Do You See Larry Holmes Struggling, With Fury?

The voice of reason.

 

Fury fans will back him against anyone in history. He is a God it seems.
He is very good, he has done well in a weak division, hasn't really been tested.....probably never will be.
Holmes is probably a better version of Fury. I pick Holmes on pts. Fury has the size to make it awkward, in a pretty dull fight.

 

That's because Spinks was a Light Heavyweight and the only man Holmes had faced that was faster than himself and because of that, made Holmes look slow and Holmes could't get his timing because Spinks wasn't a still target, he was awkward and constantly getting in and out, weird movements, that's why Holmes couldn't time him and Holmes probably looked slow because Spinks was by far the fastest he'd faced

 

What?

 

Or... you're wrong and you use double standards for fighters you don't like.

 

When did I use double standards?

 

Fury is beatable. Of course he is.

But he's not going to be easily beaten by anyone. Not only is he quite literally a big problem for any heavyweight, he also has underrated skills and a steely mindset.

That said, Holmes is made of similar stuff mentally; is miles more rounded skill-wise and equally tough, physically, if not more so.

This is a very difficult fight, either way. So, in my mind's eye, I'd favor Holmes - but I wouldn't bet against Fury, if that makes sense.

 

In this thread?

 

But what did I say that infers that I used double standards?

 

You use past prime Holmes to prove your point (and try to make him look not past prime "because there are 35 years old fighters who are prime!"), but you ignore Fury's struggles with someone like Cunningham, because you don't believe he was in his prime.

 

But besides Williams having the same reach as Fury, 85"-that was more important than the inch in height-did it not occur to you that Holmes was well past his prime in 1985?
Williams starting from 29 only won 3 of his next 10 fights.
Holmes was 35.5 when they fought. Don't you think when Holmes was appreciably faster with much better legs he would have done better against Williams?
That is not an indication of how well he would have done a few years earlier.

I was surprised that 2 of 3 judges had it 146-139, but Holmes from anywhere near 1980 likely would have earned that score.
A big wingspan is very helpful, but it is not everything.
Otherwise Tyson as a short swarmer whose opponents tended to have dramatically longer reaches would never have shown an effective jab.

 

Yes.

 

Actually, both LeRoy Jones and even Renaldo Snipes might have been just as fast, and Holmes ended up knocking the crap out of both of them.

Holmes fought Spinks two years past his prime. Had this been, say, the Cooney Holmes, Spinks wouldn't have lasted 5 roounds.

No disrespect intended, Devon.

 

The 36 year old is very experienced can be patient and set traps for opponents and the young 24 year old likely wanting to prove himself often gets reckless and these young fighters often get caught or put down by these experienced ones and that is how the young ones gain experience, we seen Bektemir Melikuziev get sparked out by 35 year old Gabriel Rosado for the exact reason

 

You are correct it would be a competitive fight.
But Holmes was well past prime by Williams, slightly so against Witherspoon, & rallied late in their fights.
But despite Holmes seemingly literally rising from the dead against the most hellacious punch from Shavers-a trait Fury showed also against Wilder-he dominated both fights. More so than Fury in that first fight with Wilder.

Also Spinks was above 200 lbs. for there fights without being musclebound, he was no longer a LHW.
And Holmes should have gotten the nod in their second fight, right?