I'll go with Holmes as well. These were two guys with enough stamina and durability to take each other to the cards with Larry having the better outside fight game, reach and overall boxing ability.
Holmes gave Holyfield enough problems way past his prime so a peak Holmes would comfortably win on points IMO.
Hell, I don't think I completely rule out the Holmes that fought Tyson (or that actually fought Holyfield, or even McCall) against the Holyfield(s) that fought Tyson. Prime for prime, no contest. All due respect to Evander.
I think their fight did highlight some problems Holy may have had with Holmes, notably Larry's ability to hit Holy with clean right hands. Now granted, Holmes shuffled to the ropes and it's hard to look good against an opponent when he fights a(n) (almost) spoiling type of fight, but Holmes didn't have an issue finding Holyfield with the right. A prime Holmes would not retreat to the ropes and thus leave himself open that bit more, but the fundamental issue of that fast right hand remains the same, only it would be quicker and thrown with more snap. Holy was phenomenal against certain fighters/styles, but a slick boxer could prove him to be human, and Holmes was that. Holyfield for all his great qualities, was not that hard to hit. Evander I think would quite possibly get the better of heated exchanges against Holmes (I'm not entirely convinced but he usually did well in a firefight) but Holmes at range and boxing behind that educated left hand, I think Holyfield would struggle to get going.
Their fight in '92 was a frustrating fight to watch. Holmes really didn't try to fight at all, and Holyfield didn't seem able to force the fight enough to make Larry fight. Holyfield at least tried to force the issue, but against a guy like Holmes, a cagey, experienced guy who goes to the ropes and fights out of a shell, it's hard to look good. And I'm not so sure their '92 fight is an accurate gauge as to how a prime Holmes would do against Holyfield. A prime Holmes would open up more; he'd throw more, move more, and engage more, and that would give Holyfield opportunities that he didn't have in '92. So, in that vein, both guys might do a lot better if matched prime for prime. Holmes would be faster and more active, and Holyfield would have more counterpunching and offensive opportunities; he wouldn't be chasing a guy simply looking to spoil and sneak in a few offensive bursts here and there as the '92 Holmes did. And where was Holmes' jab in 1992? His jab was basically non-existent. Holmes had more offense in 1995 against McCall than he did against Holyfield in 1992.
Holyfield would be very live and by no means is the fight a given, but I'd give Holmes the slight odds edge to win on points. It would be a heck of a fight.
Holmes by UD he would be landing his jab and whipping the rt hand behind it. He probably drops Holy at some point with his uppercut.
A prime Holyfield struggled with a 42 year old Holmes. A prime Holmes would have handled Holyfield quite handily imo.
The Holyfield-Holmes fight made it abundantly clear that if Holmes was younger he would have beaten Holyfield.
Um most everybody is correct here. It would not be a slight edge for all the reasons given, & only PEDs might prevent a KO. UD.
Entaowed, once again about PEDs - they can't improve the fighter's chin. You either can take the punch, or you can't. This was shown by Fernando Vargas, Roy Jones Jr, Andre Berto, Lamont Peterson, Larry Olubamiwo and many more PED users who had glass or average chin despide using PEDS.