BoxRec

Rexob wrote:Fury beat klit

Old Klit

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:I'd give a prime Larry Holmes at least 45% chances of beating any heavyweigh in history (and the only fighter Id'd favour to beat him is Joe Louis). Prime Holmes vs prime Ali would be 50/50 fight IMO as well as Holmes vs peak Riddick Bowe. Against any other HW in history I'd favour Larry Holmes. Prime Wlad could probably give him a lot of problems, but not the washed up 40-41 y.o. version of Klitschko. Tyson Fury's size and style might be pretty hard for Larry, but Holmes had very good hanspeed, excellent accuracy, timing and if he'd catch Fury with the same punch as Cunnigham did, the fight would likely be over. Holmes wasn't a great puncher, but he difinitely hit way harder than Cunningham. Joshua? We don't know how good he is yet. He is definitely not Michael Grant, but he wasn't tested on the highest level yet. Holmes vs Wilder would be a mismatch and Larry would easily outbox Povetkin.

OMG ! Lennox Lewis ?

I'd favour Holmes to beat him by close but clear decision in 12-rounds fight and by TKO in 15-rounds fight.

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:I'd give a prime Larry Holmes at least 45% chances of beating any heavyweigh in history (and the only fighter Id'd favour to beat him is Joe Louis). Prime Holmes vs prime Ali would be 50/50 fight IMO as well as Holmes vs peak Riddick Bowe. Against any other HW in history I'd favour Larry Holmes. Prime Wlad could probably give him a lot of problems, but not the washed up 40-41 y.o. version of Klitschko. Tyson Fury's size and style might be pretty hard for Larry, but Holmes had very good hanspeed, excellent accuracy, timing and if he'd catch Fury with the same punch as Cunnigham did, the fight would likely be over. Holmes wasn't a great puncher, but he difinitely hit way harder than Cunningham. Joshua? We don't know how good he is yet. He is definitely not Michael Grant, but he wasn't tested on the highest level yet. Holmes vs Wilder would be a mismatch and Larry would easily outbox Povetkin.

OMG ! Lennox Lewis ?

I'd favour Holmes to beat him by close but clear decision in 12-rounds fight and by TKO in 15-rounds fight.

I can not agree with you. No way.....

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:
OMG ! Lennox Lewis ?

I'd favour Holmes to beat him by close but clear decision in 12-rounds fight and by TKO in 15-rounds fight.

I can not agree with you. No way.....

Why? 42 y.o. Holmes easily beat peak version of Ray Mercer, while prime Lennox Lewis barely edged older, inactive and overweight Mercer.

45 y.o. totally shot Holmes went the distance and lost by the closest marging to 29 y.o. Oliver McCall (i scored that fight 114-114) who in his previous fight TKO'ed 29 y.o. Lennox Lewis in two rounds.

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote: I'd favour Holmes to beat him by close but clear decision in 12-rounds fight and by TKO in 15-rounds fight.

I can not agree with you. No way.....

Why? 42 y.o. Holmes easily beat peak version of Ray Mercer, while prime Lennox Lewis barely edged older, inactive and overweight Mercer.

45 y.o. totally shot Holmes went the distance and lost by the closest marging to 29 y.o. Oliver McCall (i scored that fight 114-114) who in his previous fight TKO'ed 29 y.o. Lennox Lewis in two rounds.

And....LL destroyed Tyson...And, Tyson destroyed LH....And, LL is older than Tyson....Excuse me, but this kind of logic is not the best...
Anyway, Lewis was above Holmes, that is my opinion, every version of Lewis (2003, too)...

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I can not agree with you. No way.....

Why? 42 y.o. Holmes easily beat peak version of Ray Mercer, while prime Lennox Lewis barely edged older, inactive and overweight Mercer.

45 y.o. totally shot Holmes went the distance and lost by the closest marging to 29 y.o. Oliver McCall (i scored that fight 114-114) who in his previous fight TKO'ed 29 y.o. Lennox Lewis in two rounds.

And....LL destroyed Tyson...And, Tyson destroyed LH....And, LL is older than Tyson....Excuse me, but this kind of logic is not the best...
Anyway, Lewis was above Holmes, that is my opinion, every version of Lewis (2003, too)...

