 miles as good as Louis’. Others have picked the right hand to do him in, but I think it’s the jab that will be Holmes’ undoing. Louis’ is faster & harder, & he’s less reliant on it than Holmes is, so it can be used to more surprise effect by being employed less predictably.

 

Williams was 6'5 with an 85 inch reach and had a very good jab he would also give Louis plenty of problems aswell especially if he fought Williams at the same type of age Holmes was.

 

The modern heavyweights are too busy losing to men from lower divisions, in case you haven't noticed.

Tyson failing to knock Tillis out is a poor performance. Rodriguez lasting against Holmes is a poor performance. Liston going the distance with Whitehurst, Machen and Marshall a combined 5 times is a poor performance, Foreman losing to Young is a poor performance. Louis destroying Conn in the 13th round is one of the greatest finishes of all time. What ensued up until that point wasn't due to a weakness from Louis, it was due to the strengths of Billy Conn, one of the greatest fighters of all time.

So he repeatedly traps much faster men like Conn, Ramage and Pastor but he wouldn't be able to trap the larger and slower Holmes?
Holmes was quick for his size, he wasn't anything like Conn in terms of speed and acceleration, not even remotely close.

Now, now. At a similar stage of his career Larry lost to Spinks, then lost again.
Louis on the verge of retirement performing as well as he did against a peak Walcott (also a man faster than Holmes) speaks volumes as to any "weakness" he had against boxers. Much better versions of Foreman, Liston and Tyson couldn't knockout movers who wouldn't be fit to carry 1947 Walcott's jockstrap.

Holmes being bigger makes him slower than Conn. You're also advocating that he'd be using a much different approach to Conn, opting to stay at range and jab rather than smother and infight, so how you think these two are even analogous is beyond me.

Holmes would do well to rely on his right cross over Louis' jab if he wants any chance to win this. Giving Louis straight lefts to feed off of is an invitation to get Larry's head blown off.

They wouldn't have. The reason they wouldn't have is because those guys faced much worse boxers than Billy and they couldn't get them out. You're getting too hung up on Conn's weight. The guy was a freak, he could take more punches than his size would have you believe. You're taking an average and trying to apply it to Conn, it just doesn't work, it flies in the face of all evidence. Louis was the only man to finish him and even he went through 13 intense rounds to do it. The average meat sacks you call modern heavyweights wouldn't lay a glove on Billy.
The reason your argument here is egregious is because we have footage of what Louis making impact with 250 pounders looks like. He ragdolled them. Conn was trapped repeatedly and took the same kind of punishment, yet he held on.
The argument essentially is: "wait until you see what a modern chungus would do to Conn", whatever it is you think they'd do, is less than a prime Joe Louis could manage, end of.

You know who else had no amateur career? Conn. Go look at the caliber of opponents he was facing as a teenager.
Of course, no credit for Conn. No regard for his ability, durability, attributes. Just look at his weight and ignore the feats, ignore the performance captured on film. Jimmy fat*ss from 2020 would end him in 3 rounds, somehow.

I'm saying that Conn was already at a reach disadvantage against Louise yet he coped well with it. Whatever size and reach disadvantage he'd have against Holmes pales in comparison to the power discrepancy he had against Louis, who again, was in a league above Holmes as a knockout artist, and everyone else for that matter. If you want stats, between 1934 and 1948 Louis finished 46 of the 50 men he fought, a number which included more ranked fighters than Holme's resume.

Btw the Ocasio fight was evidence of Holmes not moving faster than Louis on the front foot. Don't misinterpret me as saying that Holmes was slow or that he should be sprinting after his opponent. Just as Louis was smart enough to cut the ring methodically and keep a correct distance, Holmes was smart enough to know it too.

Why? Louis was hitting Conn hard and often. Even if Holmes hits Conn as often he still doesn't hit as hard.
I'm not ruling out Holmes knocking Conn out, I just think it's less likely than Louis knocking Conn out, so that diminishes the chances.

Norton extended Holmes into the 15th round, but Conn, who went 13 against Louis, a man who would have Norton sent to the front row 45 seconds into the fight, couldn't go the full fifteen with Holmes is "nostalgic thinking" (I'm sitting in my retirement home connected to every machine aid known to man, spending my last days as a 124 year old arguing with you on this forum, while reminiscing of the good old days of 1941).
It's a double standard. When china chins go the distance with Holmes, it's all good. When steel chinned Braddock is lifted off the canvas by four guys in round 8, it's a knock against Louis. Bollocks.

So a Holmes who went after his opponent slower than Louis did, hit lighter than Louis did, had slower hands than Louis did, was not as good a finisher as Louis was, is going
to match up better against Billy Conn. Lol.

 

What's funny is that Ernie is the kind of 6 foot 200 pounder who would get instantly dismissed on this forum if he fought in any era before "muh golden age".
Especially if he was a 1930s fighter whose only filmed performance would show him swing wildly at Louis before getting punched out of consciousness in two rounds.

 

No one highly rates Shavers H2H though how many mythical match ups does he win on this forum ? So I don't know what you're talking about TBH.

He gets rated for his devastating power and that's it.

 

I just had one poster argue with me that Shavers would be a unique test for Louis. That's overrating Shavers in comparison to the other big sluggers Louis faced.
At the end of the day, we have no way of knowing who hit harder, but I bet you that if 240 lbs Baer was switched around with Shavers, this forum would be clamouring at what a huge puncher he was to compete in the golden era while Shavers would fade in obscurity like every limited slugger before him has.

 

Not for the first time, your opponent is commenting on fights he’s never seen or is highly unfamiliar with. Hence the bizarre conclusions. I think you’ll find you’re wasting your considerable knowledge on him (especially salient point about a past-it Louis still knocking out peak Walcott), however.