Larry Holmes -vs- Lennox Lewis

[Holmes' Jab]

Well then, my #3 and #4 heavyweights duke it out over 15 rounds. How d'yall envisage this one going? I take Holmes by narrow decision, but Lewis' combination of skillset, size and power give him a good chance for sure. Larry couldn't afford to engage in a slug fest here and very likey wouldn't survive a Shavers I type moment. If he sticks to what he does best and uses his jab and lateral movement, whilst attempting to avoid the worst from Lewis' big right hand that's his best bet of taking the 'W'.

Thoughts?

[Loewe]

Well, Holmes had the best Jab of any hw but Lewis shouldn´t be underestimated. He also had a very good jab which isn´t that much worse than Holmes´. Imo Lewis is a bit more versatile than Holmes, together with his edge in size and power i think he would win. In the beginning it would be a war of Jabs but when Lewis sees himself beeing outgunned there he will try to make it a brawl in close range to negate Holmes´ superior jab. And there he´s the clear favourite - remember the uppercuts against Tyson and Vitali? Lewis TKO8-10 Holmes.

Holmes still is a step higher all-time-wise. I have Holmes at 4 and Lewis at 5.

[D-MAC]

Battle of the jabs for me.

I'll take Holmes by close decision.

[Holmes' Jab]

Battle of the jabs for me.

I'll take Holmes by close decision.


Cheers for the reply. Where abouts in Belfast ya live, mate (if ya forgive me for being nosey)?

[D-MAC]

Cheers for the reply. Where abouts in Belfast ya live, mate (if ya forgive me for being nosey)?

Just down off Botanic, mate.

Around the corner from the Empire.

The area is as rough as a Badger's one, but the flat itself is nice enough tbh.

Yourself?

[DamonD]

Holmes UD.

I think he'd fight a smart fight, stick to the jabs and work inside off the ropes when he can. He wouldn't be a bloody idiot and push for the knockout, that way lands a big risk of an overhand right, so he would stick to the gameplan and get the points win.

[Holmes' Jab]

Just down off Botanic, mate.

Around the corner from the Empire.

The area is as rough as a Badger's one, but the flat itself is nice enough tbh.

Yourself?


Live in Bangor now, but was brought up down the Shore Road in Belfast and lived there till I was about 12. Hence why I've been an avid Crusaders fan all my life.

[D-MAC]

Live in Bangor now, but was brought up down the Shore Road in Belfast and lived there till I was about 12. Hence why I've been an avid Crusaders fan all my life.

Small world!

My Dad lives up Donegal Park Avenue; y'know just up past Mount Vernon.

Sorry to hear about the Crusaders thing, shit days mate:lol: :lol: :lol:

Only joking:good

[Holmes' Jab]

Small world!

My Dad lives up Donegal Park Avenue; y'know just up past Mount Vernon.

Sorry to hear about the Crusaders thing, shit days mate:lol: :lol: :lol:

Only joking:good


Yeah, know where you're talking about. Aye my dads mate used to own a shop around Botanic way close to the station: had to close it down as I think the trade was suffering due to other supermarkets. Hey, easy on about the Crues at least we're doing well-ish again (as opposed to three or four years ago). When you go regularly during the bad times you enjoy the relative success when it comes: we've sure had both. Support any team/s yourself, mate?

[D-MAC]

Yeah, know where you're talking about. Aye my dads mate used to own a shop around Botanic way close to the station: had to close it down as I think the trade was suffering due to other supermarkets. Hey, easy on about the Crues at least we're doing well-ish again (as opposed to three or four years ago). When you go regularly during the bad times you enjoy the relative success when it comes: we've sure had both. Support any team/s yourself, mate?

Never really taken to any of the Irish League teams.

Bit of a glory hunter in that respect.

Big fan of Liverpool....but, of course, that doesn't tally with the glory hunter tag:huh

You a Newcastle fan obviously? Wonder when this transfer market is gonna heat up; no one is buying anybody.

[Mendoza]

Lewis had trouble vs good jabbers. Mercer, Holyfield and Klitschko. I think Holmes jab was a bit better than the above fighters were, and he his speed and conditioning was better.

Hard fight to call. I go with Holmes via close decision.

[teeto]

Never really taken to any of the Irish League teams.

Bit of a glory hunter in that respect.

Big fan of Liverpool....but, of course, that doesn't tally with the glory hunter tag:huh

You a Newcastle fan obviously? Wonder when this transfer market is gonna heat up; no one is buying anybody.
I'm from Liverpool, and a big Liverpool fan, plenty of people from your way support Liverpool as you will well know (we're all related, scousers and you guys!!!!).

Season's nearly here aye? Hope these signings get sorted, i'm really not optimistic at all though.

Sorry to butt in you 2!!

[D-MAC]

I'm from Liverpool, and a big Liverpool fan, plenty of people from your way support Liverpool as you will well know (we're all related, scousers and you guys!!!!).

Season's nearly here aye? Hope these signings get sorted, i'm really not optimistic at all though.

Sorry to butt in you 2!!

Hey Teeto

I used to work over in Liverpool at the Adelphi hotel.

Nice place.

I personally wouldn't want Barry or Keane...not for the kind of crazy money that is being mentioned:nut

This is the last I will say on the matter, for I seem to be hogging this thread with non-related personal stuff.

Back to Holmes-Lewis.:D

[Loewe]

I'm from Liverpool, and a big Liverpool fan, plenty of people from your way support Liverpool as you will well know (we're all related, scousers and you guys!!!!).

Season's nearly here aye? Hope these signings get sorted, i'm really not optimistic at all though.

Sorry to butt in you 2!!
I saw Liverpool two days ago against Hertha BSC. Pretty boring game and the only two guys of Liverppol i knew were Kuyt and Mascerano. Well, wish ya guys good luck for the next season.

[teeto]

Hey Teeto

I used to work over in Liverpool at the Adelphi hotel.

Nice place.

I personally wouldn't want Barry or Keane...not for the kind of crazy money that is being mentioned:nut

This is the last I will say on the matter, for I seem to be hogging this thread with non-related personal stuff.

Back to Holmes-Lewis.:D
In the Adelphi aye? Ive only been in there for a big work party one time, it's huge though isnt it?

There seems to be a bit of mixed feelings on Barry and Keane by most fans, but i do think the money for Barry they're asking for is stupid, O'Neil's just being an arsehole there.

Yea, Holmes-Lewis anyway!

I think Holmes has more of a never say die thing going on than does Lewis and that's a huge positive at the top level, but Lewis has a great haymaker right which is bad for Holmes, especially if he commits to the jab. But then again, Holmes is the slightly better boxer for me, faster and more mobiile, even in their respective primes.

One way you could see it, is that Lewis may not be able to get really outboxed badly, and that would be Holmes' way of doing this, i dont see him stopping Lewis. That thinking would favour Lewis. The other way i could see it, is that Holmes would maybe be too fast for Lewis, and would get up if Lewis knocked him down, if you take the speed into account, Holmes may very well outbox him.

I'll take Holmes to do it on poiints, hard one though.

I'm off out now, be on later though!

[teeto]

I saw Liverpool two days ago against Hertha BSC. Pretty boring game and the only two guys of Liverppol i knew were Kuyt and Mascerano. Well, wish ya guys good luck for the next season.
Thanks, never saw it, was keeping updated with the result though, the manager doesnt seem to be fielding any first team players really in this pre-season, unlike last time, when he was trying out his new big-names.

WE REALLY ARE HOGGING THE THREAD NOW GUYS! Haha, see you lot later!

You have a team by he way???

[Loewe]

Thanks, never saw it, was keeping updated with the result though, the manager doesnt seem to be fielding any first team players really in this pre-season, unlike last time, when he was trying out his new big-names.

WE REALLY ARE HOGGING THE THREAD NOW GUYS! Haha, see you lot later!

You have a team by he way???
Sure. I´m a supporter of the greatest football club in the world: TSV 1860 München (Munich). I´m original from a small village near Munich and live only for 4 years in Berlin, so i grew up with the "Lions" - actually my nick here means lion in German.
And then i have a secret love for the celtic fc since i saw the UEFA-cup final of 2003 and i´m looking really forward to the 2.14.09 when i´m going Glasgow to see the old firm.

btw. is nobody here who thinka Lewis would beat Holmes other than me?

[rekcutnevets]

Holmes has an edge in hand speed, and would welcome a jab battle. Holmes would win the jab battle, forcing Lennox to become more aggressive. This fight would then become sloppy at times. Holmes footwork was not pretty, but combined with his jab; it'll be enough to win most of the exchanges against lumbering Lennox.

Holmes UD.

[Loewe]

Why does everyone think that Lewis just stays on the outside to fight a losing battle? Don´t you think he would change tactics when he sees that he would lose this way? Well, i do.

[Bill1234]

Holmes ud. His jab was better than Lennox's and he would be able to fire two off in the time Lennox would be able to fire one off. Larry's jab would keep him at bay and start to make Lewis weary of it by the 12th round. Holmes starts landing some hard body shots in the 13th to wear Lewis out more, and by the 15th Lewis is tired and swollen, but he's still dangerous. Holmes starts throwing his right hand over Lewis's jab and he puts combo's together. He wins a close, but clear victory.

[Bill1234]

Why does everyone think that Lewis just stays on the outside to fight a losing battle? Don´t you think he would change tactics when he sees that he would lose this way? Well, i do.

If/when Lewis came inside Holmes would start to land hard body shots and uppercuts. Holmes is a step above Lewis in many ways except power.

[fists of fury]

Big fan of Liverpool....but, of course, that doesn't tally with the glory hunter tag:huh



My Dinner With Conteh is going to love you mate. HJ...feeling okay there son?

Okay to topic...I pick Holmes by decision. Brilliant jab, and he'd fluster Lewis with it.