It's your opinion. In my opinion Holmes was better than Lewis.

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote: Why? 42 y.o. Holmes easily beat peak version of Ray Mercer, while prime Lennox Lewis barely edged older, inactive and overweight Mercer.

45 y.o. totally shot Holmes went the distance and lost by the closest marging to 29 y.o. Oliver McCall (i scored that fight 114-114) who in his previous fight TKO'ed 29 y.o. Lennox Lewis in two rounds.

And....LL destroyed Tyson...And, Tyson destroyed LH....And, LL is older than Tyson....Excuse me, but this kind of logic is not the best...
Anyway, Lewis was above Holmes, that is my opinion, every version of Lewis (2003, too)...

It's your opinion. In my opinion Holmes was better than Lewis.

It would be strange if every member of this forum had the same opinion. OK, we can not agree about Lewis-Holmes case, it is not the end of the world.

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:
And....LL destroyed Tyson...And, Tyson destroyed LH....And, LL is older than Tyson....Excuse me, but this kind of logic is not the best...
Anyway, Lewis was above Holmes, that is my opinion, every version of Lewis (2003, too)...

It's your opinion. In my opinion Holmes was better than Lewis.

It would be strange if every member of this forum had the same opinion. OK, we can not agree about Lewis-Holmes case, it is not the end of the world.

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:I'd give a prime Larry Holmes at least 45% chances of beating any heavyweigh in history (and the only fighter Id'd favour to beat him is Joe Louis). Prime Holmes vs prime Ali would be 50/50 fight IMO as well as Holmes vs peak Riddick Bowe. Against any other HW in history I'd favour Larry Holmes. Prime Wlad could probably give him a lot of problems, but not the washed up 40-41 y.o. version of Klitschko. Tyson Fury's size and style might be pretty hard for Larry, but Holmes had very good hanspeed, excellent accuracy, timing and if he'd catch Fury with the same punch as Cunnigham did, the fight would likely be over. Holmes wasn't a great puncher, but he difinitely hit way harder than Cunningham. Joshua? We don't know how good he is yet. He is definitely not Michael Grant, but he wasn't tested on the highest level yet. Holmes vs Wilder would be a mismatch and Larry would easily outbox Povetkin.

OMG ! Lennox Lewis ?

I'd favour Holmes to beat him by close but clear decision in 12-rounds fight and by TKO in 15-rounds fight.

Holmes had the quicker better jab and could combo off it better than Lewis who is more of a one two puncher. It would be a battle of the jabs. Holmes win this for me. Speed frustrates, creates openings and kills, but I don't see it being a knockout.

Rexob wrote:Fury's lean back style would cafuddle the great champion with Holme's losing interest mid way through. Giving Fury a wide points decision victory. The rest would lose and painfully.

He'd have his best shot with Fury... Wilder, Joshua, and Ortiz would overpower him... Just like Tim Witherspoon and Renaldo Snipes almost did... Just remember his 2 fights with Michael Spinks -- and remember what a real Heavyweight did to Spinks.. Holmes' fights with Mercer, McCall, and Holyfield cause people to overrate him in certain ways.. Larry was a crafty old boy with a tons of skills, but not real powerful or hard hitting.

The Ray Mercer argument holds limited weight.

Mercer was erratic and unfocused during his actual physical prime. He has the impressive win over Morrison, where really his granite chin saved him, but was abysmal versus both Bert Cooper - whom he is alleged to have tried to bribe during the fight he was losing - and Holmes.

Mercer gave his best performances late, losing narrowly but deservedly to both Holyfield and Lewis. And the very tough win over Tim Witherspoon, a sadly forgotten, very good contest.

I actually think Holmes v Mercer is a horrible fight, more Mercer's to lose than Holmes' to win. Larry spent the entire fight with the ropes holding him up, pecking and poking his way to victory. Holmes was too old to use movement and just conned his way to victory over a Mercer who was not prepared mentally or physically for essentially some crafty spoiling. This was not a late masterpiece by Larry Holmes. Nor does it prove Holmes is better than Lewis.

