Holyfield vs Prime Holmes

Holmes wouldn't dominate, but he would win by UD. His movement and jab would keep Holyfield from getting set throughout the proceedings.

 

There was a similar thread recently and i was actually surprised how many confidently opted for Holmes.

Holyfield is miles better than anyone Larry fought in his prime excepting Norton, and Norton was well past his finest and gave Larry a great fight.

Larry struggled with a lot of fighters that were not a patch on Holyfield. Weaver gave Holmes a tremendous battle and Snipes had him almost out. Holmes tho always found a way back and prevailed but it begs the question could he do it against a much better fighter? I've always had the feeling Holmes at times fought down to the level of his opposition a bit, which may or may not be right.

I'd probably label Homes a 7-5 fave but noway would i count Holyfield out. I don't put as much stock as others into their actual encounter.

It's so hard to pick a best version of Holyfield, his form could be a touch scattery.

 

I think Holyfield had an off night when he fought Holmes in '92. He really wanted Tyson and things beyond Holyfield's control kept pushing the fight back ever since late '89. Holyfield had been the #1 contender since '89.

Holmes had won 6 fights in a row including a near shut out over a previously undefeated Ray Mercer.

Prime vs. Prime? I think it's a very good fight but I'm going with Holmes by a very close decision.

 

Jeez mate don't be sorry. The other thread was for Holyfield vs both Holmes and Foreman. We've got a dedicated thread to Holmes - Holyfield now.

I'm leaning towards a close Holmes decision in a gruelling fight but will think a bit more.

 

Most people side with Holmes because of the tirelessly-cited "styles make fights." Holyfield had issues with big guys who could jab and fight fluidly from the outside. And, of course, it doesn't help Holyfield's case that an old, out-of-shape Larry Holmes is perceived to have performed so well in their actual fight in 1992.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, though. A "prime" Holyfield is a very tenuous concept, indeed. I would tend to think that the best version of Holmes would beat any version of Holyfield in a fashion somewhat similar to how Lewis beat him in their first fight. (Despite the "draw" that the judges somehow decided upon)

 

This

 

I'm hearing you. The big guy who could jab, Holmes is a lot smaller than the likes of Bowe and Lewis. Holmes and Holyfield are basically on par for height and Holmes does have a few inches of reach. Weaver was able to get into punching range on a consistent basis so i do believe Holyfield would have plenty of opportunities to get his licks in. I consider Holyfield a good (underrated) strategist too and i think he'd have a decent gameplan going. Good matchup for mine.

 

I lean towards Larry, but I think Evander would be a better version of what Norton brought into the ring, better, faster, busier

 

holmes by decision and i have no doubt,styles. holmes wins 2-1 in a serie of 3 and the 3 very close fights

 

If Holmes wins by decision and you have no doubt because of styles how could you pick Holyfield to take a fight in a series? Why couldn't he take the first fight of the three and therefore you'd have to change your pick to Holyfield? :huh

 

I think Holmes would win a close but clear decision.

 

holmes had stylistical advantage, even in his 40s gave him problems, having stylistical advantage is a big factor but it does not guarantee you the victory 100%, holyfield was a great athlete and a very complete fighter, evander was a man capable to change his tactic in a rematch it is why i can see him taking a fight out of 3 . you are a ****ing re****ed with the head full of ****:hi:

 

"Stylistical", and you call everyone else re****ed and all other sorts of low life things atsch

Holyfield adapts and changes his strategy to win a rematch yet loses the next one just like that