Anyone see '79 Larry Holmes losing a classic matchup? I don't!

Tyson is hardly flawless. If we think about it Holmes had plenty to hammer away at Tyson's flaws. Patience, great endurance, durability, incredible will to win and more. Holmes - Tyson might likely come down to a battle of wills, and there's little doubt who would take that one.

 

Im with you John. Its too easy looking at Tyson in is prime and thinking hes indestructible, get Dempsey, Marciano, Ali, Louis or a prime Holmes in there with him and then we would see what 'a prime' Tyson has got .. Its ok dealing with Pinklon, Bruno, a terrified Spinks, but lets see the iron man against another stellar fighter .... It gets so boring reading posts about an '88 Tyson' .. You show no fear, you work to your own gameplan, get your own shots off and by the 8th round Tyson is yours for the taking, he aint old-school, he isnt prepared for a war, hes a 1-shot guy who is in love with his own power, a good boxer can pick holes in him ..

 

Only late 60's Ali for me.

 

Ali was the greatest heavyweight ever then, I dont know who'd beat him in the sixties

 

Vitali Klitschko would handle him.

 

'79 Holmes beats any heavyweight from any era.

His jab and his movement does it all.

 

Wow, was his struggles against Weaver and near death experience against the aging Shavers really that impressive? atsch

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sOPXD7ylyg[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vns_JUaVQls[/ame]


Not a bad year for Larry but seriously?

 

I agree

 

I think Larry had some great skills and showed heart but I would put a very large wager for him to come up short vs the likes of Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano,Ali,Tyson,Lewis, and I favor a prime Jack Dempsey, Joe Frazier and like the chances of Walcott,Charles also I give a 50/50 chance to fighters Holmes could outbox like Foreman,Baer,Schmeling,Liston.
I think even though past his best his 1st loss against Spinks shows how he could lose to skilled boxers like Charles and Walcott and possibly Tunney

The best fighter Holmes fought at the time of the title defense were Cooney, and an often beaten Shavers. Holmes defended against a very poor batch but I give him credit for always being in condition. Still he did not fight the best of his times, never re matched a tough fight and never unified the title. He avoided fighters like Greg Page,Thomas,Tate, Coetzee, Dokes for the most part and they were good money fights and never re-matched disputed wins over Witherspoon or Williams, Norton .

I don't blame it all on Holmes but do think he would have lost to some of those fighters had he fought or re-matched them.

A Champion must fight the best.

 

I think he would have beaten Foreman by a tko in the later rounds (12-13), and he had a good shot at beating Ali...whether he would have fard as well with the two great short swarmers Frazier and Marciano (he was a more of a slugger/swarmer) who applied indefatigueable pressure is another thing. There's no one in Holmes career that had those attributes of Joe and Rocky..who knows, maybe he could have, but it's X factor as far as Holmes is concerned in the big picture. I totally discount his latter day debacle with Tyson...I don't think Mike would have fared very well with a prime Holmes.

 

Holmes barely got by an aging Kenny Norton. How would he have done against a prime version of Norton? I know style's make fights. & Overall I'm not saying Norton was better careerwise. But H2H, I think Norton would be tooth & nail with Larry. Just as he was with Ali.

 

Please people, lets not mention the Klits or Lewis in the same sentence as Larry Holmes .. It quite sincerely makes me physically sick to think of Holmes being denigrated in this manner. Holmes is up there alongside (not better) than any great you can mention .. He had everything, nobody in history is knocking out a prime Holmes early and i cant see anybody out-boxing him .. If Larry had the Lewis mentality he would just sit behind the greatest jab in heavyweight history and rack up the points but the difference between Holmes and Lewis is that Holmes was a proper fighter, he took risks, he was all or nothing, he wanted to entertain the crowd .. But make no mistake he could have bored the crowd to death like Lewis did, he chose not too, he had a fighters heart .. Larry wasnt knocked out by 2 of the biggest bum belt holders in history in McCall and Rahman, Lewis was .. How can anybody seriously compare Lewis to Holmes, its ridiculous !!

 

There are a few heavyweights I see giving a 79 Holmes an even match. But the only ones that I would comfortably favor to beat that version are the 87 Tyson, and Wlad (preferably the more aggressive pre- Sanders version).

 

Tyson and Wlad ?? Its usually an '88 Tyson people go wild about but now its an '87 Tyson .... I'd take a '79 Holmes over both these two based on speed of punch, forget about Wlad, hes a robotic bum who is making hay in a disgrace of a division, i cant take him serious .. Tyson could beat any version of Holmes based on the fact that Holmes liked a proper fight, he liked to trade even though sitting behind the jab was always the safer option .. Tyson would always have a shot against Holmes based on Holmes's attitude .. If Holmes adopted a Lewis or Wlad style of boring evrybody to death then he could win this easily, but Holmes was a proper fighter who wanted a proper fight, and its this fact that could lead to his downfall against Tyson ..

 

Holmes adopted a carefull style after tough match, one thing we must say about Lewis is he beat the guys that beat him and he tried to fight the best and unify, Bowe gave up a title not to fight him. Other than the Vitali fight who I think he should have rematched . Holmes did give up a title not to fight Page, I think Bowe was better than Page and Lewis was far better. Weaver was a no-one when he fought Holmes but hurt Larry several times in the fight. Later Weaver took one of the titles, Holmes should have rematched him. Larry was a protected fighter for the most part. Talented but not over exposed.