Autobarn wrote:The Ray Mercer argument holds limited weight.

Mercer was erratic and unfocused during his actual physical prime. He has the impressive win over Morrison, where really his granite chin saved him, but was abysmal versus both Bert Cooper - whom he is alleged to have tried to bribe during the fight he was losing - and Holmes.

Mercer gave his best performances late, losing narrowly but deservedly to both Holyfield and Lewis. And the very tough win over Tim Witherspoon, a sadly forgotten, very good contest.

I actually think Holmes v Mercer is a horrible fight, more Mercer's to lose than Holmes' to win. Larry spent the entire fight with the ropes holding him up, pecking and poking his way to victory. Holmes was too old to use movement and just conned his way to victory over a Mercer who was not prepared mentally or physically for essentially some crafty spoiling. This was not a late masterpiece by Larry Holmes. Nor does it prove Holmes is better than Lewis.

It was Jesse Ferguson that he allegedly tried to bribe, the Cooper fight was a war. He caught Bert on a good day. Great fight.

Kalan wrote:

Rexob wrote:Fury's lean back style would cafuddle the great champion with Holme's losing interest mid way through. Giving Fury a wide points decision victory. The rest would lose and painfully.

He'd have his best shot with Fury... Wilder, Joshua, and Ortiz would overpower him... Just like Tim Witherspoon and Renaldo Snipes almost did... Just remember his 2 fights with Michael Spinks -- and remember what a real Heavyweight did to Spinks.. Holmes' fights with Mercer, McCall, and Holyfield cause people to overrate him in certain ways.. Larry was a crafty old boy with a tons of skills, but not real powerful or hard hitting.

Holmes did TKO 11 people between 1978 and 1982, so I think it's safe to say he wasn't feather fisted.

I'm guessing most of this board is under 30 if they are going to focus on fights against Mercer.

Not sure why Wilder or Ortiz would automatically overpower him when Cooney and Jones couldn't.

ldlamb wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Rexob wrote:Fury's lean back style would cafuddle the great champion with Holme's losing interest mid way through. Giving Fury a wide points decision victory. The rest would lose and painfully.

He'd have his best shot with Fury... Wilder, Joshua, and Ortiz would overpower him... Just like Tim Witherspoon and Renaldo Snipes almost did... Just remember his 2 fights with Michael Spinks -- and remember what a real Heavyweight did to Spinks.. Holmes' fights with Mercer, McCall, and Holyfield cause people to overrate him in certain ways.. Larry was a crafty old boy with a tons of skills, but not real powerful or hard hitting.

Holmes did TKO 11 people between 1978 and 1982, so I think it's safe to say he wasn't feather fisted.

I'm guessing most of this board is under 30 if they are going to focus on fights against Mercer.

Not sure why Wilder or Ortiz would automatically overpower him when Cooney and Jones couldn't.

Holmes' punching power could have been 8/10. Let us say, something like Parker / Chisora / Pulev....

Autobarn wrote:The Ray Mercer argument holds limited weight.

Mercer was erratic and unfocused during his actual physical prime. He has the impressive win over Morrison, where really his granite chin saved him, but was abysmal versus both Bert Cooper - whom he is alleged to have tried to bribe during the fight he was losing - and Holmes

You are completely wrong - Cooper fight was a great war and Mercer clearly beat him. It was the first Jesse Ferguson fight where he allegedly tried to bribe his opponent and it was exactly 1 year after his fight against Holmes.

Autobarn wrote:Mercer gave his best performances late, losing narrowly but deservedly to both Holyfield and Lewis. And the very tough win over Tim Witherspoon, a sadly forgotten, very good contest.

Why don't you mention a draw with Marion Wilson? It was blatant robbery - Ray was beaten by 37-years-old 7-9-2 guy and got a gift draw. He was also extremely inactive - he had only two fights in the last 30 months before Lewis fight and lost both of them - Wilson (officially it was a draw, but Ray clearly lost that fight) and Holyfield.

