BoxRec

fergusg wrote: I don’t care about the physical potential as a result of bulking up… or the possibility that Larry had to lose some body fat in order to achieve his optimum fighting weight… the fact of the matter is that Holmes and Haye were the same size (height and weight) when they entered the ring… and no amount of guesswork, assumptions or convoluted theories can challenge that irrefutable fact!

Car crash stuff from fergusg


Larry Holmes and David Haye are about the same height, everyone, the end.

fergusg wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

fergusg wrote:I don’t care about the physical potential as a result of bulking up… or the possibility that Larry had to lose some body fat in order to achieve his optimum fighting weight… the fact of the matter is that Holmes and Haye were the same size (height and weight) when they entered the ring… and no amount of guesswork, assumptions or convoluted theories can challenge that irrefutable fact!

Car crash stuff from fergusg

Larry Holmes and David Haye are about the same height, everyone, the end.

The prime version of Larry Holmes and David Haye were the same height and weight when they both entered the ring.

Here’s an extract from post I've already posted on this thread to prove this irrefutable fact:

Larry Holmes’ average weight for his world title winning fights was 216.35lbs.

Larry wasn’t far bigger than David Haye, because the Haymaker’s average weight for his heavyweight bouts was 214.6lbs, which is a mere 1.75lbs lighter Holmes’ average. Interestingly, the average weight of a heavyweight David Haye opponent was 249.6lbs, which is much much heavier than The Easton Assassin's average opponent weight.

The interesting thing about David Haye… even though he’s the same height and about the same weight as Larry Holmes, he’s much more muscular and ripped, which means he should be regarded as the bigger man than the American legend (come fight night).

Embarrassing.

Holmes beat great fighters who would've smashed today's crop (or should I say "crap") of HWs, Wlad is just whopping up on Tomato Cans who had a little hype behind them.

fergusg wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Embarrassing.

You either believe in facts or believe in fairytales… I prefer the former, because the latter has no bearing on reality.

Mod Comment: Please refrain from abusing the face icons.


Reply to 'Mod Comment': Fergus uses more s than he does characters in his posts, if that's a rule he should be struck down twith the ban hammer.

jezzamundo wrote: The fact that Haye is much more ripped and heavily-muscled while weighing the same as a prime Holmes who looked lean but not particularly muscular is proof that Holmes is the naturally bigger man, surely this isn't hard to understand? If Holmes bulked up to the extent of Haye, he would likely weigh 230lb plus. If Haye laid off the weights and protein he'd be sub 200lb.

The fact that Bradley is much more ripped and heavily-muscled while weighing the same as Pacquiao who looked lean but not particularly muscular is proof that Pacquiao is the naturally bigger man, surely this isn't hard to understand? If Pac bulked up to the extent of Bradley, he would likely weigh 160lb plus (I added 10% as u did for Holmes). :) DD DD

Brewster is of a similar "size" to Larry.

Of course, Larry had far more talent than Lamont, and Haye come to think of it.

BTW I voted for Wlad since both were long-reigning champs, but Wlad looks more dominant, virtually unbeatable, and I'd favour him in a H2H fight due to his size and power. Resume-wise its comparable and prime Larry's losses to Spinks are no better than Wlad's losses, which were pre-prime.

And I don't get it how ppl 1) hold current era as weak 2) complain that fighters from the past should be judged in P4P sense giving them advantage vs. current bigger fighters. If they would get bigger, they would be different fighters, probably slower and looking unskilled.

If Marciano would appear today, he would be like Kovalev - could compete and look very good at LH, maybe CW, but he would hardly mix with the top guys at HW and remain unbeaten, much less become the champ, basically unreal - dominate this "weak" division. All this time travel and H2H fights are commonly hold as extremely subjective, but IMO its not that different from comparing resumes of fighters from different eras and the whole era itself.

Leonid wrote:BTW I voted for Wlad since both were long-reigning champs, but Wlad looks more dominant, virtually unbeatable, and I'd favour him in a H2H fight due to his size and power. Resume-wise its comparable and prime Larry's losses to Spinks are no better than Wlad's losses, which were pre-prime.

And I don't get it how ppl 1) hold current era as weak 2) complain that fighters from the past should be judged in P4P sense giving them advantage vs. current bigger fighters. If they would get bigger, they would be different fighters, probably slower and looking unskilled.

If Marciano would appear today, he would be like Kovalev - could compete and look very good at LH, maybe CW, but he would hardly mix with the top guys at HW and remain unbeaten, much less become the champ, basically unreal - dominate this "weak" division. All this time travel and H2H fights are commonly hold as extremely subjective, but IMO its not that different from comparing resumes of fighters from different eras and the whole era itself.

