BoxRec

Let us say that his prime was about 1983. What do you think about his chances against present-day HW fighters. ?

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.

Larry gets stopped by several of the current top-tier heavyweights, but at his physical 212lbs prime, he dominates the cruiserweight division with relative ease.

Yes, he was a bit of a flabby heavyweight and with proper diet and training he would have made a magnificent cruiserweight without a doubt.

Let us neglect the possibility of Holmes at CW. Perhaps, it could be another topic (Holmes, Frazier and Norton at modern day CW, young Ali too, but never Foreman). So, Larry Holmes against - Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Parker, Povetkin, Pulev, Fury, Stiverne....

ValMar wrote:Let us neglect the possibility of Holmes at CW. Perhaps, it could be another topic (Holmes, Frazier and Norton at modern day CW, young Ali too, but never Foreman).

Why not consider the possibility that a 6' 3" 212lb fighter would probably prefer to campaign as a cruiserweight instead of heavyweight at this point in time?

Size is the reason why there are so many weight classes.

ValMar wrote: So, Larry Holmes against - Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Parker, Povetkin, Pulev, Fury, Stiverne....

I've answered this already.

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:Let us neglect the possibility of Holmes at CW. Perhaps, it could be another topic (Holmes, Frazier and Norton at modern day CW, young Ali too, but never Foreman).

Why not consider the possibility that a 6' 3" 212lb fighter would probably prefer to campaign as a cruiserweight instead of heavyweight at this point in time?

Size is the reason why there are so many weight classes.

ValMar wrote: So, Larry Holmes against - Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Parker, Povetkin, Pulev, Fury, Stiverne....

I've answered this already.

So, you answer is : No, Holmes wouldn't be modern day HW champion....OK...

With Holmes being so much lighter than the current crop of heavies it's difficult to gauge the outcome,but if he was heavier he would lose some of his movement and make him more vulnerable so although i have him in my top 3 all time greats,he would struggle now i think purely down to the size difference.

ValMar wrote:Let us neglect the possibility of Holmes at CW. Perhaps, it could be another topic (Holmes, Frazier and Norton at modern day CW, young Ali too, but never Foreman). So, Larry Holmes against - Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Parker, Povetkin, Pulev, Fury, Stiverne....

I think Holmes should start as favourite against all of the listed fighters. I think Joshua, Klit and Fury have size and styles to give him some trouble and would win rounds but I don't see any of them stopping him. We don't really know how good Joshua is yet, so that one is hard to call.

two of the biggest retards from the foreman version right out of the gate in this thread

Obviously the answer is he beats everyone but the simple truth does tend to be mystifying to the TOO BIG TOO STRONG brigade

With out doubt Larry would be king of the hill

Holmes would dominate this current crop regardless of the weight. His movement and hand speed would totally befuddle these guys. He had underestimated power and took a good shot.

ValMar wrote:Let us neglect the possibility of Holmes at CW. Perhaps, it could be another topic (Holmes, Frazier and Norton at modern day CW, young Ali too, but never Foreman). So, Larry Holmes against - Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Parker, Povetkin, Pulev, Fury, Stiverne....

He'd be a fool to fight at cruiser.instead of schooling the slobs and oafs that are around today. I think Joshua will prove to be special, he ain't there yet. Holmes jab alone set a pace that none of these guys could handle.

Holmes easily.

But since he couldn't remotely deal with the 6'5" 250 lb Leroy Jones, maybe I'm off.

ldlamb wrote:Holmes easily.

But since he couldn't remotely deal with the 6'5" 250 lb Leroy Jones, maybe I'm off.

Cooney was a tiny little fella too.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ldlamb wrote:Holmes easily.

But since he couldn't remotely deal with the 6'5" 250 lb Leroy Jones, maybe I'm off.

Cooney was a tiny little fella too.

good to see sense has prevailed in this thread.

Riddick Blowe wrote:good to see sense has prevailed in this thread.

I was very serious opening this topic. Unfortunately, it is becoming to be story about size. For me, size is an important factor, but less important than skillset, power, stamina, chin and cojones.

I think Larry's zenith was about 1980.

He was obviously still on top form in '83, but he was 34 by then & could have been on the wane slightly.

In answer to the question, of course Holmes would be top of the pile today.

He was an ATG heavyweight; his jab alone would have blasted through the division & that's before you bring in his his ring intelligence, recuperative powers & experience.

ValMar wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:good to see sense has prevailed in this thread.