As for Holmes vs Mercer fight, I think it was a excellent, masterful performance from a 42 y.o. veteran. And it was the best version of Mercer - way more active, not overweight (omparing to 1996 version). Mercer's performance against Holmes was bad only because Holmes happened to be too smart and too skilled for him.

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:I think I asked you this before you got banned the first time, but do you ever get a little dispirited that noone agrees with you? Does it not make you think that your position may be a little wide of the mark?

I've never been banned and you're acting a bit silly.

Elite HW (since 2000) 6'6'' / 250 ? Why do you avoid to answer ?

still waiting ferg

David Price maybe?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Autobarn wrote:The Ray Mercer argument holds limited weight.

Mercer was erratic and unfocused during his actual physical prime. He has the impressive win over Morrison, where really his granite chin saved him, but was abysmal versus both Bert Cooper - whom he is alleged to have tried to bribe during the fight he was losing - and Holmes.

Mercer gave his best performances late, losing narrowly but deservedly to both Holyfield and Lewis. And the very tough win over Tim Witherspoon, a sadly forgotten, very good contest.

I actually think Holmes v Mercer is a horrible fight, more Mercer's to lose than Holmes' to win. Larry spent the entire fight with the ropes holding him up, pecking and poking his way to victory. Holmes was too old to use movement and just conned his way to victory over a Mercer who was not prepared mentally or physically for essentially some crafty spoiling. This was not a late masterpiece by Larry Holmes. Nor does it prove Holmes is better than Lewis.

It was Jesse Ferguson that he allegedly tried to bribe, the Cooper fight was a war. He caught Bert on a good day. Great fight.

Lol, thanks for the correction.

Larry Holmes would clean up todays division. Certainly there will allways be a tough fight out there, with Fury being a easy points win, KO of Klitschko to a tough fight with Ortiz. Joshua and Wilder are way too crude, he would wipe them out at this stage. Who is talking about Larry at Cruiserweight.........really, and how do you come to this conclusion?

Boxing Writer wrote:

Autobarn wrote:The Ray Mercer argument holds limited weight.

Mercer was erratic and unfocused during his actual physical prime. He has the impressive win over Morrison, where really his granite chin saved him, but was abysmal versus both Bert Cooper - whom he is alleged to have tried to bribe during the fight he was losing - and Holmes

You are completely wrong - Cooper fight was a great war and Mercer clearly beat him. It was the first Jesse Ferguson fight where he allegedly tried to bribe his opponent and it was exactly 1 year after his fight against Holmes.

Autobarn wrote:Mercer gave his best performances late, losing narrowly but deservedly to both Holyfield and Lewis. And the very tough win over Tim Witherspoon, a sadly forgotten, very good contest.

Why don't you mention a draw with Marion Wilson? It was blatant robbery - Ray was beaten by 37-years-old 7-9-2 guy and got a gift draw. He was also extremely inactive - he had only two fights in the last 30 months before Lewis fight and lost both of them - Wilson (officially it was a draw, but Ray clearly lost that fight) and Holyfield.

As for Holmes vs Mercer fight, I think it was a excellent, masterful performance from a 42 y.o. veteran. And it was the best version of Mercer - way more active, not overweight (omparing to 1996 version). Mercer's performance against Holmes was bad only because Holmes happened to be too smart and too skilled for him.

APologies for mixing up the Cooper and Fergusen fights.

I will have to check out Mercer v Cooper. Sounds great.

Thanks for mentioning MarionWilson. It sounds like Mercer was more erratic than I thought he was. Curious what issues Mercer had outside the ring, and when.

I've only seen three strong Ray Mercer performances, where he looked strong and fit and boxed to a good game plan, Holyfield, Lewis and Witherspoon.

I heard about the masterpiece Holmes put on him, then I watched it and saw a lazy Mercer get fiddled out of it by Holmes who spoiled off the ropes. (That's not how Holmes normally fought, so I don't see it as an indicator as to how Holmes and Lewis would pair up if anyone wants to read into things too far). This same Holmes then spoiled and fiddled in his fight with Holyfield, making Evander look bad but not actively achieving anything in their fight, a fight nobody wanted.

