I hate when ppl use Conn vs Louis to prove that Holmes would beat him

Yes...?

 

I feel Tyson was skilled enough to land every shot Frazier landed on Ali but I don`t think Holmes could have landed all the shots Conn landed on Louis, they didn`t fight the same way, Tyson was very much like Frazier he lowered his head levels trying to get inside like Joe and had a short reach like Frazier and the both had hard, fast accurate hooks in their locker, they bothed worked the body very well, Holmes jabbed and moved, he used his jab to keep fighters off balance but often didn`t land despite his handspeed and reach, Conn`s punch volume was very high v Louis and he wasn`t just throwing the jab, he outworked Joe at times and I just don`t feel that was Larry`s style he was more of a spoiler using his hands to parry shots and sticking a jab outr there.

 

Ok. So what you're saying is that it's wrong to use Conn as an example of the difficulties Holmes could/would give Louis, but it's right to use Frazier as an example of the difficulties Tyson would/give Ali?

And "Holmes didn't often land his jab"? It was a while ago since I disagreed so much with anything said here.

 

You think it's as insulting using Frazier as an example that Tyson would beat Ali, as it is to use Conn as an example that Holmes would beat Louis?

 

That's easy to agree with, though I place Holmes above them as ATGs. I do believe the FOTC Joe would have outpointed Larry. Tyson...nahh. Just my opinion.

This content is protected

​

 

I agree, Frazier had more heart and perseverance.

That said, (not referring to you at all my friend) I don't subscribe to the "Tyson had no heart and was finished after x amount of rounds" school.

OT, but one of the weirdest things about Mike is how he didn't really seem to display a lot of championship heart during his devastating original reign...but just watch Ruddock knock the crap out of him and he comes back. And Lewis beat the bejesus out of him and he lasted several rounds longer than he should have. For some reason (again, this is just my opinion) Mike seemed more a champion post-80s than he did in his day!

 

I`m just saying Tyson and Frazier were awesome fighters but your logic is sound there, as for Holmes in some fights he landed more jabs than in other fights, against Weaver he missed loads of jabs and looked sleepy while Conn`s jabs were sharp v Louis with a plan, they both threw lead hooks, but Larry looked sluggish throwing them v Weaver while Conn`s hooks were far sharper v Joe and thrown from a closer range, Conn stood closer to Louis using erratic side to side movement changing direction. Holmes looked too heavy and slow v Weaver.

 

Ruddock landed the odd hard shot but nevder sustained his attacks mostly resting while holding, Tyson took more punishment v Douglas.

 

But are we agreed that saying that Holmes didn't often land his jab is a pretty absurd statement looking at Holmes overall career?

 

In the sense that Holmes is a much greater heavyweight than Conn, it could make some sense but stylistically the comparison doesn't provide much meat.

 

To be fair, Larry also had a horrible flu, check out his voice after the fight (it also explains the massive amount of sweating he did during the fight).

 

I was being oversimplistic he had a fast long jab.

 

Oh yes he didn`t look right at all.

 

I had forgotten about the flu until I watched the post-fight interview again. The man sounded less coherent than Froggy from Our Gang. He shouldn't have even been in the ring that night.

That said, mad props for Weaver. That Rocky movie must have been massively impactful for him pre-fight. It says a lot for Holmes that even after having been knocked down and generally looking really bad, he summoned up that uppercut that ruined Mike. One shot, and it carried over into the next round. Wow.