[JohnThomas1]

If/when Lewis came inside Holmes would start to land hard body shots and uppercuts. Holmes is a step above Lewis in many ways except power.

What fight would you point me to where Holmes lands hard body shots in his peak?

[fists of fury]

I'm from Liverpool, and a big Liverpool fan,

I think Liverpool are the most supported team on this site. :good

[Loewe]

If/when Lewis came inside Holmes would start to land hard body shots and uppercuts. Holmes is a step above Lewis in many ways except power.

Well, did you see the uppercuts Tyson and Vitali were getting hit by Lewis? I don´t think Holmes could take them long enough to not getting koed. And i´m sure he would get hit with them because i don´t buy that Lewis would fight Holmes´ fight.

[fists of fury]

Why does everyone think that Lewis just stays on the outside to fight a losing battle? Don´t you think he would change tactics when he sees that he would lose this way? Well, i do.

Assuming he finds himself losing from the outside, why do you think he'd do to remedy that? What tactically would he change, in your opinion?

[Holmes' Jab]

I think Liverpool are the most supported team on this site. :good


I'd say you're maybe right, but they have an equal number of detractors too. ;) :happy

[Loewe]

Assuming he finds himself losing from the outside, why do you think he'd do to remedy that? What tactically would he change, in your opinion?

I wrote on the first page:

Well, Holmes had the best Jab of any hw but Lewis shouldn´t be underestimated. He also had a very good jab which isn´t that much worse than Holmes´. Imo Lewis is a bit more versatile than Holmes, together with his edge in size and power i think he would win. In the beginning it would be a war of Jabs but when Lewis sees himself beeing outgunned there he will try to make it a brawl in close range to negate Holmes´ superior jab. And there he´s the clear favourite - remember the uppercuts against Tyson and Vitali? Lewis TKO8-10 Holmes.

Holmes still is a step higher all-time-wise. I have Holmes at 4 and Lewis at 5.

Or he could try to do what he did to Golota, obviously Holmes is better than the Pole.

[fists of fury]

You don't think being more aggressive would actually play more into Holmes' hands?

[Holmes' Jab]

If/when Lewis came inside Holmes would start to land hard body shots and uppercuts. Holmes is a step above Lewis in many ways except power.


How is Larry "a level above" Lennox? Seriously, though they're both amongst the top 10 heavyweights of all-time, well up it in most peoples opinion. It's a very close call regarding their fundementals: Lewis' jab is almost as good, he's arguably a better inside fighter, equally as versitile and carries more concussive power. Holmes meanwhile has better durability and moves better, but there ain't much in it.

Mark my words this outcome would be close.

[JohnThomas1]

Whichever one wins, the other will be an absolute handful for them. Of this i have no doubt whatsoever. Lewis would easily be the most dangerous and difficult customer prime Holmes ever fought, and Holmes is a touch above Holyfield and co as well. A different style to Lewis other opponents.

[JohnThomas1]

How is Larry "a level above" Lennox? Seriously, though they're both amongst the top 10 heavyweights of all-time, well up it in most peoples opinion. It's a very close call regarding their fundementals: Lewis' jab is almost as good, he's arguably a better inside fighter, equally as versitile and carries more concussive power. Holmes meanwhile has better durability and maybe moves slightly better, but there ain't much in it.

Mark my words this outcome would be close.

Exactly, there's only a bee's dick in this. If Lewis hurts Holmes like others have he may well finish him, but Holmes will be boxing at 100% efficiency against such a great opponent too.

[Bill1234]

What fight would you point me to where Holmes lands hard body shots in his peak?

He landed some good ones against LeRoy Jones, Ali, and not in his prime, but he landed hard body shots against Williams and Spinks.

[JohnThomas1]

He landed some good ones against LeRoy Jones, Ali, and not in his prime, but he landed hard body shots against Williams and Spinks.

Well he added a bit of body attack late career, but if we put that Holmes against Lewis it's an easy Lewis win. Holmes at his greatest didn't attack the body barely at all, and didn't throw left hooks barely ever either. Ali was a corpse and Jones was easy - he'd almost certainly wrap the hook and body attack in cotton wool vs such a dangerous foe as Lewis.

[fists of fury]

I'd say you're maybe right, but they have an equal number of detractors too. ;) :happy

Your sins came home to roost back there mate. I had to laugh at the irony of it all. :D

[Bill1234]

Well, did you see the uppercuts Tyson and Vitali were getting hit by Lewis? I don´t think Holmes could take them long enough to not getting koed. And i´m sure he would get hit with them because i don´t buy that Lewis would fight Holmes´ fight.

Yes, and they went through my mind a little after I posted that. That I forgot about those. I think Larry could take them when he needed to. I'm not saying that he could take the type of uppercut that Lennox hit Vitali with all night, but I think his chin was good enough to withstand Lewis's bombs long enough to get out of there or fire shots back.

I think Lewis would try to keep Larry on the end of his slightly longer reach and keep him at bay. But I think that would give Larry an advantage due to his faster hands and better jab.

[Bill1234]

Well he added a bit of body attack late career, but if we put that Holmes against Lewis it's an easy Lewis win. Holmes at his greatest didn't attack the body barely at all, and didn't throw left hooks barely ever either. Ali was a corpse and Jones was easy - he'd almost certainly wrap the hook and body attack in cotton wool vs such a dangerous foe as Lewis.

Larry would throw hard jabs to the solar plexus. Those can take the wind right out of you. He wouldn't throw his left hook as much as Frazier or Holyfield, but he would throw it. He used it against Leon Spinks, Ali, Cooney, and he threw his right hook against Evangelista.

[the cobra]

Holmes' jab was slightly better, and he was probably a little faster. Overall, I feel Larry was a little better technically, more consistant, and he had the better chin. A close fight no matter who wins, but I feel Holmes could win a pretty clear decision over Lewis, if not stop him late in a 15 round fight.

[Muchmoore]

What fight would you point me to where Holmes lands hard body shots in his peak?

:lol: :good

I'll go with Lennox, but it's a close fight. Holmes had the better jab, but people are overlooking Lewis' height and size. He wouldn't simply stand there getting hit in the head with jabs all night, I think Holmes would of been dropped and maybe stopped by a big right hand about midway through, and loses a close but clear decision.

[Muchmoore]

Larry would throw hard jabs to the solar plexus. Those can take the wind right out of you. He wouldn't throw his left hook as much as Frazier or Holyfield, but he would throw it. He used it against Leon Spinks, Ali, Cooney, and he threw his right hook against Evangelista.

Spinks was terrible, Ali was a punching bag, Cooney was alright but wasn't Lewis by any stretch of the imagination, and Evangelista was a bum.

When Larry was against good fighters, his left hook, body attack etc. wasn't hardly used because they weren't that good. He only used his jab, big uppercut if it was there, and right hand.

[Bill1234]

Spinks was terrible, Ali was a punching bag, Cooney was alright but wasn't Lewis by any stretch of the imagination, and Evangelista was a bum.

When Larry was against good fighters, his left hook, body attack etc. wasn't hardly used because they weren't that good. He only used his jab, big uppercut if it was there, and right hand.

He used his right hook effectively. Larry had decent body shots when he used them, and yes, he would try them on Lewis if Lewis got on the inside.

[teeto]

Sure. I´m a supporter of the greatest football club in the world: TSV 1860 München (Munich). I´m original from a small village near Munich and live only for 4 years in Berlin, so i grew up with the "Lions" - actually my nick here means lion in German.
And then i have a secret love for the celtic fc since i saw the UEFA-cup final of 2003 and i´m looking really forward to the 2.14.09 when i´m going Glasgow to see the old firm.

btw. is nobody here who thinka Lewis would beat Holmes other than me?
Old firm, gunna be a great atmosphere for sure!

[Loewe]

Yes, and they went through my mind a little after I posted that. That I forgot about those. I think Larry could take them when he needed to. I'm not saying that he could take the type of uppercut that Lennox hit Vitali with all night, but I think his chin was good enough to withstand Lewis's bombs long enough to get out of there or fire shots back.

I think Lewis would try to keep Larry on the end of his slightly longer reach and keep him at bay. But I think that would give Larry an advantage due to his faster hands and better jab.

Well, there are two things our views differ quite a bit. Firstly, i don´t think Holmes jab is enough to control Lewis, Lennox will change his strategy when he realises that he can´t win on the outside and Holmes jab isn´t enough to keep him there. Lewis will get to him and he will hurt him and he´s a good enough finisher to take a hurt Holmes out. Secondly, i don´t think Holmes can take many of those uppercuts, not if he has to eat them over 4-5 rounds again and again. Holmes has a shot at beating Lewis, don´t get me wrong, but i think Lewis has the bigger chances and just some assets more.

Old firm, gunna be a great atmosphere for sure!

Yeah, i´m pretty hyped for that one but it´s such a long time till then.

[TommyV]

I'll take Holmes by a close UD.

[JIm Broughton]

Tough fight to call but I'd go with Lewis in this one. Larry had his toughest fights against tall fighters who could jab back at him(Witherspoon,Williams,Norton,Cooney) and Lewis was bigger and more powerful than all of them. Lewis was technically sound and very intelligent and would'nt take Holmes lightly. If Renaldo Snipes could drop Larry and hurt him badly then a bigger more complete boxer like Lewis could too. And if Lennox hurts Holmes like Snipes did then he finishes him plain and simple. For Larry to win he has to utilize his faster jab and avoid trading right hands with Lennox like he did against Witherspoon and Williams when he got hurt by them. If he does then he stands a good chance to win by decision. If he doesn't then Lennox catches him mid fight and finishes him. 50/50.