People see this as a weak era because it lacks in excitement and the American's aren't dominating the division. For a long, long time, decades in fact they were (Lennox Lewis omitted) and now as they are being shut out subconsciously as much as anything they see the heavyweight division in a negative light.

If you took Wladimir Klitschko out of the equation, say he never existed in the first place, people would look at the division with completely different eyes. Wilder would be being talked up as the second coming after winning all of his fights via K.O. Stiverne vs Areola would've been seen as a big event and Pulev would be recognised as the one they all have to beat to be the number one in the division.

Wladimir is very, very good that is why he is way above his opposition. It's a bit like Usain Bolt, all the other sprinters aren't rubbish because he's so good, it's just that you can judge sprinters via time, it's a bit more difficult to judge a boxer.

In all time heavyweight rankings Larry should be ahead. As weak as the heavyweight division was for apreiod when Larry was in power his opponents were far superior to those of today. If they actually fought each other at their prime, that would be well worth arguing. Larry could very well box Klitschko's ears off and we know Larry could take a punch..

Leonid wrote:And I don't get it how ppl 1) hold current era as weak

Related to this, I'm curious about how people form their opinions concerning the strength of particular eras. Do they consider factors like how the contenders and champions generally looked in the ring and how often the top fighters in the division competed against one another? If so, how are these types of factors weighted?

I do believe Wlad would beat some all time greats but Larry wouldn't be one of them. The Holmes of 1977 - 1982 that is. He had decent size - 6 ft 3 " to Wlads 6ft 5 1/2. They both have an 81" reach. Wlad has a two stone advantage which would help him in the clinch. Speed with Larry. Larry's jab would be very effective in setting up attacks which a lot of Wlad's opponents haven't been able to do. Wlad's jab also is very effective as he pulls his head back as he jabs in an east european style. This has proven to be very effective for him to his credit. Power would be with Wlad but that wouldn't be the biggest factor here as Larry dealt with the power punchers well. Like Ali, it was the speedsters that gave Larry trouble.
Personally I like Wlad and he has been a strong champion and role model. He will have a high standing in history in my opinion. I see this fight being a late stoppage for Holmes if the referee was fair and didn't allow persisting holding and leaning. Larry had a huge competitive and winning spirit. A great chin, amazing recuperative powers and balls the size of Wyoming. He wouldn't go in looking to survive, he would be out to win.

I rate Larry slightly over in all time rankings and in a match.

fergusg wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

fergusg wrote:I don’t care about the physical potential as a result of bulking up… or the possibility that Larry had to lose some body fat in order to achieve his optimum fighting weight… the fact of the matter is that Holmes and Haye were the same size (height and weight) when they entered the ring… and no amount of guesswork, assumptions or convoluted theories can challenge that irrefutable fact!

Car crash stuff from fergusg

Larry Holmes and David Haye are about the same height, everyone, the end.

The prime version of Larry Holmes and David Haye were the same height and weight when they both entered the ring.

Here’s an extract from post I've already posted on this thread to prove this irrefutable fact:

Larry Holmes’ average weight for his world title winning fights was 216.35lbs.

Larry wasn’t far bigger than David Haye, because the Haymaker’s average weight for his heavyweight bouts was 214.6lbs, which is a mere 1.75lbs lighter Holmes’ average. Interestingly, the average weight of a heavyweight David Haye opponent was 249.6lbs, which is much much heavier than The Easton Assassin's average opponent weight.

The interesting thing about David Haye… even though he’s the same height and about the same weight as Larry Holmes, he’s much more muscular and ripped, which means he should be regarded as the bigger man than the American legend (come fight night).

You still don't get it?!

I actually agree that Holmes isn't 'far bigger' than Haye, but he is clearly the naturally larger man. Less importantly, he's likely an inch taller (most who've met Haye agree he's actually 6'2) and has three inches longer reach - more importantly, he was a lean natural 215lb heavyweight while Haye is a blown-up cruiserweight and muscle-bound at 215lb.

Leonid wrote:

jezzamundo wrote: The fact that Haye is much more ripped and heavily-muscled while weighing the same as a prime Holmes who looked lean but not particularly muscular is proof that Holmes is the naturally bigger man, surely this isn't hard to understand? If Holmes bulked up to the extent of Haye, he would likely weigh 230lb plus. If Haye laid off the weights and protein he'd be sub 200lb.

