Larry Holmes Vs. Joe Frazier (after losing the title)

No way Larry Holmes from 1975 would handle Joe Frazier from 1975. He's not going the distance. From 1976 on..Larry could possibly win based on his i guess youth or at least he was a fresher fighter.
Not sure what Joe had left post Manila. His legs appeared to he gone in the Foreman rematch. If you view that bout you'll see Frazier do fairly well in ring center every round only to voluntarily go to the ropes to rest his legs. The mark of a shot fighter.

 

I believe Holmes fought Williams on short notice with an injured hand. That according to Larry was the situation Don King threatened to have Holmes legs broken if he didn't accept the fight. On his honeymoon no less.
Larry was brought along rough by a promoter who didn't care for him whatsoever.

 

I think they meant untested at the top level. Not so much his actual age. I don't think there were too many other heavyweights with something to lose lining up fighting Larry Holmes. Even if Don King didn't know much about boxing other heavyweights knew Holmes was a problem.

 

I think had Larry fought Frazier when he was young Frazier would have beaten him. Once. But Larry wins the trilogy regardless of the difference. Fighting Frazier in a competitive match in the early to mid seventies would not have ruined Holmes; he was one of the toughest SOBs around, it would have MADE him a more complete fighter earlier...

 

My point was that he would lose to him the first time they fight. And he'd learn so much in doing so, and comeback stronger. He never beat Rocky's 'record' anyway. I think way too much emphasis is put on being unbeaten. Had Holmes been beaten by a machine like Frazier at that point, and in my opinion it would not have been a one sided beating, he would have become an even better fighter and having that early loss would not have made him as risk averse as some people paint him...

 

I'm a big Holmes fan but a green version of Holmes doesn't beat any version of Frazier between 1973-1975.

Holmes didn't start to show his potential until he outpointed tough 6'5 Roy Williams in 1976.

And then Holmes started to peak in 1978 with a stand out one sided decision win over dangerous puncher Earnie Shavers.

Holmes was not a stand out amateur unlike Frazier who won an Olympic gold medal.

So unlike Frazier who was fighting pretty tough opposition in the early part of his professional career.

It took Holmes a bit longer to find his footing in the professional ranks.

So overall Holmes would be too green at this stage in his career to beat Frazier.

 

Holmes didn't really come into his own until the latter part of the 1970s. But, honestly, after Manila I don't think that Frazier could have beaten him. Winning the FOTC in 71 took a lot from Frazier and the two fights with Foreman didn't help and Manila was murder.

 

In a best-for-best against-all type of test, I consider Holmes a better H2H heavyweight than Frazier, who I already rate higher than many on Classic, in that respect. But in this timeline that you're outlining and also in a best-for-best between the two of them, I favour Frazier in both of those. I like Holmes chances here less than a best-for-best match. I don't think he'll have the poise or strength to take it. He will put in work, and he will put a serious fight in though, imo. He was having some lackluster action though, where the idea that he was going to takeover the division one day was not much more likely than that someone like McCall or Douglas would beat a Tyson or Lewis when they fought each other.