[Muchmoore]

Tough fight to call but I'd go with Lewis in this one. Larry had his toughest fights against tall fighters who could jab back at him(Witherspoon,Williams,Norton,Cooney) and Lewis was bigger and more powerful than all of them. Lewis was technically sound and very intelligent and would'nt take Holmes lightly. If Renaldo Snipes could drop Larry and hurt him badly then a bigger more complete boxer like Lewis could too. And if Lennox hurts Holmes like Snipes did then he finishes him plain and simple. For Larry to win he has to utilize his faster jab and avoid trading right hands with Lennox like he did against Witherspoon and Williams when he got hurt by them. If he does then he stands a good chance to win by decision. If he doesn't then Lennox catches him mid fight and finishes him. 50/50.

:good

Pretty good analysis.

[Muchmoore]

He used his right hook effectively. Larry had decent body shots when he used them, and yes, he would try them on Lewis if Lewis got on the inside.

Holmes didn't use his body punches often and when he did it was against human punching bags. What makes you think that Lewis would go in like Frazier and fight on the inside as well getting tagged by bodyshots :lol: :huh

[AnthonyJ74]

Lewis had trouble vs good jabbers. Mercer, Holyfield and Klitschko. I think Holmes jab was a bit better than the above fighters were, and he his speed and conditioning was better.

Hard fight to call. I go with Holmes via close decision.

Holmes never really liked a fighter who jabbed well either. Williams and Witherspoon took HOlmes' jab away, and even though Larry was in the latter stages of his reign, Williams and Witherspoon were the best jabbers that Holmes had ever faced. And Lennox Lewis was bigger, had a longer reach, and was more powerful than those guys.

Tough fight to call, but it would be a tough fight either way!

[Bokaj]

One of the most dangerous right hands ever would spell trouble for someone who always had trouble with right hands. If Holmes gets tagged by the right hands Norton tagged him with, it's all over.

[Rumsfeld]

I like Holmes by decision or late stoppage.

[Muchmoore]

Holmes never really liked a fighter who jabbed well either. Williams and Witherspoon took HOlmes' jab away, and even though Larry was in the latter stages of his reign, Williams and Witherspoon were the best jabbers that Holmes had ever faced. And Lennox Lewis was bigger, had a longer reach, and was more powerful than those guys.



Great points, I was thinking the same thing.

[Vanboxingfan]

I like Lewis is this fight but it's a close call. The main difference for me is that Lewis is the best I've seen at dictating distance. If he has a tough fighter ala Tua he can fight from the outside. If he feels he can overwhelm an opponent, ie Grant, Tyson etc, he fights on the inside. So I don't think Holmes is going to be in a situation where he can simply outbox Lewis, I don't envision that being a option, not throughout the fight at any rate. So I see it more like a Holyfield type of fight, where Lewis gets inside and does enough damage to win. But if anyone can outbox Lewis, no easy task, I might add, it's Holmes. Hard fight to call because they're both so good at what they do best.

[round15]

Larry Holmes by 3 point decision. I think this could be a closer fight than most would expect and Lennox most certainly could put Holmes on the canvas.

If it turns into a brawl, Lennox could probably stop Holmes late or win a unanimous decision. If Lennox doesn't put pressure on Holmes, Larry out-boxes him cleanly.

[he grant]

I like Holmes ... much faster, better stamina, would hit hard enough to get Lennox's attention and would not get hit by the right .. don't judge by the Carl Williams fight when Holmes was old ... watch young Holmes dice up Roy Williams or the title defense against Leroy Jones ...

[Muchmoore]

I like Holmes ... much faster, better stamina, would hit hard enough to get Lennox's attention and would not get hit by the right .. don't judge by the Carl Williams fight when Holmes was old ... watch young Holmes dice up Roy Williams or the title defense against Leroy Jones ...

Fat lazy Leroy Jones and Roy Tiger Williams aren't anywhere near Lennox Lewis, in any category except Leroy Jones boobs were bigger.

Basing Holmes beating Lewis off of those fights is idiotic and downright stupid. Young Holmes barely got by Ken Norton and was dropped by the right hand of Renaldo Snipes. Lewis would have a serious shot at drilling Holmes with a right so hard it finishes him.

[Doppleganger]

I think Liverpool are the most supported team on this site. :good
Com'on the 'pool!! :good

Anyway, I actually like Lennox in this one; if he comes in his aggressive 'destroyer' mode I think he has a serious shot at stopping Holmes. Holmes had excellent recuperative powers but the thing about Lewis is that he throws power combinations and if he can land his uppercut Holmes will be in serious trouble. Lewis is a puncher in the league of Shavers and Tyson and IMO will be able to land more often. I really can't see how Holmes will stand up to that offensive over 15 rounds.

Lennox must put the pressure on though - if he's tentative or gun shy I think Larry wins.

[he grant]

MM: The examples were give to show how Holmes had no problem reaching tall men. Sorry if you are fascinated by (attrarcted to?) men's chests. I prefer womens, as recently as last night as a matter of fact...:lol: To each their own ...

Please list for me the one lighting fast boxer with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart that Lewis defeated? Answer, none.

Lennox Lewis could not soildly tag Evander Holyfield in 24 rounds with his vaunted but telegraphed rights. If you think he was going to tee off on Larry Holmes like he did against slow and limited fighters like Ruddick, Golota or Grant you are wrong... A perfect example is how a limited Bruno was able to outbox Lewis for over eight rounds with a stiff jab and a decent defense till his limited stamina gave in and he folded up.

Holmes would dance circles around Lewis, firing that killer jab, mixing up stiff right hands and chop him up. Holmes had a Bernard Hopkins type hardness about him that Lewis, who I happen to like, could not touch. Holmes easy.

[ChrisPontius]

Please list for me the one lighting fast boxer with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart that Lewis defeated? Answer, none.
Haha! Are you trying to stirr the pot here?


Please list for me the one lightning fast boxer with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart that Holmes defeated? Answer, none. How many of does did Ali defeat? Answer, none. How many of those did Louis defeat? Answer, none.


To say that Holmes (or anyone, for that matter) beats Lewis easily is just plain stupid. Holmes at his peak barely got by an old, glass chinned Norton and basically struggled with every good opponent he had while declining to give well-earned rematches (Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver & Williams).

[Muchmoore]

MM: The examples were give to show how Holmes had no problem reaching tall men. Sorry if you are fascinated by (attrarcted to?) men's chests. I prefer womens, as recently as last night as a matter of fact...:lol: To each their own ...

Please list for me the one lighting fast boxer with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart that Lewis defeated? Answer, none.

Lennox Lewis could not soildly tag Evander Holyfield in 24 rounds with his vaunted but telegraphed rights. If you think he was going to tee off on Larry Holmes like he did against slow and limited fighters like Ruddick, Golota or Grant you are wrong... A perfect example is how a limited Bruno was able to outbox Lewis for over eight rounds with a stiff jab and a decent defense till his limited stamina gave in and he folded up.

Holmes would dance circles around Lewis, firing that killer jab, mixing up stiff right hands and chop him up. Holmes had a Bernard Hopkins type hardness about him that Lewis, who I happen to like, could not touch. Holmes easy.

Jones and Williams were human punching bags and nothing like Lewis, that was my point.
Please list for me a big strong 6'5 fighter with a long hard jab, crushing power in his right hand, a brutal uppercut on the inside, skills, and speed that Holmes defeated.

Larry struggled badly against all of the best fighters he fought that had defense for the jab, Norton, Witherspoon, and Carl Williams when he was past his best. Near prime Holmes fought an even fight with Terrible Tim Witherspoon, Lennox was bigger, stronger, hit harder, better in almost way than Tim.
Holyfield had an ATG chin, and Lewis elected to outbox him from the outside, not turning it into a brawl. Not to mention, Holyfield didn't have the massive weakness to right hands that Holmes had...

[Muchmoore]

Haha! Are you trying to stirr the pot here?


Please list for me the one lightning fast boxer with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart that Holmes defeated? Answer, none. How many of does did Ali defeat? Answer, none. How many of those did Louis defeat? Answer, none.


To say that Holmes (or anyone, for that matter) beats Lewis easily is just plain stupid. Holmes at his peak barely got by an old, glass chinned Norton and basically struggled with every good opponent he had while declining to give well-earned rematches (Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver & Williams).

:lol: :good

I can't even think of more than one or two fighters that fit that bill anyway.

[JohnThomas1]

Haha! Are you trying to stirr the pot here?


Please list for me the one lightning fast boxer with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart that Holmes defeated? Answer, none. How many of does did Ali defeat? Answer, none. How many of those did Louis defeat? Answer, none.


To say that Holmes (or anyone, for that matter) beats Lewis easily is just plain stupid. Holmes at his peak barely got by an old, glass chinned Norton and basically struggled with every good opponent he had while declining to give well-earned rematches (Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver & Williams).

Thanks mate. I've been walking around twitching and trying not to respond to this shit for hours

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Lewis has never faced what Holmes brings to the table yada yada yada but of course Holmes was ironing out Lewis clones or better every second defense :lol:

[he grant]

You wouldn't be slightly partial mate now would you ..:D

I repeat my question. Once you get done patting each other on the back, why not try and answer it ? Nothng is weaker on any boxing board than guys that rip insults instead of backing up their opinions with facts. You can have 20,000 posts but it still defines you as an amateur. In addition, so boring to boot.

By the way, you must think little of Ali who could not take out the glass chinned Norton in 39 rounds. Does Ali get beat by Lennox as well?

[JohnThomas1]

You wouldn't be slightly partial mate now would you ..:D


You wouldn't border on being a hater would you mate? :lol:

Yes, hater in da house.

I repeat my question. Once you get done patting each other on the back, why not try and answer it ? Nothng is weaker on any boxing board than guys that rip insults instead of backing up their opinions with facts. You can have 20,000 posts but it still defines you as an amateur. In addition, so boring to boot.

