BoxRec

MEISINGER wrote:lets then hear an argument on jofres and holmes skills.that is all i have been asking.i want to hear what you have to say about their skills.
i believe both to be fantastic fighters but why do you rate jofres skils better than larry's?

i also want to apologize for being rude to you.it appears that so many posters want to talk about records and not the actual fighter.i apologize to you if you truly are a fan and not one of these haters.

please lets discuss the skills that you see in jofres.
i will discuss the skills i see in holmes that makes me believe he was slightly better.

I accept your apology. If I come across as ignorant and pompous, it isn't deliberate...

Right. Holmes and Jofre's skills.

Holmes I find very impressive. Possibly the third best heavyweight, behind Louis and Ali. I found him to be a bit of a middle man. His jab was straight and accurate, not as fast as Ali's and not as powerful as Liston's, but it was well balanced and had the good qualities of both. Holmes didn't have the footwork and speed of Ali, nor the punching ability of Louis, but again, he had a good mix of both. Holmes' chin was pretty good too - he could be floored, but his recuperative and defensive abilities meant he could usually steer clear of a knockout loss. They say Holmes was a poor man's Ali, but I disagree. He might not have been as good a mover or as quick of hand, but Holmes was a slightly better puncher and was fundamentally superior. I never thought he had a very complete arsenal of punches though... It was his right hand which did the damage. I actually think that in a fantasy matchup, Holmes would beat Ali as long as he used the right gameplan. Stay back, jab, parry and draw Ali onto his ineffective front foot.

Jofre is next but I'm posting this before my computer freezes again.

Now Jofre I know less about. None of us truly know the ins and outs of him because of lack of both information and film. From what I have seen and heard though, Jofre was a complete fighter... A sometimes devastating, sometimes butter-slick machine schooled equally in the art of offense and defense. In general he was on the offensive, with good slipping and ducking abilities, quite economical I thought but at the same time loose, relaxed and rhythmic. Combinations, power, speed, accuracy, offensively Jofre had it all, the nearest I can compare him to is perhaps a mini Roberto Duran. Jofre could take a guy out in one punch, or outclass him over the course of an entire fight. At times his hands could drop dangerously, but Jofre had the heart and durability to make sure he wouldn't be knocked out. One of the best bantamweights ever, the only two coming close being Carlos Zarate and Ruben Olivares. I've only seen him past his prime, but some writers back in his heyday said he was the bantamweight Ray Robinson, and the best fighter of his era. High praise indeed when you consider he was up against the likes of Napoles, Ali, Griffith, Monzon, Liston, Benvenuti and others...

If we wanna go on skill, Holmes would definitely knock Jofre out.

DoubleM wrote:

Nat Fleischer and Bert Sugar are extremely biased in their views and are very overrated. I don't take their opinions seriously at all. There's a list of Sugar's greatest fighters out there somewhere and it's a complete load of bollocks.

That was exactly my point.

Who cares what these "boxing historians" think.

What credible fighter Jofre beat is still my question.

MEISINGER wrote:lets then hear an argument on jofres and holmes skills.that is all i have been asking.i want to hear what you have to say about their skills.
i believe both to be fantastic fighters but why do you rate jofres skils better than larry's?

i also want to apologize for being rude to you.it appears that so many posters want to talk about records and not the actual fighter.i apologize to you if you truly are a fan and not one of these haters.

please lets discuss the skills that you see in jofres.
i will discuss the skills i see in holmes that makes me believe he was slightly better.

If you rate a fighter entirely on skill than you're leaving out a lot of other things like accomplishments.

Grimm wrote:

DoubleM wrote:

Nat Fleischer and Bert Sugar are extremely biased in their views and are very overrated. I don't take their opinions seriously at all. There's a list of Sugar's greatest fighters out there somewhere and it's a complete load of bollocks.

That was exactly my point.

Who cares what these "boxing historians" think.

What credible fighter Jofre beat is still my question.

I already told you... A whole host of contenders and a great fighter in Vicente Salvidar...

my point in jofre is (i also only have 4 fights on video of his)
lack of defense in all 4 fights i have seen.jofres had exceptional heart but lacked the ability to slip punches.his hands dropped in arrogance ala ali but he would take punishment where not needed.i was impressed with his speed and combinations.also i give him props on ability to take punishment though alot of punishment was avoidable.
in the case of holmes.he was fundamentaly the most complete heavyweight i have seen.i have everyone of his fights excluding three of his earlier fights.holmes learned his craft through gym wars with both ali and frazier.his jab as you described was not the fastset or the strongest,but was the most accurate and effective.holmes chin in his prime was quite impressive.he may have gone down against shavers and snipes but he got up and destroyed both men.his complete package puts him as arguably in the top three heavies of all time and an argument could be made that he could possibly beat either ali or louis.
holmes was the better boxer and had the drive to stay on top clearly past his prime.

again i have only seen 4 of jofres fights and one was when he was way pat his prime.but from the skills that i saw of his.i give him that he had heart.i also see a lack of skill to place him above larry's.

both great in their own right just larry was fundamentally better.

DoubleM wrote:

Grimm wrote:

DoubleM wrote:

Nat Fleischer and Bert Sugar are extremely biased in their views and are very overrated. I don't take their opinions seriously at all. There's a list of Sugar's greatest fighters out there somewhere and it's a complete load of bollocks.

That was exactly my point.

Who cares what these "boxing historians" think.

What credible fighter Jofre beat is still my question.

I already told you... A whole host of contenders and a great fighter in Vicente Salvidar...

Vicente Salvidar was past his prime and none of those contenders were great.

I have to say Holmes resume is much better.

Grimm wrote:

DoubleM wrote:

Grimm wrote: That was exactly my point.

Who cares what these "boxing historians" think.

What credible fighter Jofre beat is still my question.

I already told you... A whole host of contenders and a great fighter in Vicente Salvidar...

Vicente Salvidar was past his prime and none of those contenders were great.

I have to say Holmes resume is much better.

What the fcuk makes Holmes' record 'much' better, if at all? Because his top contenders were more famous?

Norton? Past his best (and overrated anyway). M. Spinks? Ex light heavyweight, past his best. Ali? Totally fuckin' wasted. What great fighter did Holmes ever beat?

Take off the rose tinted spectacles. Mike Weaver was practically a journeyman. Witherspoon and Berbick were inconsistent. Frazier, Ocasio, Bey... Give me a break. It's not like Holmes even dominated all these guys, he had some real problems.

Tantum wrote:http://img84. .us/img84/8454/1 ... 9561ql.gif

Yea, nice response. Good ol' emoticons always save the day.

would you guys consider putting JC CHavez in any 10 p4p list?

Migz wrote:would you guys consider putting JC CHavez in any 10 p4p list?

I wouldn't argue with it.

chavez makes my list.

heres my current top 10

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Ray Leonard
7. Willie Pep
8. Benny Leonard
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Jimmy Wilde