Larry Holmes vs Deontay Wilder

The current #1 in the division - a 270+ behemoth - has been put on his arse on multiple occasions courtesy of Wilder's power.

If you genuinely don't think Wilder carries all time great power in the nuclear bomb he has for a right hand then you should probably stop licking windows.

 

Exactly - couldn't agree more.

 

Another new alt Neet? Must get confusing having stickers all over your mums basement walls with all the different account names and passwords, plus there’s less room for Wilder and Fury posters so there’s less material for you to jerk off to.

 

At some point the right hand is going to land and Holmes will be done. It will be similar to the second Ortiz Fight. Holmes was a not a hard hitter.
Wilder is also a lot faster than Cooney and Shavers.

 

Ha!

This literally made me laugh out loud. And I thought last night that it might be either Neet or Dubble.

 

Fury`s vulnerable to right hands, Larry would out-jab Wilder he had a better jab than Fury does.

 

Holmes had the power to hurt Wilder too.

 

Holmes had better fundamentals than Fury has and Fury was wild in his third fight v Wilder, Holmes was far more skilled than Fury was in that third fight.

 

The question is:

Would it definitely have landed?

Holmes could also take a good shot and he had decent, respectable power. Enough to have troubled Wilder.

Wilder is faster than Shavers and Cooney, but he’d still have needed the opportunities that they found.

 

Who has actually come close to beating Wilder on points barring Fury? Szpilka was down 6-2 on the cards when he got knocked cold and taken out on a stretcher and Ortiz 2 still had more than 15 minutes to survive on his feet when he got bombed out with a forehead shot. These guys were not putting beatings on Wilder, they landed very little of significance and Wilder was only dropped once in 43 fights prior to Fury 2. Holmes had shown more vulnerability for most of his career and he was lucky he only had to fight a green inactive Cooney (who still gave him a tough fight over 13) rather than a 6'8, 270 lbs lineal champion Fury.

Wilder's "punchers chance" against Holmes is more than 50%. Just as Isaac, Snipers, Shavers and Tyson landed, so would Wilder and Holmes wouldn't get up.

Most people believe Fury won the first fight but he got dropped twice in different rounds, meaning that Wilder only needed 3/10 to get a draw. Several rounds were low volume, close statistically, so it's no surprise and not even really controversial that Wilder got a draw. The fight could have also been waved off with the 2nd KD and Fury was half a second away from not making the count. It was super touch and go, easily could have gone either way.

You say Fury wasn't 100% but we have no way of quantifying it: was he 1%, 99%, 54%? The facts are that Fury got in the ring with Wilder after a year or so back in training and two warm up fights, hence Fury believed he was close enough to his best to beat Wilder, if not at his best (Fury had also been in great shape against far lesser fighters, such as Kevin Johnson and Hammer). And Fury felt he needed to radically change his style to beat Wilder in the rematch, despite being very active and without question fully fit by that point.

Holmes would have run around the ring jabbing just as the much taller, rangier, heavier, experienced and more versatile Fury did in the first fight, it's the same stylistic matchup as Fury 1.

You're a hypocrite who talks about "skills" (as if landing a right hand bomb on your opponent's head isn't a skill) but pretends that the vastly experienced southpaw Ortiz wasn't "skilled", saying that Fury is the only "competent technician" Wilder has fought. Wilder has fought highly skilled boxers on 5 occasions.

You can't transplant prime Holmes into this era because he fought in the early 80's. You can't transplant prime late 50's Floyd Patterson into this era. They were great in their time but may not be anything special in a far more advanced era. Saying that someone is an "ATG" only says that they were significant fighters in their own time and possibly have a lasting influence, it doesn't necessarily mean that they could even be competitive with top fighters today.

Holmes didn't fight Foreman, he fought Holyfield. Mercer and Holyfield are 6'1 and relatively light punchers, how Holmes did against them has zilch to do with how he'd fare against a 6'7 modern KO artist long-reigning champion with great speed, who virtually always lands his bombs even against a 6'8 "ATG" slickster.

 

Holmes was if anything more vulnerable to right hands than a post-Cunningham Fury. Holmes didn't have the height and reach of Fury or the ability to switch stances and his jab was less effective against longer opponents. He'd jab at Wilder for a while but get bombed out.

 

Holmes got controversial decisions against his best opponents and never fought several top contenders, he never produced a performance as impressive as Fury's schooling of Wlad in Germany. Show me the fight where Holmes demonstrates better inside fighting than Fury, Holmes never fought as Fury did against Wilder in the rematches.

 

I was happy to debate you until I found out that you were Neet.

TBH, I wouldn’t even know where to start with the above nonsense.

A more advanced era? Ha!

Might not be competitive today?

Get real you lunatic.

Wilder is extremely dangerous because of his power. But if you’d have dropped him into the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s with the best guys of that time, he’d have done nothing.

 

I don't know who this person is.

 

I love Tyson.

I’ve watched his entire career and have studied his family’s history of bare knuckle fighting for over 20 years now.

You won’t find a bigger fan.

However, he did not in any way school Wlad in Germany.

There’s absolutely no point in even trying to debate you on this subject.