"Holmes easy" you say. What a crock. Two greats of this level and you pick an easy fight. OMG. This is a Holmes who often didn't win easy at all, and against opposition WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY below the level of Lewis. To say the least. What a ridiculous prediction.

I'll leave the rest to Chris, i am sure he has some decent material to come back with

:good

[he grant]

So JT proves he has no answer to the direct question. AS far as a hater goes, look in the mirror and read who started what.

[JohnThomas1]

So JT proves he has no answer to the direct question. AS far as a hater goes, look in the mirror and read who started what.

Whilst others have looked at the merits of both fighters (Bill, tho a HUGE HUGE Holmes fan at least gives Lewis a decent hearing on his merits) and given speculation per this you have just looked at one side. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Lewis had his struggles as did Holmes. Holyfield was still better than anyone Holmes ever actually defeated most will agree.

You have little balance in this particular debate whatsoever sorry.

[Bummy Davis]

I feel this fight would be a Bad matchup for Holmes. He did not have the devastating power to take Lennox out of there and Lennox had the BIG right hand not to mention a very good jab. Holmes would give Lennox something to think about with his jab and movement early but the right hand of Lennox would catch and rattle Holmes....tko 9 Lennox

[ChrisPontius]

You wouldn't be slightly partial mate now would you ..:D

I repeat my question. Once you get done patting each other on the back, why not try and answer it ? Nothng is weaker on any boxing board than guys that rip insults instead of backing up their opinions with facts. You can have 20,000 posts but it still defines you as an amateur. In addition, so boring to boot.


I can't blame you for not knowing, but as far as i know, JohnThomas thinks very highly of Holmes, as do i. But that doesn't mean that Holmes would get an easy walkover against Lewis, especially since he doesn't have big punching power, a vital element in beating Lennox.


As for answering the question.... how many lightning fast boxers with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart did Lewis defeat? :lol:
None! What a bum!


Now i have a question for you.

How many heavyweights in the entire history of gloved boxing defeated a " lightning fast boxer with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart" in his prime?


Surely you can see the stupidity of this particular argument, and how it bites you in your own ass, seeing as to how Holmes (or any fighter in history) didn't beat a fighter like that either?




By the way, you must think little of Ali who could not take out the glass chinned Norton in 39 rounds. Does Ali get beat by Lennox as well?
Well, a few things to note on the Ali-Norton fights:

-Ali was past his best for the first two fights. He underestimated Norton as witnessed by the fact he was 10 pounds overweight. When he came in-shape in the rematch, he won the fight although it was close.

-For the rubber match, which i believe Norton won, Ali was not just past his best but close to washed up. He had to rely pure on heart, chin, guts and popularity to win fights at this point.

Holmes, on the other hand, was at or close to his peak, whereas Norton himself at this point was on the slide. He went something like 2-2-1 afterwards, twice being dusted in a single round, drawing and getting knocked down by LeDoux... followed by retirement.


As for me not thinking high of Ali, i rank him the #1 or #2 heavyweight of all time, depending on what constellation the sun is in at the moment.
And yes, if he didn't have his struggles with Norton, then he'd be the undisputed #1, even a step above Louis.


As for "Does Ali get beat by Lennox as well?", the fact that you ask this tells me you're either very biased or just flat-out ill informed about how boxing and styles work. Going by your other posts, i'd say it's the first.

Foreman destroyed Frazier who beat Ali, does that mean Ali gets beat by Foreman as well? I'll let you do the math. :good

[RUSKULL]

I think Lewis knocks Larry out late, after being behind on the cards.

[Bill Butcher]

Battle of the jabs for me.

I'll take Holmes by close decision.

Same here

The jab wins the fight for Larry in this one.

[rinsj]

Lummox was oft times clumsy, poorly balanced, and don't get me started on his chin. Sure, Larry beat a fat Leroy Jones, but Lennox beat plenty of fatso's too in the form of Butler, Mercer, Tua. Larry would battle hard for the entire fight and had the tools to defeat Lewis. Larry beat Witherspoon and Williams when they were a the top of there games. Lummox stopping Larry puh-lease! Larry had a great chin, only a rampaging prime Tyson could ever, and did stop Larry. Lummox was the one who couldn't continue after being sent to the canvas. Holmes wins this by clear decision or gets an exhausted Lewis outta there late with a big right hand.

[KCD]

Holmes by decision.

If you look at the fights were Lewis has struggled its when a fighter takes away his jab.

[he grant]

No Chris, instead you made my point. There have been very few heavyweights who were lightning fast boxers with killers jabs, great overall skills and possessed tremendous chins and hearts in boxing history...two to be exact. They were Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes. That's what made Holmes a very top all time great heavyweight and why Lennox Lewis was not. That plus the fact that when caught by a bomb Holmes got up while Lewis did not.

Who do you pick staight up between Holmes and Lewis?

Now to Ali. So you feel Ali at 32, past his peak but still a great fighter, who struggled with Norton but still went on to defeat Foreman, Frazier, Lyle, Bugner and Shavers and was still a hell of a fighter pre-Manila would not have had troubles with Norton pre-exile? Are you saying that the pre-exile Ali easily dominates Norton? I say that any Ali had his hands full with Norton as it was Ken's style that made him a disaster for Muhammad. What do you say?

Now to Norton. I watched his entire career so let me lay it out for you. The Norton that fought Holmes was every bit as good if not better than the Norton who fought Ali twice in 73. Norton was extremely well conditioned, Norton did not have a history of wars under his belt, Norton was not a runner like Ali who relied on leg speed as a primary weapon . Norton actually improved from 75 - 78 starting with the Quarry victory. It was the sweet spot of his career. He went on to give Ali a beating and was robbed. He destroyed Duane Bobick. He decisioned a very tough Jimmy Young. At no point during that time did anyone say he lost a step, instead like a Hopkins he defied age and matured into a better skilled, more confident fighter.

When Norton fought Holmes he was 34 but on top of his game. If you can prove differently, point out where in his performances. In addition, you seem to forget or simply don't know that Holmes fought the fight with a torn am muscle that hindered his ability to punch but refused to call off the fight. Their fight was a classic and for you to write it off as Holmes v.s. an old man shows you know little of the fight, the period or the fighters.

What happened post Holmes? First off very bad match making for him to fight Shavers. However, getting KO'ed by Shavers does not a glass chin make. Still, the Holmes fight did take it's toll, Norton's Manila of sorts while the Shavers fight destroyed his confidence and Norton did begin to slip. He then had the poor showing v.s. LeDoux and packed it in.

Net/Net the Norton who fought Holmes was still on top of his game. Holmes defeating him while injured was a terrific, gutsy performance.

[Loewe]

No Chris, instead you made my point. There have been very few heavyweights who were lightning fast boxers with killers jabs, great overall skills and possessed tremendous chins and hearts in boxing history...two to be exact. They were Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes. That's what made Holmes a very top all time great heavyweight and why Lennox Lewis was not.


Lewis was not? Well, he´s in nearly everybody´s Top10 and in many, if not most, Top5s. I think Chris and JT are right you are biased in here.

[he grant]

I find it interesting how people make comments without reading my posts. Biased how and against whom?

I happen to like Lennox and have defended him for years. I simply think that he was a hell of a fighter but not a top five all time great. I think Holmes was a top three or four all time great if not higher. I am making a case how I feel he would defeat Lewis. How is that bias?

In addition, Lennox is far from in everyone's top ten. By that did you mean of posters here?

[ChrisPontius]

No Chris, instead you made my point. There have been very few heavyweights who were lightning fast boxers with killers jabs, great overall skills and possessed tremendous chins and hearts in boxing history...two to be exact. They were Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes. That's what made Holmes a very top all time great heavyweight and why Lennox Lewis was not. That plus the fact that when caught by a bomb Holmes got up while Lewis did not.

Who do you pick staight up between Holmes and Lewis?



Oh, now i feel really bad for helping you make your great point that ...... Lennox Lewis never beat Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali. Well damn; you've opened my eyes.

I used to see this one pretty much 50/50, but now that i discovered Lewis never beat a prime Ali/Holmes, his odds quite simply just sink below sea level.


Oh, and thanks for pointing out that Lewis didn't get up when he was caught by a bomb. He sure remained long on the canvas when Tua, Klitschko, Bruno, Mason, Morrison, Ruddock, Tyson, Grant, Briggs, Holyfield, Tucker and Mercer landed a bomb.

Oh well. Doesn't really matter. Webster's dictionary lists "Ken Norton" when you look up "glass chin" and he was just fine when he fought a peak version of Holmes.





Now to Ali. So you feel Ali at 32, past his peak but still a great fighter, who struggled with Norton but still went on to defeat Foreman, Frazier, Lyle, Bugner and Shavers and was still a hell of a fighter pre-Manila would not have had troubles with Norton pre-exile? Are you saying that the pre-exile Ali easily dominates Norton? I say that any Ali had his hands full with Norton as it was Ken's style that made him a disaster for Muhammad. What do you say?


Ali won most of his fights during his second career on pure heart, durability, guts and popularity. Certainly the Lyle, Frazier III and Shavers fights that you describe fit that bill.

Pre-exile Ali would still be troubled technically by Norton, but his vastly higher hand- and foot speed would see him to a comfortable decision, more easily than he did in their second fight.



By the way, please answer this question.

Before Norton fought Ali, how many lighting fast boxers with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart had Norton defeated? Answer, none. In fact, he beat up on complete tomato cans and the one time he stepped up, he lost by knockout to a relatively mediocre fighter, though he did avenge it. By your logic, he doesn't have a chance in hell, yet he pulled it off. Twice.