The fact that Bradley is much more ripped and heavily-muscled while weighing the same as Pacquiao who looked lean but not particularly muscular is proof that Pacquiao is the naturally bigger man, surely this isn't hard to understand? If Pac bulked up to the extent of Bradley, he would likely weigh 160lb plus (I added 10% as u did for Holmes). :) DD DD

Interesting post, but the situation is somewhat different for Pac and Bradley. Both are ripped weighing in at welterweight, Bradley even more so because he has to drain more to make the 147lb limit. In this pic, Bradley clearly has the bigger arms, but Pacquiao has bigger legs which are not visible. I'd imagine that Bradley weighed more on fight night, he's definitely the naturally bigger, heavier guy, but perhaps not by as much as some might imagine. Manny was only able to fight in such low weight classes because he was malnourished as a youth, which explains how he continued to pile on weight and climb divisions without looking overly muscle-bound - I'd say at this point he's a natural light welterweight.

Ian1973 wrote:

Leonid wrote:BTW I voted for Wlad since both were long-reigning champs, but Wlad looks more dominant, virtually unbeatable, and I'd favour him in a H2H fight due to his size and power. Resume-wise its comparable and prime Larry's losses to Spinks are no better than Wlad's losses, which were pre-prime.

And I don't get it how ppl 1) hold current era as weak 2) complain that fighters from the past should be judged in P4P sense giving them advantage vs. current bigger fighters. If they would get bigger, they would be different fighters, probably slower and looking unskilled.

If Marciano would appear today, he would be like Kovalev - could compete and look very good at LH, maybe CW, but he would hardly mix with the top guys at HW and remain unbeaten, much less become the champ, basically unreal - dominate this "weak" division. All this time travel and H2H fights are commonly hold as extremely subjective, but IMO its not that different from comparing resumes of fighters from different eras and the whole era itself.

People see this as a weak era because it lacks in excitement and the American's aren't dominating the division. For a long, long time, decades in fact they were (Lennox Lewis omitted) and now as they are being shut out subconsciously as much as anything they see the heavyweight division in a negative light.

If you took Wladimir Klitschko out of the equation, say he never existed in the first place, people would look at the division with completely different eyes. Wilder would be being talked up as the second coming after winning all of his fights via K.O. Stiverne vs Areola would've been seen as a big event and Pulev would be recognised as the one they all have to beat to be the number one in the division.

Wladimir is very, very good that is why he is way above his opposition. It's a bit like Usain Bolt, all the other sprinters aren't rubbish because he's so good, it's just that you can judge sprinters via time, it's a bit more difficult to judge a boxer.

No . . .anyone with a knowledge of boxing would see, and sees, that Wilder is a heavily protected padded record with a weak chin. All these undefeated records are there for a reason . . if their handlers were so confident in their abilities, why not match them with top 5 guys and get the big wins?

And the whole "it's because they're not American" is a poor throw-away argument. Brewster, Byrd, and Ruiz were all American and no-one was proclaiming the era they were all holding belts as anything but incredibly weak.

Ezzard wrote:I'd back all of them against David Bey...most of them against Bruno, Smith and Weaver... Then 50-50 with Coetzee, Berbick, Thomas...

Them and David Bey are mostly 50-50 fights. Back them against Smith, Bruno and Weaver? You must be joking . . .

fergusg wrote:

fergusg wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:You're making a damn full of yourself. That's twice now, on a boxing forum, in a discussion about size, you've spoke about height. Larry Holmes is much bigger than David Haye, now do yourself a favour and stop talking about size

In what way is Larry Holmes “much bigger” than David Haye when they’re the same height and weight, coupled with the fact that the Haymaker is much more ripped and heavily-muscled?

If you’re claiming that height and weight are irrelevant, in what way do you measure “size”?

The fact that Haye is much more ripped and heavily-muscled while weighing the same as a prime Holmes who looked lean but not particularly muscular is proof that Holmes is the naturally bigger man, surely this isn't hard to understand? If Holmes bulked up to the extent of Haye, he would likely weigh 230lb plus. If Haye laid off the weights and protein he'd be sub 200lb.

I don’t care about the physical potential as a result of bulking up… or the possibility that Larry had to lose some body fat in order to achieve his optimum fighting weight… the fact of the matter is that Holmes and Haye were the same size (height and weight) when they entered the ring… and no amount of guesswork, assumptions or convoluted theories can challenge that irrefutable fact![/quote]

No they aren't. Adrian Broner bulked up to 147 . . .in height and weight he's the same size as an Ike Quartey. But he's not. Ike Quartey would've been by far the bigger and stronger fighter. Height and weight do not correlate with size.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I'd back all of them against David Bey...most of them against Bruno, Smith and Weaver... Then 50-50 with Coetzee, Berbick, Thomas...

