Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Holmes77, Aug 5, 2022.
I think a lot of guys "could" do it.
I wouldn't favour more than just a handful.
Wilder proved himself a champion in the defeats more than he ever did in victories imo. He showed more Championship Heart against Fury than we ever saw from Joshua...or a number of other heavies who shall remain unmentioned since a few are very popular here.
As far as Holmes/Shavers 2 being anywhere near close or stopped prematurely...come on, man.
Holmes beats them all but if he has an off day i give Lewis,Bowe and Tyson the best chance
Wilder showed heart 100 percent but heres the issue. Wilder was thought of as a very protected fighter, with very limited boxing skills.
Tyson Fury is supposed to be this "H2H goat" and a master boxer. But yet he struggled and was down 4 times, against a very limited fighter skills wise who only has right hand.
Now to be fair anyone can be caught, as Holmes did against Shavers. But Holmes still won 22 out of 23 rounds they fought, and won pretty comfortably outside of the 7th round in their 2nd fight.
Shavers and Wilder are comparable, in the fact that they're both quite limited, but have tremendous KO power in right hand. And Holmes had a much easier time vs Shavers.
My question is if people perceived Wilder as very limited, then surely Fury shouldn't be getting floored 4 times. Especially since Fury is supposed be a "master boxer" and a H2H GOAT.
Exactly my point!! It means either one of two things. Either Wilder is better than anyone will give him credit for, or that simply Fury is overrated. My opinion: A bit of both.
He showed exceptional durability and survival ability but he shouldn't have had to in the first place.
I'll go one further. If Fury and Wilder were the same size, and Fury couldn't depend on clinching Wilder to wear him out, I honestly think Wilder wins that fight more often than not.
81 inch reach and the same height as Usyk.
Maybe Tyson, Lewis or Usyk.
Even without the Holmes fights, you would have to conclude that Spinks made the transition to heavyweight, much more effectively than Foster.
I happen to consider old age to be a much better excuse than loss of focus.
It ultimately comes down to two questions.
1. How damaging was it to lose to the opponent who scored the upset?
2. How damaging was it to lose at that stage of your career?
In Holmes's case I would say:
1. Damage medium.
2. Damage low.
In Tyson's case:
1. Damage medium
2. Damage high
In Lewis's case:
1. Damage medium
2. Damage high
In Wlad's case:
1. Damage high
2. Damage medium
In Joshua's case:
1. Damage high
2. Damage high
Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson.
I see Bowe's name here a lot, which I presume has to do with his physical advantages that are impossible to ignore, but I don't remember seeing Bowe fight like a big man, i.e., using his reach and leverage. It's hard not to see Larry giving him hell from anything further than mid-range. Bowe is always a wild-card for me, anyway, because of what seems to me an all-too-brief career.
I see Lennox at his best as a tremendous challenge to Larry. Unlike Bowe he did in fact know how to fight like a big man, had a punishing jab and a big right hand. Lewis at his best was very smart, very focused, very methodical.
I frankly don't understand using Lewis's losses to Rahman and McCall as telling us anything about best-vs-best H2H matchups. They tell us that Lewis was prone to lapses leading to quick KOs against big hitters whom he underestimated. His rematches with them tell us far more about his quality in general and compared to those men specifically. That's more useful in contemplating best-vs-best, in which scenarios it's an irrebuttable presumption that he would not take best Holmes (or best anyone) lightly.
Best Tyson vs. best Holmes has been done to death by far better analysts than I. What I will say, and I fully expect to be flamed for this, is that Tyson vs. Holmes in 1988 was shocking to me. I know as well as anybody how old, rusty, and unprepared Holmes was and that by any account Tyson was at the peak of his game. Like everyone else, I had no doubt that Tyson would win. But, it wasn't just a win; it was an annihilation.
Creaky in execution as they were, none of Larry's tricks and techniques did Tyson even seem to notice, and Larry seemed surprised by a lot of what Tyson brought (surprising to me, since I never stop hearing about how predictable Tyson was). Most of all, though, was how handily Tyson knocked him down and out. This was the guy who had never been KOd before or after and got up to win after an absolute atomic bomb from Shavers. I tie this back in to how surprised Larry seemed, in this particular regard about where the punches would be coming from.
Maybe my reaction in 1988 owed to nostalgia and loyalty to Larry, but the fight remains pretty eye-popping now that I can watch it again and again. It goes without saying that the 1980 Larry would be vastly better than the 1988 version, but I can't discount my lingering doubt about whether he would have been ENOUGH better to manage anything more than an extremely close decision that could go either way.
I agree. He showed excellent heart and durability against Fury. Not like anyone here will ever give him credit for it though.
I literally screamed at my TV in full Jim Ross mode "How is Wilder still standing?"
I didn't make that claim Rules. I find it ridiculous as well.
I think Holmes beats them all. The guys that give him the most problems are Tyson, Lewis, Bowe & Holyfield.
I’m busy at work. But, I’ll fall back on pointing out that Tyson knocked out a guy who Holmes avoided, knocked out a guy who beat Holmes twice, and knocked out a guy whose name was Larry Holmes.
I just realized it quoted that Shavers thing out of context, my friend. Very sorry, and I know you would never post anything anywhere near that weird lol.
Well, here comes the hate.
Holmes was a great fighter and I am not denying that. But, he was a guy who struggled with Mike Weaver, Reynaldo Snipes, Ernie Shavers, Carl Williams, Tim Witherspoon, and Ken Norton, and was eventually bested (at only 35 years old) by a LHW in Michael Spinks. Some of those cited were either-way fights.
As documented in many other threads, he also ducked guys and bragged about it.
A LOT of guys would have had a chance against him. Reducing it to 2-5 guys is absurd.
Yes, he is great. He had 20 defenses. No, he was not unbeatable...nothing like it.