Now to Norton. I watched his entire career so let me lay it out for you. The Norton that fought Holmes was every bit as good if not better than the Norton who fought Ali twice in 73. Norton was extremely well conditioned, Norton did not have a history of wars under his belt, Norton was not a runner like Ali who relied on leg speed as a primary weapon . Norton actually improved from 75 - 78 starting with the Quarry victory. It was the sweet spot of his career. He went on to give Ali a beating and was robbed. He destroyed Duane Bobick. He decisioned a very tough Jimmy Young. At no point during that time did anyone say he lost a step, instead like a Hopkins he defied age and matured into a better skilled, more confident fighter.



Well, thanks for laying it out to me and educating me on Norton's career.

Let's see how much Norton improved from 75-78 and how it showed. He fought Holmes to a very close decision loss. Okay, great accomplishment. Then next he fights Shavers and gets dusted in a single round. Mmm, well tough luck, he improved a lot so he'll come back. But then in his next battle, he fights LeDoux to a draw while being floored twice by said journeyman. After that he wins a split decision over Cobb, and the next puncher he faced knocks him out in a single round again. Quite simply put, his record post-Holmes is horrible. Does that mean he was a corpse against Holmes? Of course not, but let's not pretend he was at his peak, either.

As for no one at that time saying that he lost a step, that says nothing. No one said Liston lost a step before he fought Ali either, nor did they when Hagler was about to face Leonard, etc etc.




When Norton fought Holmes he was 34 but on top of his game. If you can prove differently, point out where in his performances. In addition, you seem to forget or simply don't know that Holmes fought the fight with a torn am muscle that hindered his ability to punch but refused to call off the fight. Their fight was a classic and for you to write it off as Holmes v.s. an old man shows you know little of the fight, the period or the fighters.


Yes, i know that Holmes broke his poor little finger nail, would've knocked out Tyson if his hand didn't get stuck behind the rope, etc etc. We know the man's excuses. :good

And i'm not writing it off as Holmes vs an "old man", but fact remains that Norton was at the end of his career and performed horribly afterwards.
Another fact is that Holmes was at his peak and had plenty of trouble with him, as well as that it shows that even if you believe Lewis had a glass jaw, it matters fuck all.



But yeah, if you believe Holmes would easily beat Lewis (who according to you is not a great fighter) because he barely beat a semi-retired Norton while declining to give a well-earned rematch, then more power to you.

[he grant]

CP you are easily frustrated and a last word freak to boot ... your comments are so reaching it is silly ... your photo should be of a guy playing Chutes and Ladders, not chess ... anyone with something interesting to say ? :hey

[SuzieQ49]

A perfect example is how a limited Bruno was able to outbox Lewis for over eight rounds with a stiff jab and a decent defense till his limited stamina gave in and he folded up.


it wasnt stamina that gave in, it was a killer left hook from lennox lewis that made bruno fold!

[SuzieQ49]

HeGrant,


You are a boxing historian and have alot of knowledge, but to come in here as a newbie and start calling highly respected and well liked posters(like CP) names is very unclassy for a man of your stature, I like you you have done alot for cyberboxing, but dont try to come over here and take over ESB. just chill out, have fun, and talk some good boxing, no need to get personel over such things. its all just meaningless opinions here in good fun. Thanx bud.

[Loewe]

CP you are a bit of a bore. Easily frustrated and a last word freak to boot ... anyone with something interesting to say ? :hey

Interesting arguments.

[SuzieQ49]

As for the thread...........


one thing thats interesting


A 42 year old Larry Holmes did better against common opponents than a 26 year old lennox lewis.


42 year old larry holmes W 12 wide decision over Ray Mercer
29 year old lennox lewis W 10 controversial close decision over ray mercer

Oliver Mccall close decision over 44 year old holmes
Oliver Mccall TKO 2 26 year old Lennox Lewis

[he grant]

Agreed but that is how Frank almost always lost to the top guys, a big punch late when his stamina was running low ...

[Loewe]

I find it interesting how people make comments without reading my posts. Biased how and against whom?

I happen to like Lennox and have defended him for years. I simply think that he was a hell of a fighter but not a top five all time great. I think Holmes was a top three or four all time great if not higher. I am making a case how I feel he would defeat Lewis. How is that bias?

In addition, Lennox is far from in everyone's top ten. By that did you mean of posters here?

That's what made Holmes a very top all time great heavyweight and why Lennox Lewis was not.


That isn´t biased?

[SuzieQ49]

agreed on that point, he had bonecrusher all but beaten going into the last round. Bonecrusher in between 9th and 10th round told trainer emile griffith "Griff, let me go out and do it my way" and he went out and knocked out bruno.

[Loewe]

As for the thread...........


one thing thats interesting


A 42 year old Larry Holmes did better against common opponents than a 26 year old lennox lewis.


42 year old larry holmes W 12 wide decision over Ray Mercer
29 year old lennox lewis W 10 controversial close decision over ray mercer

Oliver Mccall close decision over 44 year old holmes
Oliver Mccall TKO 2 26 year old Lennox Lewis

Why are you ignoring the McCall rematch? I think his losses were discussed often enough.

[he grant]

SQ: I do believe we can voice opinion and disagreement without personalized attacks or obnoxious comments. I do not like the childish behavior I see here from a small handful of guys. However, I have as much right to be here as anyone and longevity does not give one a pass from decency.

When my thoughts are responded to with attacks I will respond if I feel motivated. Most often I will ignore them all together. I will try my best to be respectful to those who act and respond in kind. I feel every one that contributes here should do the same. It would improve the reputation of the board as a whole and attract even more high end posters than it currently does. I am enjoying myself for the most part but will say as someone who has played the field for years that this board is known for having a lot of childish sh-t go on and it turns many high end users away. That is a shame as a board is only as good and interesting as it's posters.

[Bummy Davis]

Oh, now i feel really bad for helping you make your great point that ...... Lennox Lewis never beat Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali. Well damn; you've opened my eyes.

I used to see this one pretty much 50/50, but now that i discovered Lewis never beat a prime Ali/Holmes, his odds quite simply just sink below sea level.


Oh, and thanks for pointing out that Lewis didn't get up when he was caught by a bomb. He sure remained long on the canvas when Tua, Klitschko, Bruno, Mason, Morrison, Ruddock, Tyson, Grant, Briggs, Holyfield, Tucker and Mercer landed a bomb.

Oh well. Doesn't really matter. Webster's dictionary lists "Ken Norton" when you look up "glass chin" and he was just fine when he fought a peak version of Holmes.





Ali won most of his fights during his second career on pure heart, durability, guts and popularity. Certainly the Lyle, Frazier III and Shavers fights that you describe fit that bill.

Pre-exile Ali would still be troubled technically by Norton, but his vastly higher hand- and foot speed would see him to a comfortable decision, more easily than he did in their second fight.



By the way, please answer this question.

Before Norton fought Ali, how many lighting fast boxers with a killer jab, exceptional stamina, great overall skills and a tremendous chin and heart had Norton defeated? Answer, none. In fact, he beat up on complete tomato cans and the one time he stepped up, he lost by knockout to a relatively mediocre fighter, though he did avenge it. By your logic, he doesn't have a chance in hell, yet he pulled it off. Twice.




Well, thanks for laying it out to me and educating me on Norton's career.

Let's see how much Norton improved from 75-78 and how it showed. He fought Holmes to a very close decision loss. Okay, great accomplishment. Then next he fights Shavers and gets dusted in a single round. Mmm, well tough luck, he improved a lot so he'll come back. But then in his next battle, he fights LeDoux to a draw while being floored twice by said journeyman. After that he wins a split decision over Cobb, and the next puncher he faced knocks him out in a single round again. Quite simply put, his record post-Holmes is horrible. Does that mean he was a corpse against Holmes? Of course not, but let's not pretend he was at his peak, either.

As for no one at that time saying that he lost a step, that says nothing. No one said Liston lost a step before he fought Ali either, nor did they when Hagler was about to face Leonard, etc etc.




Yes, i know that Holmes broke his poor little finger nail, would've knocked out Tyson if his hand didn't get stuck behind the rope, etc etc. We know the man's excuses. :good

And i'm not writing it off as Holmes vs an "old man", but fact remains that Norton was at the end of his career and performed horribly afterwards.
Another fact is that Holmes was at his peak and had plenty of trouble with him, as well as that it shows that even if you believe Lewis had a glass jaw, it matters fuck all.



But yeah, if you believe Holmes would easily beat Lewis (who according to you is not a great fighter) because he barely beat a semi-retired Norton while declining to give a well-earned rematch, then more power to you.


Holmes and Ali NEVER fought a Big guy with the skill or Punching power of Lennox Lewis....Ali and Holmes had there strengths and weaknesses and so did Lewis but Lewis is an especialy hard opponent for them...I see the Ali fight as a tough pick and possible close decision Prime to Prime but I see Holmes getting flattened by Lewis...and we know they both had Jabs that was there primary weapon but Lewis had a good arsenal as well and size. Neither Ali or Holmes had frightfull power and I do not see that being a threat to Lewis, who took solid shots from Vitali, Evander,Mercer,Bruno,Briggs and Tyson

[Bill1234]

Holmes and Ali NEVER fought a Big guy with the skill or Punching power of Lennox Lewis....Ali and Holmes had there strengths and weaknesses and so did Lewis but Lewis is an especialy hard opponent for them...I see the Ali fight as a tough pick and possible close decision Prime to Prime but I see Holmes getting flattened by Lewis...and we know they both had Jabs that was there primary weapon but Lewis had a good arsenal as well and size. Neither Ali or Holmes had frightfull power and I do not see that being a threat to Lewis, who took solid shots from Vitali, Evander,Mercer,Bruno,Briggs and Tyson

Holmes took solid shots from Williams, Shavers, Norton, Cooney, Weaver, Witherspoon, Smith, Mercer, Tyson (although he was dropped and stopped in the 4th), Holyfield, McCall, and Spinks if you count him as a big HW puncher.

