Who had more skills Holyfield or Holmes

I think Holmes with that atg jab of his.

 

Holmes had more skills but Holyfield had more steroids.

 

Different skills, but fairly close either way. I would edge towards Holmes, but wouldn’t think anything out of sorts if someone saw it different. The only disagreement I would have is with someone who thought the disparity was wide.

 

Evander had a wider range of skills imo at which he might rate 8/10. He had a better hook, body attack, was good at adapting his strategy. Larry didn't have as wide a range of elite skills but he was better at what he was good at - jabbing - than Evander was at anything.

And being 10/10 in one aspect even if you also have few 5 or 6/10s (in Larry's case, the hook or the body attack. Or the dropkick.), if you have the right game plan and stick to it, trumps a whole load of 7 or 8/10s, Ali being the great case in point.

 

Very fair, Philly Phan.

 

Holyfield for total offensive skills. Meaning a complete repertoire of punches. Holyfield could stop opponents with a wide variety of punches. Straight right hand, hooking , and uppercuts. Left hooks and left uppercuts. Holyfield was much more effective going to the body. Defensively they were about the same when Holyfield fought intelligently ( But his temperament made him reckless and it cost him a few times) movement in prime Id lean towards Holmes at heavyweight. Even when Holyfield 1st moved up to Heavy he became more stationary. IQ. Holmes by a good margin. In a head to head prime vs prime I'll go with Holmes impressively. Holmes jab would be key and would keep Holyfield in check . Holyfield had a wider variety of very good punches, Holmes had a GREAT jab, possibly best in division history and it would be the difference in the fight.

 

Holyfield may have a wider punch variety but Holmes was definitely more skilled. It takes a very special fighter to go 49-0.

 

Intangibles, however, such as heart, pride and mental toughness, it's hard to choose. Both first ballot ATGs in those departments.

Both also sort of followed the most charismatic champs of their eras and suffered a bit for it so it's good to see them getting their just dues on a forum like this where their skills are the criteria for popularity rather than their charisma. I'm afraid both score quite lowly on that front.

Despite having the best name ever, a body of a Greek god, an exciting style and good opponents whose styles meshed with his own to make for exciting clashes, Evander never really set pulses racing among the layman until later in his career when he became a bit of an icon. His post-fight sermons can't have helped.

Larry, similarly, had a range of skills - a sharp tongue and the fearlessness to use it - that should have been a promoter's dream and yet he could never cross over into superstardom. I blame Marciano for that.

Speaking of whom, has anyone ever wondered how prime Rocky would have done with either of these if he had been born 40 years later, had a full head of hair and weighed 215-220lbs?

 

Absolutely. Sometimes better not to be a jack of all trades, maybe.

Minor point... Larry didn't go 49-0. 48-1 after 49 fights. Thought I'd get in before Mark Ant's brother, Ped, gets there with that.

 

More skills as in quantity of skills? Or more as in quality of skills? Or is there some colloquial element here?

 

I have a feeling had Holyfield been heavyweight in say, 1982, he would've struggled more in the 80's than he did in his actual heavyweight career of the 90's.

 

Holmes

 

Larry. Watch the way he totally manipulated and dominated Shavers in the first fight. Though I love Holy a lot, I never saw quite that degree of artistry and intelligence.

That said, Holy was awesome, too!

 

Oh, I'll get some **** for this. Holyfield.

More doesn't equal better, though.

 

Both complete but Holys jab not hurting like Holmes one.