Them and David Bey are mostly 50-50 fights. Back them against Smith, Bruno and Weaver? You must be joking . . .

Berbick was just as awful as the guys mentioned...and similarly uninspiring. Pinky looked good for 2 fights but then lost to Berbick. Bey beat Page. Smith was a very limited boxer...he had a great chin and a great right hand. Other than that he looked to clinch and lean... remind you of anyone? He was really nothing special at all. Though he did KO Spoon in 1...

Ezzard wrote:Smith was a very limited boxer...he had a great chin and a great right hand.

Bone looked like freakin Sugar Ray Robinson compared to Pulev and he didn't have the benefit of hundreds of amatuer fights.

Larry Holmes and David Haye are about the same height, everyone, the end.[/color][/b][/quote]
The prime version of Larry Holmes and David Haye were the same height and weight when they both entered the ring.

Here’s an extract from post I've already posted on this thread to prove this irrefutable fact:

Larry Holmes’ average weight for his world title winning fights was 216.35lbs.

Larry wasn’t far bigger than David Haye, because the Haymaker’s average weight for his heavyweight bouts was 214.6lbs, which is a mere 1.75lbs lighter Holmes’ average. Interestingly, the average weight of a heavyweight David Haye opponent was 249.6lbs, which is much much heavier than The Easton Assassin's average opponent weight.

The interesting thing about David Haye… even though he’s the same height and about the same weight as Larry Holmes, he’s much more muscular and ripped, which means he should be regarded as the bigger man than the American legend (come fight night).[/quote]

You still don't get it?!

I actually agree that Holmes isn't 'far bigger' than Haye, but he is clearly the naturally larger man. Less importantly, he's likely an inch taller (most who've met Haye agree he's actually 6'2) and has three inches longer reach - more importantly, he was a lean natural 215lb heavyweight while Haye is a blown-up cruiserweight and muscle-bound at 215lb.

Leonid wrote:

jezzamundo wrote: The fact that Haye is much more ripped and heavily-muscled while weighing the same as a prime Holmes who looked lean but not particularly muscular is proof that Holmes is the naturally bigger man, surely this isn't hard to understand? If Holmes bulked up to the extent of Haye, he would likely weigh 230lb plus. If Haye laid off the weights and protein he'd be sub 200lb.

The fact that Bradley is much more ripped and heavily-muscled while weighing the same as Pacquiao who looked lean but not particularly muscular is proof that Pacquiao is the naturally bigger man, surely this isn't hard to understand? If Pac bulked up to the extent of Bradley, he would likely weigh 160lb plus (I added 10% as u did for Holmes). :) DD DD

Interesting post, but the situation is somewhat different for Pac and Bradley. Both are ripped weighing in at welterweight, Bradley even more so because he has to drain more to make the 147lb limit. In this pic, Bradley clearly has the bigger arms, but Pacquiao has bigger legs which are not visible. I'd imagine that Bradley weighed more on fight night, he's definitely the naturally bigger, heavier guy, but perhaps not by as much as some might imagine. Manny was only able to fight in such low weight classes because he was malnourished as a youth, which explains how he continued to pile on weight and climb divisions without looking overly muscle-bound - I'd say at this point he's a natural light welterweight.[/quote]

Manny, like a lot of fighters in ASIA, was also horiffically weight drained, as evidenced by how emaciated he looked in his early career, and the stoppage losses he suffered - since moving up in weight, until he got to Marquez, he'd never come close to being stopped. Strange still that Marquez of all people that would be the one to ice him.

dempseyfire wrote: No they aren't. Adrian Broner bulked up to 147 . . .in height and weight he's the same size as an Ike Quartey. But he's not. Ike Quartey would've been by far the bigger and stronger fighter. Height and weight do not correlate with size.[/b]

I'v been trying to explain that to this idiot in numerous threads - i think he might get it actually (it's not that hard to understand) but decided just to troll about it instead.

fergusg wrote:@jamesmcdonnell – I don’t have the time to argue with too many people at the same time, but Larry Holmes and David Haye are the same height… and the prime version of the ‘The Easton Assassin’ was also the same weight as the ‘Haymaker’. Those are facts that cannot be disputed.

You claim that David Haye was a blown-up cruiserweight, which is interesting, because that weight division didn’t exist when Larry Holmes was the world champion.

David Haye repeatedly claimed that he was extremely tight at the 200lb weight division, which requires the official weigh-in to take place the day before fight night.