Chin isn't a problem for Larry at all, his was iron, but people seem to ignore that and say he will get dropped, even though he withstood some huge shots and flurries, and it was only the shots that would drop almost anyone that would put him down.

Larry and Ali didn't have the power to drop Lennox with one shot, but they did have the power to wear him down and make him weary. I wouldn't put it past them to stagger or drop Lennox late in the fight, after the 12th round with a hard flurry.

IMO Larry wins the jabbing and outside-midrange battles. Lewis would take the inside battles but not with ease.

[JohnThomas1]

CP you are easily frustrated and a last word freak to boot ... your comments are so reaching it is silly ... your photo should be of a guy playing Chutes and Ladders, not chess ... anyone with something interesting to say ? :hey

Yeah, you need help. You just get totally owned by a very well thought out post and you come back with this utter tripe.

:hi:

[he grant]

John again proving my point ..childish jibber jabber ..... I disagree with Chris and his methods but at least he does not hide behind someone which is your m.o. :hi:

[Loewe]

Holmes took solid shots from Williams, Shavers, Norton, Cooney, Weaver, Witherspoon, Smith, Mercer, Tyson (although he was dropped and stopped in the 4th), Holyfield, McCall, and Spinks if you count him as a big HW puncher.

Chin isn't a problem for Larry at all, his was iron, but people seem to ignore that and say he will get dropped, even though he withstood some huge shots and flurries, and it was only the shots that would drop almost anyone that would put him down.

Larry and Ali didn't have the power to drop Lennox with one shot, but they did have the power to wear him down and make him weary. I wouldn't put it past them to stagger or drop Lennox late in the fight, after the 12th round with a hard flurry.

IMO Larry wins the jabbing and outside-midrange battles. Lewis would take the inside battles but not with ease.

I agree that Larry has a good chin but it is dentable and Lewis is a top-notch puncher, especially with his right hand and uppercuts. I agree with ou that Holmes would win the jabbing contest but i think Lewis uppercuts on the inside will be too much for him.

[ChrisPontius]

CP you are easily frustrated and a last word freak to boot ... your comments are so reaching it is silly ... your photo should be of a guy playing Chutes and Ladders, not chess ... anyone with something interesting to say ? :hey

Relax, guy. I'm not frustrated at all. :good

Feel free to respond to my arguments at any time, though.

[Bill1234]

I agree that Larry has a good chin but it is dentable and Lewis is a top-notch puncher, especially with his right hand and uppercuts. I agree with ou that Holmes would win the jabbing contest but i think Lewis uppercuts on the inside will be too much for him.

I think Larry's chin was good enough to keep him up from those uppercuts. Even if one did drop Larry, I doubt it'd knock him out.

[Loewe]

I think Larry's chin was good enough to keep him up from those uppercuts. Even if one did drop Larry, I doubt it'd knock him out.

Well, i think we have to agree to disagree on this one then.

[Bill1234]

Well, i think we have to agree to disagree on this one then.

Yep.

[prime]

I see Lennox Lewis running out of gas towards the end of this 15-rounder, for a catastrophic loss.

- Holmes learned from the greatest heavy boxer of all time and developed into an excellent technician, with great physical dimensions, speed, chin and durability.

- Lewis was king of the hill of an era of tremendous steroid-inflated punchers, an impressive bunch of powerhitters, BUT also technically-limited fighters who would drop fights to a savant, albeit lighter hitter, of the ring like Holmes.

- The Holmes-Mercer bout is a clear example of cross-generation competition: Mercer came all power and disdainful youth and was soon and totally neutralized and schooled by a grandfather version of a complete fighter. Though not a silver-tongued diplomat by any means with his rantings, Holmes is right and has proven it when he says, "These guys can't fight," about later generations. Because the technical level and general roundedness of heavyweights have increasingly gone downhill since Tyson lost the unified title.

- The main reason Lewis stood head and shoulders over his peers was his comparative technical correctness. Once he finally found his groove (under Steward), he developed into a cunning technician with tremendous power. The way he immolated Rahman was amazing. But Rahman was an innocent lamb. He was wide open for that right and was clearly asking for it out of technical deficiency.

- Holmes was famously vulnerable to the right, and I see this as Lewis' best chance, but Lewis is not fast enough to catch a wary Holmes by surprise on speed with a pinpoint right. For perspective, Shavers took 19 rounds to land a killer right on Holmes, who pitched a 12-round shutout in their first meeting over the huge right-hander.

- Holmes will win the battle of the jabs, thus forcing Lewis to come forward and uncharacteristically going for the kill, becoming more aggressive, but, contrary to his impressive early kayo forays against much more technically limited foes, against Holmes he will find a prepared technician with his guard and stance properly in place, and will not score readily. Even if Lewis lands cleanly, it is not clear that he wins: Holmes will most likely go down, but I just don't see Lewis catching lightning in a bottle twice in a matter of seconds against Holmes to finish the job. And such an effort, if ultimately unsuccessful, may very well fatally drain the stamina of the larger man.

- Lewis will have to fight at a faster clip than he is used to and I see the huge hulk suddenly unraveling towards the end. Holmes wins.

[radianttwilight]

Lewis by KO.

Holmes was such a sucker for the right hand.

[mr. magoo]

Holmes outboxes and decisions Lewis.... Holmes performances against Mercer and McCall at age 40+, when compared to Lewis's performances against those men in his prime tells us a great deal.

[mr. magoo]

Lewis by KO.

Holmes was such a sucker for the right hand.

Lewis was a sucker for anyone who could fight........Period........

[Rebel-INS]

Lewis by KO.

Holmes was such a sucker for the right hand.

People act like Homes was knocked out by right hands constantly.

[radianttwilight]

People act like Homes was knocked out by right hands constantly.

Right. He was only knocked down.

[radianttwilight]

Lewis was a sucker for anyone who could fight........Period........

Yeah, he was.

Mason, Biggs, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Mercer, Morrison, Akinwande, Golota, Briggs, Mavrovic, Holyfield, Grant, Botha, Tua, Tyson, and Klitschko all owned him.

[mr. magoo]

Yeah, he was.

Mason, Biggs, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Mercer, Morrison, Akinwande, Golota, Briggs, Mavrovic, Holyfield, Grant, Botha, Tua, Tyson, and Klitschko all owned him.

Agreed, especially considering that nearly half the men you just listed were shells of their former selves, while some of the others never really accomplished much other than records built on wins over mediocrities and washed up has beens.......

You also left out his incredible performances against McCall and Rahman in his first meeting with them.... Absolutely tremendous :good

[Unforgiven]

I hate Lewis's style, I often find him almost unwatchable. Awkward and untidy.
But he got really clever, and was a tremendous puncher.

I also dont buy into the idea that his chin was weak, or that he was always safety-first. Against Shannon Briggs he finishes that with tough-man menace, took some real hard shots. Fights withs Mason, Bruno, Mercer were also sometimes gruelling, as was his swansong v.Klitschko.

At his best, Lewis was obviously a tough man to beat. I dont think as much of his opposition as some do, but he beat a decent crop.

I believe Holmes beats him though. Holmes at his absolute best was VERY SHARP and technically superb, probably better than Lewis in every department except punch power.

[Ezzard]

Lewis got starched twice, Holmes once... Holmes got KO'd by one of the most devestating punchers ever. Lewis by two decent but one dimendional bangers... Oliver McCall couldn't even KO Frank Bruno.

Holmes took on a lot of C class fighters during his reign but he never lost to them like Lennox did.

I rate both men very highly. Both could win this fight and in a 10fight series i see it being 6-4...to Holmes

[Muchmoore]

People act like Homes was knocked out by right hands constantly.

Well take a look at the clowns he fought during his title reign. Renaldo Snipes is not a very good fighter, but was able to drop him. Shavers was past his best and slow as molasses but dropped him and almost killed. Weaver and Witherspoon were also landing on him consistently. Other than these guys, no one he fought was a good overall puncher (except Cooney who was all left hook)

[Muchmoore]

Lewis was a sucker for anyone who could fight........Period........

If anyone was a sucker for anyone who could fight, it would be Holmes :huh

He went life and death with Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver while at his absolute best.

[mr. magoo]

If anyone was a sucker for anyone who could fight, it would be Holmes :huh

He went life and death with Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver while at his absolute best.

And when he was at his absolute worst, he completely outboxed Ray Mercer who was over a decade younger than himself, was 18-0, an olympic gold medalist, and had just creamed Morrison and Damiani. Holmes also did a pretty good number on Cooney during his prime.

Lewis was arguably gifted a decision against a far worse version of Ray Mercer than the one who Holmes beat at age 42!!!!!

[Muchmoore]

And when he was at his absolute worst, he completely outboxed Ray Mercer who was over a decade younger than himself, was 18-0, an olympic gold medalist, and had just creamed Morrison and Damiani. Holmes also did a pretty good number on Cooney during his prime.

Lewis was arguably gifted a decision against a far worse version of Ray Mercer than the one who Holmes beat at age 42!!!!!

No way Mercer was worse against Lewis. He overlooked Holmes and didn't think he was going to be that good, against Lewis it was one of his best fights.

[Bill1234]

Well take a look at the clowns he fought during his title reign. Renaldo Snipes is not a very good fighter, but was able to drop him. Shavers was past his best and slow as molasses but dropped him and almost killed. Weaver and Witherspoon were also landing on him consistently. Other than these guys, no one he fought was a good overall puncher (except Cooney who was all left hook)

Lets see now...Shavers had one of his best his best performances against Ali in 1977, then in early 1978 Holmes won by a shut out. He again beat Shavers in 1979, in Shavers book he states he was in great shape and completely prepared for the fights and Holmes was just the better fighter. Renaldo Snipes for Larry was like Henry Cooper for Ali. Just a fighter getting careless as they were dominating. Larry took a chance against Shavers by throwing an uppercut on the out side, it obviously didn't work in the least. In the Weaver fight Larry went in with the flu, and in the Witherspoon fight Larry was clearly aging. The Cooney fight was his last prime performance.

