I hate when ppl use Conn vs Louis to prove that Holmes would beat him

I could use Weaver vs Holmes to prove that he would be no match for a prime Louis. Weaver was 200 pounds in that fight, so Louis wouldn't be too small as Louis in his prime came in at about 200 pounds and sometimes slightly over (he was 207 lbs in the B. Baer rematch and vs Abe Simon). He hit as hard as Mike Weaver, plus had a superior delivery system for his punches, was a better boxer, better technician, better finisher etc. So if one says "hurr durr Louis could barely handle Billy Conn so Holmes would destroy him, plus Louis was tiny hurr durr" then they don't know what they're talking about.

Even though Louis had trouble with Conn, it doesn't go without saying that Holmes wouldn't. And, I'd wager that Louis would do much better against Weaver as well in a 1 sided dismantling with the killing blow coming in the early to mid rounds.

 

Good points. Another poster mentioned how Louis was overtrained and at the end of a hectic schedule when he fought Billy so you could make a case for it being an excusable off night and shouldnt hold too much water in evaluating how Joe does in other fights.

 

I agree that such comparisons are dangerous.

 

Holmes was a master boxer. So was the 168 pound boxer Conn, yet he not only out boxed Louis, he stunned him.

A better comparison is Schemling for Holmes to win. Larry's speed and accuracy are mostly forgotten these days. He'd land frequently on Louis, and unlike Conn and Walcott had an A plus chin and never took foolish risks in the ring which is how both men were Ko'd in the lead. Yes--I'm fairly certain Walcott was robbed agains Louis in the first fight.

 

I don't think that any of these men are particularly like Holmes.

 

Louis was to robotic to beat a stick and mover like Holmes.

 

You will find shallow arguments like this pop up quite often when favorites come into it. If fighter X did this and that to Y what chance would Y possibly have against Z. We've all seen it before hundreds of times. It gets really embarrassing when a green or over the hill version of Y is used.

 

The greater the fighter, the more persnickety the critique.

 

I dont even understand the basis for this post to be honest. You can use this same argument for hundreds of matchups

 

I might be the biggest Holmes fan here, and even I think Larry would have been TKO'd. In fact, out of all the other heavyweights in their primes head to head I think Louis is the only one who pretty much definitely would have stopped Larry. I don't even see prime Foreman or Tyson doing that (in fact I think Larry would have stopped them both in 12 at the latest).

 

This is a good argument, plus Weaver didn't have quite the heart of a Louis (not many did, of course).

Joe also was waaay better with combinations than Mike.

 

I take this as you've never used the "if Frazier could beat Ali, Tyson would...".

 

If a crude slugger like Shavers could catch Holmes and floor him then Louis could and Shavers was very lethargic while trying to finish Holmes while Louis would fired in sharp combo`s to finish Larry off.

 

Frazier and Tyson were better than anybody Holmes ever beat.

 

His combos were not robotic.