Let’s imagine Holmes developes as an amateur to the point he is able to go pro at a more normal age than he did, & the year is 1969. How does this four year head start impact his career, & the division as a whole? Rules… -Holmes matures at the same speed he did in the real timeline, so 1973 Holmes is on developmental par with 1977 Holmes. -Holmes has the same initial career length of thirteen years, so his career runs uninterrupted from 1969-1982. He then can come back or retire alternatingly as you please & expect he would in relation to paydays, threats, opportunities etc.
Larry who? Apologies for the low attendance, but everybody is busy at the Foreman and the Tyson threads. I would love to stay and chat, but I must go now, there is a new hot topic on "Usyk vs ATGs" and I don't want to lose my place. Later.
It all depends on when Holmes fights certain fighters. For example if Holmes fights the Ali who beat Norton in their 2nd fight i don't see Holmes winning, but if Ali fights any version of Ali between 1975 and later i could definitely see Holmes winning. Frazier was past his prime by 1973 but i still see Frazier stylistically being able to beat Holmes between 73-75 anytime after that i think Frazier loses. Foreman would have a very short window to fight Holmes in his prime 73-74, if they did fight round about this time i still think Holmes stylistically is the slight favourite to beat Foreman although obviously it's still a very dangerous fight. And if Foreman catches Holmes it could be lights out as Foreman isn't Weaver, Snipes, he's a tremendous finisher. Anytime after 75 Holmes would be a considerable favourite though IMO. Norton who was a bit past his prime and pushed a near peak Holmes all the way, so logically you would think if they had multiple fights a prime Norton would be able to atleast split a series with Holmes. As for the rest of the contenders during that time like Quarry, Young, Lyle, etc. I don't see Holmes losing to any of those fighters and he should be a considerable favourite over all of them. Another thing to factor into is Holmes's era was considerably weaker than the fighters he would be facing in the early to mid 70s. So if Holmes is fighting a considerable amount of ATG Heavyweight's in tough fights he's more likely to fade and not age as well as he did in actual reality.
While he might be able to replicate his run in the early 80s the only way this helps him is if he beats Ali and/or Foreman in the mid 70s. Hes probably losing the 0 so he needs to be entering his run IRL with a greater reputation than he had as a 20-0 or 25-0 undefeated contender. He needs to do well enough where people aren't crediting his success after the 70s stars are gone to their absence.
Depends how good he is if we got prime Holmes that we saw in 78 onwards I'd favor him over everyone besides maybe Foreman and Frazier (though Frazier wasn't as good at this point his style would give Holmes a lot of problems)
Beats Quarry and Frazier in '74, wins title UD Ali 1975. Beats Norton, barely. Has a total blow out fight against Frazier but wins.1975 Stops Foreman in 7. 1976 Beat Shavers, Lyle 1976. Loses the title to Norton in the rematch 1977. Outpoints Jimmy Young, rematches and regains the title from Norton 1978. Holds the title until 1983, Witherspoon beats him.
He certainly isn't going 48-0. My guess is he would spend 4 years taking on guys like Quarry, Bonavena, Bugner and Lyle. He beats them all. Larry was savvy. He isn't fighting a rampaging Foreman unless it is for the title. I think he does his best to avoid George until post Ziare. If he fights George pre Ziare, he gets stopped. He could avoid George, beat a past it Ali after Manilla 3 and probably win a triology against Norton 2-1. If he fights Ali from Ziare or before, he loses a close decision but probably avenges it.