[Bill1234]

If anyone was a sucker for anyone who could fight, it would be Holmes :huh

He went life and death with Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver while at his absolute best.

Against Norton Holmes had the torn bicep, against Weaver he had the flu, and against Witherspoon he was past his best and had clearly gone down hill and was quickly fading.

[he grant]

Ezzard, do you think it is fair to compare Lewis getting flattened by McCall and Rachman in his prime with Holmes coming back from an 18 month layoff to take a fight with a prime Tyson on six weeks notice? Putting aside how dumb it was for Holmes to take the fight only for the money, I do not think it is the same as Lewis' KO losses. In addition, Lewis was one and out while Holmes kept getting up till the third knockdown...

Bill1234, you have it right in my book.

[Ezzard]

Ezzard, do you think it is fair to compare Lewis getting flattened by McCall and Rachman in his prime with Holmes coming back from an 18 month layoff to take a fight with a prime Tyson on six weeks notice? Putting aside how dumb it was for Holmes to take the fight only for the money, I do not think it is the same as Lewis' KO losses. In addition, Lewis was one and out while Holmes kept getting up till the third knockdown...

Bill1234, you have it right in my book.

I don't really think it's fair, but I was trying to balance the books, so to speak.

Holmes is not really getting a fair shake.

Another analysis which pains me is the Holmes always tried to brawl when hurt. Mike Tyson always gave up when hurt but nobody likes to mention this.

Holmes was atruly great champion and you could not write him off against anyone.

[Loewe]

Holmes was atruly great champion and you could not write him off against anyone.

I agree with that and i said he´s my number 4 hw but i still pick Lewis to win.

[ChrisPontius]

Putting aside how dumb it was for Holmes to take the fight only for the money

This is simply not true. If you watch the interviews several months before Holmes-Tyson, Larry will state over and over that he wants Tyson, has been training really well, is rich already but wants Tyson's name on his resume.

[he grant]

Really Chris, I know Larry personally and know this first hand. He may have said to the media he wanted a fight . That was Larry, trying to get attention and another paycheck. However, from when the fight was signed until the men met in the ring he had a very short time to prepare for so dangerous an opponent at his age after so long a layoff. Of course he was going to tell the public he was in good shape. He did work out in his local gym. However, hitting the bag a few rounds and jumping rope and then going to your own bar for beers is not a training camp. He hyped what all concerned feared would be a mismatch and it was ... a very sad one.

[ChrisPontius]

Yes, of course after he'd been layed out by Tyson, he came with excuses that he was only there for the money, barely had time to train, etc etc.


Several months before the fight he already said he was in the gym daily and in great shape, and looked the part too (as far as a 37 year old can). He was far past his best, but let's not pretend Larry's hind-sight-after-being-knocked-out stories of "I was thrown in with a peak Tyson on 3 days notice and only there picking up my check!" are true. He met Tyson at the wrong point in his career and if he was younger, who knows what would've happened, but be that as it may.... Tyson still stopped him.


Unless, of course, you find it likely that a filthy rich man, months before the fight just pretends he is in shape, while in fact he refuses to train on purpose, and fights the most dangerous man on the planet just to make the point of picking up a check he doesn't need. :lol:

[Ezzard]

It's common knowledge that Holmes trained for a bout 2 weeks with no warm up fights.

Holmes is also a man who likes the money...

Tyson still stopped him, fair enough, but it's hardly a stellar win.

[ChrisPontius]

It's common knowledge that Holmes trained for a bout 2 weeks with no warm up fights.

Holmes is also a man who likes the money...

Tyson still stopped him, fair enough, but it's hardly a stellar win.

Yes, common knowledge for those who need an excuse to live with Holmes being destroyed.



Watch the FACTS, i.e. interviews several months before the fight, and you'll see a confident Holmes talking about how he has been back in the gym for a long time, in great shape, etc.

[Ezzard]

Yes, common knowledge for those who need an excuse to live with Holmes being destroyed.



Watch the FACTS, i.e. interviews several months before the fight, and you'll see a confident Holmes talking about how he has been back in the gym for a long time, in great shape, etc.

the facts are (1) he said he was training then (2) he said he wasn't...

Those are the only facts discernible. What actually happened has nothing to do with what he said.

In the first case. I've never heard a fighter say: I haven't been training. I'm past my best. I can't win. I'm not in shape. I'm a ceredible opponent because I used to be champ and that's why the promoter is willing to pay me.

[ChrisPontius]

the facts are (1) he said he was training then (2) he said he wasn't...

Those are the only facts discernible. What actually happened has nothing to do with what he said.

In the first case. I've never heard a fighter say: I haven't been training. I'm past my best. I can't win. I'm not in shape. I'm a ceredible opponent because I used to be champ and that's why the promoter is willing to pay me.

Rephrase:

The facts are

(1) Months before the fight he wanted Tyson and said he was training accordingly

(2) After he got layed out, he changed his position to "i hardly trained for the fight, i was just there for the money"

(3) Holmes has a nasty habit of forming his opinion in such a manner that it makes him out to be the best. Random example: "Tyson didn't hit hard, but Shavers and Cooney, they could really hit, much harder than Tyson". Of course, he beat Cooney and Shavers (twice), but was destroyed by Mikey.


And no, i have never heard a fighter before a fight say he isn't training either. But then again, i'd be curious to meet a fighter who knows he is fighting the most dangerous puncher on the planet for months (while in his own mind never having been beaten), and just because he's a stubborn bastard, refuses to train just so he can be layed out more easily.


Holmes taking the fight on a few week's notice is just a plain lie. Not that you said that, but some people pretend it was that way.

[Ezzard]

I should check this out because my memory of this is that the fght was taken at short notice. But maybe that's not correct. I do remember when it was announced thinking what a waste of time this will be...

I still can't accept (3) as it's an opinion not a fact BUT again even if i do accept it, many, many fighters do exactly the same thing.

I still wouldn't mention this stoppage as evidence that Holmes would easily be KO'd by anyone in a fantasy match up.

[ChrisPontius]

I should check this out because my memory of this is that the fght was taken at short notice. But maybe that's not correct. I do remember when it was announced thinking what a waste of time this will be...


No problem, memory can be deceiving. I have an interview that was conducted right before or after the Tyson-Biggs fight, and already there Larry said the fight was a done deal, that he'd been training already, wanted to be the first one to defeat Tyson, etc etc.

Unfortunately i got banned from Youtube for uploading it, but if it wasn't copyright protected i'd share it.



I still can't accept (3) as it's an opinion not a fact BUT again even if i do accept it, many, many fighters do exactly the same thing.


It's not my opinion, it's his words. And i'm not talking about one incident either, but rather a pattern of this kind of behavior throughout his entire career. Indeed, many other fighters do it.



I still wouldn't mention this stoppage as evidence that Holmes would easily be KO'd by anyone in a fantasy match up.

Oh don't get me wrong, that's not what i'm saying at all. I don't think the Tyson fight takes anything away from Holmes' legacy.... if anything, he showed how hard to knock out he was even at his age. He took some monster shots before round 4 as well. I'm just saying that "he took the fight on a few weeks notice", "he didn't train", "he was just there for the money" are just excuses made after the fight. And no, considering his age he didn't need any excuse to lose to a peak Tyson, but i think it's rather lame to make them anyway.

[Bill1234]

Rephrase:

The facts are

(1) Months before the fight he wanted Tyson and said he was training accordingly

(2) After he got layed out, he changed his position to "i hardly trained for the fight, i was just there for the money"

(3) Holmes has a nasty habit of forming his opinion in such a manner that it makes him out to be the best. Random example: "Tyson didn't hit hard, but Shavers and Cooney, they could really hit, much harder than Tyson". Of course, he beat Cooney and Shavers (twice), but was destroyed by Mikey.


And no, i have never heard a fighter before a fight say he isn't training either. But then again, i'd be curious to meet a fighter who knows he is fighting the most dangerous puncher on the planet for months (while in his own mind never having been beaten), and just because he's a stubborn bastard, refuses to train just so he can be layed out more easily.


Holmes taking the fight on a few week's notice is just a plain lie. Not that you said that, but some people pretend it was that way.

Holmes said Shavers and Cooney hit harder, it's nothing new. He still said Tyson was a very hard hitter, and he said Mike was the sharpest puncher. There is a big difference. If I remember correctly, didn't Ali say he was in great shape and ready when he was going into the Holmes fight? Saying things like that help their confidence. Holmes took the fight on 3 months notice, so that means he got about a month and a half of decent training, and the other month and a half was just to get rid of the extra weight. A month and a half isn't enough to lose 2 years worth of ring rust, especially when the fighter is a good 6-8 years past their prime. It just doesn't work that way. Holmes learned from his mistake in 1988 and when he made his comeback in 1991, he increased his competition step by step.

[Ted Spoon]

The one thing about Lewis, for all his great weapons and physical presence, both of which he could apply to an overwhelming advantage, his boxing often seemed to become hampered by his great hulk.

The screws where not tightened as well on Lewis as they were on Holmes as his classy moments were with fused with moments of uncertainty and fatigue. Lewis had many things that Holmes didn't, but he could not 'stick it' like the Easton Assissin could.

He often confused his polar-opposite strategies of attacker and playing possum to his hindrance. Point in case, Holyfield should have been punished on top of the domination and Briggs should of been taken care of much safer.

Now Holmes is a guy who you could say was a sucker for a punch-up, but he was not half bad at 'em. He possessed that speed, commitment and wind that Lewis' more powerful, but stamina hindering build did not.

