Max Schmeling v Larry Holmes

Joe Louis's RIGHT HAND is no staw and his ability to finish an opponent when hurt is unmatched....Fighters flaws resurface and they did with HOLMES....lOUIS WOULD HAVE HAD THE RIGHT HAND AND THE FINISHING SKILLS....IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TYSON/HOLMES ALL OVER EXCEPT LOUIS DOES IT PRIME TO PRIME....BROWN BOMBER :happy

 

holmes jab at his peak was a leathal effective weapon Louis never faced. Conn was about the closest and look how well he did. bringing up holmes v tyson proves that you always clutch at straws

 

Do you really think that it's fair to point to a fighters amature career as evidence as to how he would fare as a pro? Most great fighters suffered loses as an amature when they were still green.

 

Louis's right hand over the jab in addition Joe jab would also make Larry reluctant to leave it out there...Holmes never fought a 2 fisted puncher like Joe....If we talk about Conn we can also bring up Spinks...Conn had a 2 fisted attack and fast feet...he gave Louis a good fight but was KO'd 2 times.....Spinks beat Holmes 2 times

 

If you read my post what I said was he showed the weakness in his amatuer career...and it surfaced in his pro career, I for one was not satisfied that Holmes fought the fighters that would have given him the most trouble...If Louis was around in the 80's...he would have cleaned up the division faster than Tyson did against the Berbicks Thomas's Holmes, Tubbs, and other left overs from the 80's...but Louis' would have ripped through all of them in the primes...Thats how good he was

 

Neither Shavers nor Snipes dropped Larry with right hands over the jab. Shavers dropped Larry when Larry got dumb and threw a telegraphed right uppercut from the outside, and Snipes dropped Larry when he threw a double jab, and Larry got caught hard with a right hand he didn't see comming. And, maybe on paper Spinks won both fights, but the majority of people feel he won the 2nd fight.

 

and Wells was a southpaw....point is Larry was open to the right and I seen him get shook by Weaver,Witherspoon,Smith,Snipes,Shavers,Norton,M.Spinks and Louis had one of the best ...Joe was the ultimate counter puncher and I dont think any of these men can match him for offense......I think you can compare Tyson to a certain degree as far as power but I still think Joe had a better arsenal than Mike and chopped down the Big boys with ease....I cant see Holmes being a problem for Joe...just my opinion

 

Larry has a little more too him doesn't he.

When was a right hand ever the fair undoing of him?

Holmes is going to box to good effect and rough it out for the win.

Schmeling would be hard pushed to beat someone so well equipped, resilient and adaptable.

 

I picked Holmes to win over Schmeling UD but I said the fight could be shakey for him...It Joe Louis I dont see him having a very good chance against

 

It is as fair as bringing up early profesional losses on the records of guys like Schmeling.

Schmeling literaly had a dozen amateur fights before he turned pro.

 

It should also be noted that after taking Louis's jabs in 1936 taking Holmses would seem like light releif.

 

Well, Louis is another bundle of fish, but Schmeling is a more limited and vulnerable proposition.

Not to say he would not cause problems, this is a darn good match-up, but Holmes would not accept anything less than the win.

 

When did Michael Spinks shake Larry up? He landed some frustrating flurries on Larry, but all they did was annoy Larry, didn't hurt him in the least.

 

Schmeling was better than what we saw against Louis in '36 and '38. By then Max was over 30 and it showed. He was smarter, but also more sedated... interestingly, if you watch his early films -like the first Sharkey fight, what you are watching is a man who not only looked alot like Dempsey, but patterned his whole style after prime Dempsey. By the time he faced Louis, Schmeling (like Dempsey when he aged) was less energetic. You could see a big difference in the muscle definition. Max would still bend at the waist to maneuver shots to the sides in close, but he became more vulnerable to aggressive fighters.

Max also relied on his vaunted right hand. His left evolved into one of those stereotypical European pawing jabs (to wit, Vitali, yesterday) although earlier he would leap in from his dempsey-crouch with a left hook. He was almost a one-handed fighter.

His prime was roughly around the time he faced Stribling and Sharkey. He was a little over 6 feet and ~188 with a 76 inch reach.

Larry Holmes was in his prime around the Ali fight -he was 29, 6'3 and 211 with a 5 inch reach advantage over Max. That's no small advantage. That's 20 pounds. But I don't share many posters' bias about weight. Weight can be a downright disadvantage and if you fight right, it isn't so much of a factor either.

The problem for Max, pitted against Larry, isn't his physical disadvantages, which he had 6 ways to Sunday, it his style. At his best, Max was more of a Dempsey doppleganger -frankly, he was a poor man's Dempsey. Sharkey was sharpy when he first faced Max. He was handling him just like he was handling Jack Dempsey himself until straying low and Max took advantage of it. Sharkey was tempermental and admitted that he was his "own worst enemy", but on a good night, he was a good boxer and he considered Schmeling as nothing more than a "novice". "Putty in my hands" he said.

When Max beat Joe Louis, his style was tamer and more thoughtful, but it was also static and one-handed.

Neither Max is going to have answers for Larry's height, reach, or jab. Larry was a good boxer and Max will not outsmart him. Larry's dynamic style is what will cause the most problems for many HWs from that era, including Louis, including Max. Larry will give movement and pick Max apart at angles behind a varying jab that Max will not be able to cope with. Larry could get sloppy at times and there are many windows he leaves opens with those shots he threw... more than a few HW greats from days gone-by would make him pay for those risks he took, but Max isn't one of them.

PS/ Bummy brought up Spinks. Spinks did well with Larry because his style was herky-jerky -it was anything but static. Larry had difficulty reading Michael who "jabbed when he should've thrown a right and threw a right when he should have jabbed." Spinks was like an autumn leaf in the wind. Hard to predict and therefore hard to hit. Spinks was the anti-Schmeling.

 

Great post mate. Just to add to this even given Spinks herky jerky style Holmes came back and got past it in the rematch, save the judges. IMO he simply came in underprepared and supremely overconfident in fight 1. I believe Holmes at his finest would have blown Spinks into the weeds, by KO or by winning almost every round. Stoppage i reckon. By the time they fought Holmes timing was terrible vs such an opponent and his speed and snap was gone. Peak Holmes would dominate him on the end of the jab with his swift right hand always threatening and his stamina unquestionable.