Therefore, David Haye probably always entered the ring as a cruiserweight around the 215lb mark, which is not an unreasonable assumption, based on the amount of weight typically gained by most boxers as a direct result of rehydration, which we witness in most weight divisions.

If Larry Holmes was competing today, bearing in mind he was carrying more body fat than David Haye, then he may actually be competing as a cruiserweight.

If Larry Holmes was competing today, he'd probably be doing weights to bulk up (thought possibly not, the benefits of piling on muscle are dubious) - and would be weighing a lot more.

It's strange, if he was so tight at the weight, how come he fought there for so long, and even moved back down to the division to fight Enzo Mac?

Thank god the tide has shifted in the poll... I was worried I might need to abandon the forum.

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I'd back all of them against David Bey...most of them against Bruno, Smith and Weaver... Then 50-50 with Coetzee, Berbick, Thomas...

Them and David Bey are mostly 50-50 fights. Back them against Smith, Bruno and Weaver? You must be joking . . .

Berbick was just as awful as the guys mentioned...and similarly uninspiring. Pinky looked good for 2 fights but then lost to Berbick. Bey beat Page. Smith was a very limited boxer...he had a great chin and a great right hand. Other than that he looked to clinch and lean... remind you of anyone? He was really nothing special at all. Though he did KO Spoon in 1...

Show me a guy today with as much stamina and aggression, with consistent head movement and fast punching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLg6swbJwkU

I mean Derek Chisora and Carlos Takam managed to get in the top 10 and they are C grade versions of Berbick.

Smith was big and athletic with a good jab and one-punch poer . . .skill-wise he was as good as Marco Huck who strafed Povetkin repeatedly with lunging straight punches. Weaver was 10 leagues above Travis Walker who bullied Chagaev all over the ring.

fergusg wrote:@jamesmcdonnell – I don’t have the time to argue with too many people at the same time, but Larry Holmes and David Haye are the same height… and the prime version of the ‘The Easton Assassin’ was also the same weight as the ‘Haymaker’. Those are facts that cannot be disputed.

You claim that David Haye was a blown-up cruiserweight, which is interesting, because that weight division didn’t exist when Larry Holmes was the world champion.

David Haye repeatedly claimed that he was extremely tight at the 200lb weight division, which requires the official weigh-in to take place the day before fight night.

Therefore, David Haye probably always entered the ring as a cruiserweight around the 215lb mark, which is not an unreasonable assumption, based on the amount of weight typically gained by most boxers as a direct result of rehydration, which we witness in most weight divisions.

If Larry Holmes was competing today, bearing in mind he was carrying more body fat than David Haye, then he may actually be competing as a cruiserweight.

Haye was full of crap. Watch the Chisora pre-fight special . . he actually laments how many meals he has to eat everyday to stay above cruiserweight. I can ensure you Larry Holmes had the opposite problem and at his peak held to a strict diet.

dempseyfire wrote:
Show me a guy today with as much stamina and aggression, with consistent head movement and fast punching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLg6swbJwkU

I mean Derek Chisora and Carlos Takam managed to get in the top 10 and they are C grade versions of Berbick.

Smith was big and athletic with a good jab and one-punch poer . . .skill-wise he was as good as Marco Huck who strafed Povetkin repeatedly with lunging straight punches. Weaver was 10 leagues above Travis Walker who bullied Chagaev all over the ring.

Smith conserved his energy very carefully in his fights. Volume was not his style. He was the prototype of these guys. Do very little -- jab -- clinch -- lean -- pot shot -- repeat

Chisora is limited. Berbick was limited. But Chisora would not have been so comprehensively trounced by Gordon and Mercado.

I simply don't share this reverse engineered appreciation of the 1980s HW scene.

JCS wrote:Holmes.

Maybe Wladimir gets there, but the competition was just so much better in Holmes's day. Not Wlad's fault, but it is what it is. Klitschko votes are speculative IMO.

Larry fought a few guys who were better than Wlad's best opponents. But I disagree with the statement " The competition was SO MUCH BETTER in Holmes' day." Of Larry's 19 or so title defenses about a dozen or more included guys like Evangelista, Rodriguez, Ledoux, Ocasio, Zanon, L. Spinks, Tex Cobb, David Bey, Marvis Frazier, and a thoroughly diminished Ali. He also took on a lot of guys who were simply too green when he fought them and at times left the crowds wondering if he even deserved the decision against such men. Again I rate Holmes higher than Wlad on an all time list and might even give his comp the nod as being a "bit" better. But the difference is marginal at best.