Larry Holmes .Vs. Joe Louis

Holmes was among the smartest of heavyweight champions, and would have boxed Louis with due caution. Larry would have had advantages in height, reach and mobility over Joe. Beyond that, Holmes, at his best, could move continually for 15 rounds. Nor was he the sort of impulsive hothead Conn was. Unlike Billy, he listened to his corner's advice.

Even Tyson had some difficulty putting a rusty and misfiring Holmes away. It took Mike around 45 seconds after the second knockdown to administer the coup de grace, and Larry came within five seconds of making it out of the round. Tyson had to chase him all over the ring before finishing matters. A peak Joe was not an infallible finisher. His best right hand was not enough to render Schmeling senseless in their rematch, and Max was still trying to get up when the towel flew in. Galento came off the deck to return the favor.

Louis was the best combination puncher of the heavyweight champions, but Holmes was not ever paralyzed when stunned by Tyson, Snipes or Shavers. Assuming Joe had the opportunity to stagger him, he would still need to try finishing off a continually moving target. To put out Conn and Walcott, he first had to stun them into a fixed position to nail them flush. He wasn't quite so good at catching targets on the run.

This would be largely a jabbing chessmatch, similar to Louis-Farr. Larry had the longer stick, and wouldn't likely jettison his boxing to go for the kill like Conn and Walcott did. Joe had a superb right hand, but it was an ensemble piece, not really a single shot weapon like the ones owned by Shavers and Tyson, or the one Snipes surprised Holmes with. For Louis to win, he'd need Larry to make a huge mistake. I think Holmes would be too wary to commit an error of the necessary magnitude, and Larry had what it took to overcome more minor lapses. Joe's patience would cost him in this one, as he simply runs out of time.

Holmes UD 15 Louis.

 

Axe,

Christ, you can do better than that............:twisted:


Holmes fought dudes like: "Shavers, Norton, Weaver, Spinks bros., Berbick, Snipes, Cooney, Cobb, Spoon, Bonecrusher Smith & Carl Williams" as a champion..... NOT BAD!!
:good
He also fought and either hung tuff or beat dudes like :"Tyson, Mercer, Holy, Jess Ferguson, Jose Ribalta, Ollie McCall & Butterbean." This all at 38+ yrs of age...... NOT BAD, EITHER!
:deal

MR.BILL:admin

 

Duoendom your another wise observer of fistacuffs!!! Mr. Bill I forgot some of the goodies Mr. Larry fought. Just look at those Shavers fights. YES WOW!!! & then some!! Smoke that in your peace pipe Ali worshippers!!!

 

Greg Page won FINAL WBC TITLE ELIMINATOR over Renaldo Snipes. Holmes automatically HAD to face Greg Page, he was WBC MANDATORY # 1, Holmes threw his belt in the trash and defended his IBF title over 10-0 Marvis Frazier rather than fight his mandatory challenger. In essence, he pulled a riddick bowe.

Very Controversial Decision, No Rematch

Tubbs, Thomas were much better than these guys

 

This is a matter of opinion. I tend to think Holmes struggled more on film...and holmes never gave rematches and proved his superiority the way Louis did.

Louis lost 3 years due to war....preventing many of those matches being made. If Louis had defended his title 1943-1945 and not fought any top black men, he could be critisized....but he lost 3 years that are not his fault.

When he returned from the war, Louis ultimatley fought the 3 best Black heavyweights of the 1940s Jersey Joe Walcott 2x, Ezzard Charles, and Jimmy Bivins

Mendoza, you have alot of serious flaws in your posting for a 40 year old man. Most of the other posters here at 40 years of age are leagues above you. So I would keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

How does that put a "dent" in his credibility? The man in your avatar, Leonard, was one as well, does that mean he should not have gotten the big matches? Hell, every 80's boxer was on coke except for a wise few.... perhaps including Larry, which is why he managed to stay on top for so long.

Holmes actually said, about Thomas: "I aint fighting no coke head". They could've billed it as Cokehead vs Peanuthead, though. :yep Still, it's a lame excuse. Larry, at times, made it no secret that he avoided the best.

Yes he did, and what a lot of people fail to realise is that the WBC belt was the only belt of any significance back then! Well, there was also the WBA belt, but it was held by Weaver whom Holmes avoided as the plague after he proved not to be a pushover in their fight, despite what his 19-8 recorded promised. After that, the belt went around through Dokes, Coetzee and a few others, none of whom Holmes fought.

But for some reason, he was gifted the IBF title, which meant as much as the IBO title today, but over the years it has gained some recognition because it was the only belt Holmes had and he refused to unify, fight worthy challengers or give rematches to the embryo's (Witherspoon, Williams) or journeymen (Weaver) that did better than expected.

The common factor here is that the opponent was seen as an easy touch going in. Witherspoon had only 15 fights under his belt, as did Smith, Snipes, Williams and several others. When it turned out he more than held his own (a draw would've been a fair verdict), he was of course not granted a rematch because the guy turned out not to be a pushover.

