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

Thanks,

I think Foreman is sometimes underrated here.

 

certainly his skills are. we know he's a top 5 heavy for power but his jab was tremendous, his chin world class and in his second career his defense and generalship was among the best in a talent rich era.

 

Pressure fighter and 2 fisted punchers yes and Holmes was vurnerable to the right hand but Shavers, Snipes were not finishers, in fact who else did Snipes devastate with the right hand like he did Holmes. Larry got up to his credit but I still think its a/Wells/Bobick/Tyson repeat against a 2-fisted finisher but thats My opinion

 

I also can see that fight panning out 2- ways but I can also see that right hand of Georges making a Larry do the funny but George suffered from stamina troubles career 1 but learned how to pace himself(under Archie career 2...Thing is George could also hurt Larry early beyond the point of no return....this is a paradoxical fight in my mind

 

Why are so many, many of todays boxing buffs so unaware of the greatness,of Jack Dempsey, in his TIGERISH PRIME ? I am baffled by the lack of knowledge they have of the Jack Dempsey,of Toledo, and before....I constantly see Dempsey's name listed in the bottom ,or ommited entirely in the best ten heavyweights of all time,as some of the above posters imply...Are they aware what a terror Dempsey was at his peak from 1918 to 1923, when he ko,d about 25 fighters in the first round...What he did to giant Jess Willard.in 1919?.I know Willard was slow ,and old, but I know that Willard was NEVER floored before in his life,and 187 lb. Dempsey dropped him many times like a rubber ball. Today Dempsey would have had a first round stoppage, dropping big Jess seven times...He also kayoed Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Luis Angel Firpo, all 220 pounders or more...He was then considered by boxing experts at that period, 1918 t0 1923, as the greatest heavyweight that ever lived, including Sam Langford, who whenasked by writers who would winbetween Dempsey and Harry Wills ,Langford answered " my money would be on Dempsey, who is the greatest fighter I ever saw".This from the great Langford ,about Dempsey in his PRIME...Unfortunately,Dempsey married against mgr. Jack Kearns wishes,went to Hollywood, had a nose bob operation,and did not fight for over three years...Deadly for a great fighter, even the Manassa Mauler... Today people wrongly judge Dempsey by the two Tunney fights, rusty and past his peak...Wrong,Wrong...Then why not judge Ray Robinson, by his one sided loss to Ralph Tiger Jones,no world beater in 1955? Double Standard? Finally, in 1950 a panel of top boxing scribes ,who watched all the greats from Corbett to 1959 ,voted by a large majority Jack Dempsey, the greatest fighter of all time...Do todays boxing fans 60 years later , know some boxing secrets today that the experts who watched Dempsey in his PRIME, were unaware ?The logical answer is NO, I think...Yes Dempsey young. tigerish and fast as a Welterweight, as often described, and the immortal murderous punching Joe Louis,were in my eyes the greatest heavyweights of all time....

 

I agree with you.
But dont expect to change many minds around here on the subject of Jack Dempsey.
Some people around here have elaborate, lengthy and tedious anti-Dempsey arguments and the will and stamina to repeat them ad nauseum.

 

I think because they try and take that J.D. and relate him to modern days of build up and carefully managed fighters. Over the last 30 years it has been undefeated records and fighters who avoid the best. Dempsey who came up from extreme hard times and battles in coal mining towns to earn food. Dempsey used to ride the train from the undercarrage of the trains and his arms became like cables. Jack also had extremly heavy hands despite his speed.

Burt you are an old timer who spoke to many people of those days that you respected there boxing knowlege and understood the era's.

If we want to compare great fighters we know there are no time machines, so you have either adjust a fighter for an era going forward or going backwards.
I dont think many of the modern Heavyweights would be able to go backwoods too well, most would have to get into condition.

 

I respectfully disagree. I rate Holmes highly, because I find that consistency is underrated in boxing. Just like Joe Louis, Holmes was amazing in winning for such a long time despite the fact that he was far from unbeatable. Louis had a weak chin yet kept on winning, Holmes was a very skilled fighter but not such a great athlete or puncher or blessed with other - worldly reflexes like Ali, yet het kept winning for such a long time. I have huge respect for that. However:

The modern Bowe - Lewis - Klitschko supersized HW's would be a real problem for Holmes. They would all knock out Norton by the mid - rounds, yet Holmes needed to dig extra - deep to beat Norton. Some of the fighters Holmes struggled with would be easy victims for the supersized HW's.

A prime Ali probably would be a very interesting matchup, could go either way.

If Gerry Cooney could hurt Holmes with a body shot, a prime Foreman would have a good puncher's chance.

Tyson is an interesting one, an older Holmes fought well for four rounds against Tyson, so some say a prime Holmes would beat him. Still, Holmes would be in for a long night, he couldn't hurt Tyson enough to make him doubt himself. Tyson could lose some rounds but still find the one opening to get the knockout.

 

I can see the fight going either way frankly, but I can't see Foreman ending it early.. He's going to have to find a way to preserve his stamina and last into the mid to late rounds, if he has any chance of beating Holmes. Larry was only taken out on one occasion in 75 fights, and that was at the age of 38, following a two year layoff, against a peak version of an absolute destroyer. Little bit different, if Holmes was 8-10 years younger and regularly fighting top contenders. Foreman might be able to stop him late, or deck him enough times to gain ample points on the cards, but that's about the only way I see it happening.. No way is Holmes getting taken out by Foreman in the same fashion that Norton, Lyle or Frazier was. Remember this was a man who survived the onslaughts of Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Tim Witherspoon, Ray Mercer, Gerry Cooney and Bonecrusher Smith.. He also refused to stay down against Tyson, under virtually impossible circumstances..

 

This is a tough matchup for anybody. Prime Ali and Louis would have been interesting. Maybe prime Tyson if he could have gotten through that jab. Swarming Marciano? Who knows. '79 Holmes was a monster.

 

Son of gaul,I failed to make my Obvious point clear to you..You state thatJack Dempsey quote," never should have lost to Gene Tunney"...You unintentionely must rate Jack Dempsey VERY high...To say that a rusty, thirty two year old Dempsey, who hadn';t fought in THREE YEARS, should have never lost to a prime Gene Tunney,is not rational...Tunney was in my eyes on a par with Ali as a great boxer,minus the glitz...What Fighter could YOU name that would come out of retirement of THREE YEARS, at the age of thirty two years of age, sans a tuneup bout,and be a shoo in to lick a prime great boxer as Gene Tunney ?...Besides in the second bout I honestly believe that Dempsey should have been a KO victor when he had Tunney on the canvas.for about 15 to 17 seconds in the battle of the " long count "in 1927...Not bad for the much slower , and aging Manassa Mauler... I believe we must give credit ,when credit is due....So to with Dempsey....