Mercer vs Cooper, Mercer vs Holyfield and Mercer vs Lennox Lewis are great fights, a must watch. Sad how Mercers career ended, though he did have quite a few chances at top fighters, it was the journeymen which tarnished his image, likely couldn’t be bothered to train for those fights. Fought the wrong fight with Holmes, old Holmes gave him a boxing lesson.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: I've never been banned and you're acting a bit silly.

Elite HW (since 2000) 6'6'' / 250 ? Why do you avoid to answer ?

still waiting ferg

David Price maybe?

Don't be cruel, poor guy needs better pills.
...But, Dominic Breazeale and Gerald Washington...Both are still here....And Alexander (x2) Dimitrenko/Ustinov...

ValMar wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Elite HW (since 2000) 6'6'' / 250 ? Why do you avoid to answer ?

still waiting ferg

David Price maybe?

Don't be cruel, poor guy needs better pills.
...But, Dominic Breazeale and Gerald Washington...Both are still here....And Alexander (x2) Dimitrenko/Ustinov...

Forgot about them! Is Wach still around? Oh wait he was beaten easily by the much smaller Povetkin who gave away 30 lbs and 5 inches in height. Doesn't matter...

THESE MODERN GIANTS

I guess Enlightened_One not so enlightened...

Riddick Blowe wrote:THESE MODERN GIANTS

I guess Enlightened_One not so enlightened...

Can you name one fighter ranked in BoxRec’s top 60 heavyweight list, barring Eddie Chambers, that typically weighs less than 220lbs?

Can you name more than ten currently active heavyweight fighters ranked in BoxRec’s top 60 that typically weigh less than 230lbs?

Can you name 15 or more heavyweight fighters in BoxRec’s top 60 heavyweight fighter list that are shorter than 6’ 3”?

The 6’ 3” Larry Holmes’ average weight at his physical prime, for the first 39 bouts of his career, was 207½lbs. Over the equivalent time period, his opponents typically weighed 211½lbs.

Using BoxRec’s current top 60 heavyweight list:
• 63.5% of heavyweights are taller than Larry Holmes
• 100% of heavyweights typically weigh more than Larry Holmes' average 207½lb physical prime weight
• 42% of fighters are taller than 6’ 4” in height
• 77% of fighters typically weigh around the 240lb-mark or more
• 45% of fighters typically weigh around the 250lb-mark or more
• 20% of fighters typically weigh around the 260lb-mark or more
• The average weight of a top 60 heavyweight fighter is 247lbs

It’s also fairly easy to argue that rehydrated versions of the following modern day world-rated cruiserweights are highly-likely to be physically bigger than the 207½lb prime version of Larry Holmes:
• Oleksandr Usyk
• Murat Gassiev
• Tony Bellew
• Marco Huck
• Yunier Dorticos

It is also reasonable to claim that when Larry Holmes was in his prime, from 1973 to 1982, the vast majority of the time, he competed against men that were the physical equivalent of modern day cruiserweights.

It’s important to note that I previously expressed the same opinion (on multiple occasions) about size discrepancies not being the “be-all-and-end-all" when it comes to the factors determining the outcome of fights, but the significantly smaller man should generally be regarded as being faced with a huge disadvantage, regardless of talent.

The size discrepancy that Larry Holmes would have to endure, such as a couple of inches or so in height and 40lbs+ in weight, if he had to compete against the current crop of heavies, would be significant enough to reasonably claim that he would be forced to overcome a major size disadvantage. He would not be as successful today than he was 32+ years ago.

A lot of these guys today weigh 240 because they are kind of fat.

What was considered important in 1980 (staying fully trimmed down), is not seen as the big advantage anymore.

A little extra size for durability and power is seen as just as important.

If guys like Holmes fought today, they'd come in at 235 instead of 215 and still bring the skills with them.

This obsession with size is inane.

Whom were the super heavyweight sized guys that Holmes fought, other than Cooney and Williams? Pretty late in his career, as well. Hard to gauge, given how different the era was to today's.


Yes, a lot of today's fighters are simply overweight, either down to a decline in fitness and discipline, or to "compensate" their lack of size in relation to people like Wlad, Joshua, Wilder.