Weaver => 19-8 journeyman going in=> turns out to be a tough fight => no rematch and no unification
Witherspoon => 15-0 green fighter => Goes even with Holmes => no rematch and no unification
Williams => dito => dito

Now i can understand if this thing happens once or twice; boxing politics can do that. But it's not like it was an exception. He didn't face any of Thomas, Coetzee, Dokes, Page (mandatory, dropped his only belt), Tubbs nor did he give Norton a well-earned and very marketable re-match.


I do think quite high of Holmes, but like others it annoys me that he did not prove his ability to the extend he could've. Because i think he would beat most of those guys, perhaps lose and avenge it in a rematch. It would've enhanced his legacy, unlike the likes of Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, Zanon, etc etc did.


And this is how Joe Louis differs. He fought 33 men who were currently ranked in the ring top10. That's insane. And of course you will be able to pick performances where he looked less good or had trouble, but bottomline is that he lost only once when he had only two years as a pro (do you think Larry Holmes could beat him in 1975, when he had two years as a pro?) , which was avenged by first round KO, and didn't lose until more than a decade later when he was clearly past his best himself and coming off a two year lay-off.

Bottomline, the more top opponents you fight, the more times you will be in trouble. You can easily say that Ali had a problem with movers and jabbers, look how Jones, Norton, Folley, Mildenberger and Young troubled him. But he did win most of those fights just like Louis won his bouts with Conn, Pastor, Walcott, etc.

 

Off topic.... I was ONCE sold on Pinky Thomas..... I thought he was for real when he drew with Coetzee and out-boxed Spoon on HBO.... Then he struggled before kayoing Weaver in '85 on HBO.... That was the end of Thomas' prime / best days..... He came back in 1986 to look horrid in his sleepwalk loss to Berbick; later KO losses to Tyson and Holy would follow..... Thomas turned old over night.....

Pinky Thomas strung a buncha' cheap wins to his resume in the early 1990s, but them fights meant nothing........

MR.BILL

 

Holmes' jab controls the first four rounds.
Louis turns it on over the next four rounds.
The rest of the fight is fairly even, but Louis does more damage in his four rounds than Holmes does and takes the last round for a close decision.

 

That is a fair call to make....:yep:deal

MR.BILL:bbb

 

I agree, Holmes makes my top 7 heavyweights but most of that is on ability...I tend to find more and more flaws in his resume when studying closely the 1980s era. Holmes did record some good wins though.

 

Holmes wins by a UD in this one.

 

Excellent post, Chris and Suzie , spelled it out well, you will not see any counters of significance...We all think Holmes had ability but he did avoid some major tests and rematches and unifications...A fighter must fight the best of his era to be considered an all time great...Holmes skipped quite a few of them and I suspect he would have lost to the styles he avoided ...I take off some major points off and put him on the lower end of my top 10 because of it. I cant see how anyone that knows the era could see it different.

 

Holmes was bitter and pissed at Donald King in 1983 / '84....... Holmes back then failed to realize "Personality" sells tickets and puts money in the buckets............. Holmes grossed 10 Million from "White Boy" Cooney in 1982...... The fans were hooked.... Come 1983, Greg Page was dangerous, BLACK, and the WBC # 1 contender / pretender..... King offered Holmes 2.5 Million to fight Page...... Holmes told King to "F@#k Himself." So, Larry Holmes took a 1 Million dollar TV fight with the green Marvis Frazier instead......... Holmes was being Holmes...... It is obvious to me that King was willing to let Holmes dangle if he could get Page to obtain the WBC title....... Prior to 1984, Don King THOUGHT Page was gonna be THE MAN for the yrs to come..... King didn't know that Page would bottom out and become a bust / lemon by 1986...... Cheers.......

MR.BILL

 

Good choice....:good

MR.BILLthumbsup:bbb

 

I do not think you can objectively say Holmes struggled more on film than Louis did. Louis did not give re-matches to everyone. Tommy Farr gave Louis a black eye, cut him and won many rounds. There was no re-match here. Did Louis give Tony Galento a rematch after Galtento floored him? Fighters can't re-match everyone. I will say Louis had more power to pick his opponents than Holmes did, so in a sense, the burden for hiding behind the color line, and picking more bum of the month type of guys falls squarley on the shoulder of the brown bomber.

Is this the same poster who listed man black fighters that Louis avoided? Should I copy and paste what you said before? I think I will to make my point.

Here is part of what you said in the did Joe Louis use the color line thread:

This sounds like you are convinced here. Again, if you want to be viewed as a objective and credible you can't play both side of the fence, and criticize one fighter, and say nothing about the other....then critizie the fighter you said nothing about in a separate thread!

I am in my 30's. I never said I know the most on the board. I'm not going to spend my time taking this bait of a false charge to it. I am here to talk boxing. Sometimes you add some good stuff. Ending this post on a high note....