I was very serious opening this topic. Unfortunately, it is becoming to be story about size. For me, size is an important factor, but less important than skillset, power, stamina, chin and cojones.

If size didn't matter, why do hydrated fighters that typically weigh around the 215lbs to 220lbs mark, choose to compete as cruiserweights?

I'm sorry, but when the height discrepancy is 3"+ and the weight difference is 40lbs+, then size really does matter!

It might not be the "be all and end all", but the smaller man should generally be regarded as having to endure a huge disadvantage, regardless of talent.

If the difference was only a couple of inches in height and maybe 10lbs, then for heavyweights, size becomes a non-issue, but to propose that a 207lb man would not be at a huge disadvantage had he faced today's 6'6" 250lbs behemoths, is utter deluded lunacy!

He'd be capable of becoming Undisputed Champion yes, but I figure we'd have the same split titles and promotional issues whether he fought in this era or the one he fought in. The title was always split back in his time too.

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:good to see sense has prevailed in this thread.

I was very serious opening this topic. Unfortunately, it is becoming to be story about size. For me, size is an important factor, but less important than skillset, power, stamina, chin and cojones.

If size didn't matter, why do hydrated fighters that typically weigh around the 215lbs to 220lbs mark, choose to compete as cruiserweights?

I'm sorry, but when the height discrepancy is 3"+ and the weight difference is 40lbs+, then size really does matter!

It might not be the "be all and end all", but the smaller man should generally be regarded as having to endure a huge disadvantage, regardless of talent.

If the difference was only a couple of inches in height and maybe 10lbs, then for heavyweights, size becomes a non-issue, but to propose that a 207lb man would not be at a huge disadvantage had he faced today's 6'6" 250lbs behemoths, is utter deluded lunacy!

I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I was very serious opening this topic. Unfortunately, it is becoming to be story about size. For me, size is an important factor, but less important than skillset, power, stamina, chin and cojones.

If size didn't matter, why do hydrated fighters that typically weigh around the 215lbs to 220lbs mark, choose to compete as cruiserweights?

I'm sorry, but when the height discrepancy is 3"+ and the weight difference is 40lbs+, then size really does matter!

It might not be the "be all and end all", but the smaller man should generally be regarded as having to endure a huge disadvantage, regardless of talent.

If the difference was only a couple of inches in height and maybe 10lbs, then for heavyweights, size becomes a non-issue, but to propose that a 207lb man would not be at a huge disadvantage had he faced today's 6'6" 250lbs behemoths, is utter deluded lunacy!

I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So the same answer applies to this question also, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a very good reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un", because it's true on most occasions.

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: If size didn't matter, why do hydrated fighters that typically weigh around the 215lbs to 220lbs mark, choose to compete as cruiserweights?

I'm sorry, but when the height discrepancy is 3"+ and the weight difference is 40lbs+, then size really does matter!

It might not be the "be all and end all", but the smaller man should generally be regarded as having to endure a huge disadvantage, regardless of talent.

If the difference was only a couple of inches in height and maybe 10lbs, then for heavyweights, size becomes a non-issue, but to propose that a 207lb man would not be at a huge disadvantage had he faced today's 6'6" 250lbs behemoths, is utter deluded lunacy!

I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So I've answered your question, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

Of course Foreman could when you consider Tyson was only 5'10 and routinely walked through bigger guys not named Douglas until he was washed up and old. Punching power is punching power and it doesn't always rely on size. Some of the hardest HW punchers weren't always that big. And just because fighters are big doesn't mean they have a "big" chin. Foreman walkes through Wladmir 9 times out of 10 and makes Tyson Fury who isn't a hard puncher for his size look like poo.

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: If size didn't matter, why do hydrated fighters that typically weigh around the 215lbs to 220lbs mark, choose to compete as cruiserweights?

I'm sorry, but when the height discrepancy is 3"+ and the weight difference is 40lbs+, then size really does matter!

It might not be the "be all and end all", but the smaller man should generally be regarded as having to endure a huge disadvantage, regardless of talent.

If the difference was only a couple of inches in height and maybe 10lbs, then for heavyweights, size becomes a non-issue, but to propose that a 207lb man would not be at a huge disadvantage had he faced today's 6'6" 250lbs behemoths, is utter deluded lunacy!

I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So the same answer applies to this question also, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a very good reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un", because it's true on most occasions.

How many people have to disagree with you before you decide to jettison this ridiculous babble?