They're two boxers who operate on different principles but its Holmes' wind and toughness that stand out. When Holmes met real tragedy in the ring, he steered around it; Lewis crashed and burned when he was hit with a ton of bricks.

Holmes is not going to hit him with a ton, but he is going to 'stick it', that being a beautifully active jab in his face, and contend with the bigger man until he starts to suffer. Holmes is tall, fast, sleek and tough, tough, tough. He could take the heat and physical presence until his hustling style of pure boxing starts to take hold of Lewis' wheel and steers him off the cliff.

When you look at Lewis' weakness', Holmes looks to complete the jigsaw on an anti-Lewis fight plan.

Holmes via late stoppage or points decision.

[Loewe]

They're two boxers who operate on different principles but its Holmes' wind and toughness that stand out. When Holmes met real tragedy in the ring, he steered around it; Lewis crashed and burned when he was hit with a ton of bricks.


Yeah, like for example when he fought Vitali while beeing fat, untrained and past his prime :good

[SuzieQ49]

Against Norton Holmes had the torn bicep, against Weaver he had the flu, and against Witherspoon he was past his best and had clearly gone down hill and was quickly fading.


:lol: :lol: :rofl :rofl Bill you crack me up sometimes man!!! what happened holmes against carl truth williams? sore vagina? :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

:lol: :lol: :rofl :rofl Bill you crack me up sometimes man!!! what happened holmes against carl truth williams? sore vagina? :lol:

I keep hearing about this torn bicep left right and center vs Norton yet here was the left jab pumping out like there was no tomorrow

:boxx

[mr. magoo]

No way Mercer was worse against Lewis. He overlooked Holmes and didn't think he was going to be that good, against Lewis it was one of his best fights.

You think he was better at age 35, after having been off for a full year, and only having fought once in the previous two years, and only winning 3 of his last 6 matches?. Not to mention, losing to Ferguson, then barely getting a split decision in the rematch. Let's not forget the draw he scored against 7-9-2 Marion Wilson. The only recent fight that he had prior to facing Lewis was against Holyfield a year earlier, who was returning from an abscence and managed to deck Ray. Lastly, Mercer had not scored a meaningul win since 1991 when he utterly destroyed Morrison - The fight right before facing Holmes. Let me clearify that I saw his fight with Lewis, and I'll agree that he showed up well trained and motivated, to give a good effort, but trying to say that he was a better version of himself against Lewis than against Holmes is a very bad attempt at trying spin things in a direction that they shouldn't be.

[he grant]

Ted, great post ...

The Mercer that lost to Holmes was undefeated, dedicated , fairly young and was coming off his gretest win to date.

The Mercer that lost a razor thin decision to Lewis was much older, not nearly as dedicated and past his prime. He lacked the extra gear needed to pull away from the younger Lewis.

[Bill1234]

:lol: :lol: :rofl :rofl Bill you crack me up sometimes man!!! what happened holmes against carl truth williams? sore vagina? :lol:

Age is what happened.

[Bill1234]

I keep hearing about this torn bicep left right and center vs Norton yet here was the left jab pumping out like there was no tomorrow

:boxx

It hurt like hell to do it, but he did it because he knew it was his only shot. Holmes broke his right hand in the 3rd round of the 2nd Spinks fight, but that didn't stop him from throwing it. Larry had a very high pain threshhold and a ton of will power.

[Muchmoore]

Against Norton Holmes had the torn bicep, against Weaver he had the flu, and against Witherspoon he was past his best and had clearly gone down hill and was quickly fading.

So every time he fought a quality fighter he has some illness :lol:

Holmes was still very near to his peak against Witherspoon as well.

[Muchmoore]

It hurt like hell to do it, but he did it because he knew it was his only shot. Holmes broke his right hand in the 3rd round of the 2nd Spinks fight, but that didn't stop him from throwing it. Larry had a very high pain threshhold and a ton of will power.

Well then if it didn't affect his performance than why mention it?

[Muchmoore]

You think he was better at age 35, after having been off for a full year, and only having fought once in the previous two years, and only winning 3 of his last 6 matches?. Not to mention, losing to Ferguson, then barely getting a split decision in the rematch. Let's not forget the draw he scored against 7-9-2 Marion Wilson. The only recent fight that he had prior to facing Lewis was against Holyfield a year earlier, who was returning from an abscence and managed to deck Ray. Lastly, Mercer had not scored a meaningul win since 1991 when he utterly destroyed Morrison - The fight right before facing Holmes. Let me clearify that I saw his fight with Lewis, and I'll agree that he showed up well trained and motivated, to give a good effort, but trying to say that he was a better version of himself against Lewis than against Holmes is a very bad attempt at trying spin things in a direction that they shouldn't be.

I thought Mercer was better against Lewis than Holmes. He was faster, more aggressive, an overall tougher fighter to beat than the one Holmes beat.

[mr. magoo]

I thought Mercer was better against Lewis than Holmes. He was faster, more aggressive, an overall tougher fighter to beat than the one Holmes beat.

Was he? Or did Holmes just make him look so silly that it created the illusion that he was better against Lewis. Personally, I don't think Mercer looked physically any better, nor more skilled against Lewis. It should also be noted that he was 10 Lbs heavier, and 4 years older in that fight.

[Bill1234]

So every time he fought a quality fighter he has some illness :lol:

Holmes was still very near to his peak against Witherspoon as well.

No, but most of the time when he struggled against someone in his prime he wasn't 100%. In the Witherspoon fight he was still near his peak time wise, but he went down hill very fast. His hand speed and legs were pretty much shot by the Frazier and Frank fights. Against Witherspoon his handspeed was slowing and his legs were too.

[Bill1234]

Well then if it didn't affect his performance than why mention it?

Because it did. Just because he was throwing it doesn't mean it was 100%. His jab in the Norton fight didn't look like it had the same snap, just the speed.

[ChrisPontius]

You think he was better at age 35, after having been off for a full year, and only having fought once in the previous two years, and only winning 3 of his last 6 matches?. Not to mention, losing to Ferguson, then barely getting a split decision in the rematch. Let's not forget the draw he scored against 7-9-2 Marion Wilson. The only recent fight that he had prior to facing Lewis was against Holyfield a year earlier, who was returning from an abscence and managed to deck Ray. Lastly, Mercer had not scored a meaningul win since 1991 when he utterly destroyed Morrison - The fight right before facing Holmes. Let me clearify that I saw his fight with Lewis, and I'll agree that he showed up well trained and motivated, to give a good effort, but trying to say that he was a better version of himself against Lewis than against Holmes is a very bad attempt at trying spin things in a direction that they shouldn't be.


This is true, although it should be noted that Mercer looked pretty good against Holyfield.

I know you're not making the argument, but i think the people who say "look at what an old Holmes did to Mercer compared to a prime Lewis, nuff said" are overlooking things. First of all, it would be exaggerating to base that conclusion on one fight, and second, it has a lot to do with styles. Holmes was great against Mercer whereas Lewis struggled with him. But on the other hand, i'm pretty sure Lewis would blow out Norton with ease as well as Weaver (slow starter, questionable durability), whereas Holmes struggled with them. It goes both ways.

[ChrisPontius]

Yeah, like for example when he fought Vitali while beeing fat, untrained and past his prime :good

Right. Saying that Holmes "steered around an accident in the ring while Lewis crashed and burned" is a short-sighted statement that only looks at the negatives on one side and the positives of the other side. Holmes was in just as bad shape against Snipes as Lewis was against McCall. Lewis pulled out hard wins in wars against Klitschko, Mason, Mercer and avenged both his defeats.

[Muchmoore]

Was he? Or did Holmes just make him look so silly that it created the illusion that he was better against Lewis. Personally, I don't think Mercer looked physically any better, nor more skilled against Lewis. It should also be noted that he was 10 Lbs heavier, and 4 years older in that fight.

Like Chris said, Mercer looked very good against Holyfield. I think that Mercer overlooked Holmes, thinking he was simply an old man coming back who he was going to knock out. Against Lewis, he knew he was against a very good fighter who he'd have to be on his A game to contend with.

And styles make fights. Frazier beat Ali and got blown out by Foreman, but Ali was able to KO Foreman. I think this applies to this situation as well..

[Muchmoore]

No, but most of the time when he struggled against someone in his prime he wasn't 100%. In the Witherspoon fight he was still near his peak time wise, but he went down hill very fast. His hand speed and legs were pretty much shot by the Frazier and Frank fights. Against Witherspoon his handspeed was slowing and his legs were too.

I agree Holmes had slowed by the Terrible Tim fight, but he was still very near to his best. Witherspoon was landing on Holmes with right hands for much of the night and Lewis would be as well..

[mcvey]

Really Chris, I know Larry personally and know this first hand. He may have said to the media he wanted a fight . That was Larry, trying to get attention and another paycheck. However, from when the fight was signed until the men met in the ring he had a very short time to prepare for so dangerous an opponent at his age after so long a layoff. Of course he was going to tell the public he was in good shape. He did work out in his local gym. However, hitting the bag a few rounds and jumping rope and then going to your own bar for beers is not a training camp. He hyped what all concerned feared would be a mismatch and it was ... a very sad one.
Holmes recently gave an interview were he stated he was supposed to have a warm up fight before taking on Tyson,but King manouvered him out of it ,I don't think he could have beaten Tyson at that stage of his career ,but he would probably have put up a much better fight,he said his judgement of distance was well off during the fight,it seems he was there for the dough really.As to Lewis against Holmes,I watched Lennox against Holyfield 2,by round 7 Lewis was blowng like a cart horse,if he couldnt drop an aging Evander who was right in front of him I doubt he stops Holmes .Lewis has a good jab but it is underused and often not much more than a push ,he rarely puts stream on it,as to his uppercuts ,Holmes is the best heavyweight exponent of this punch since Johnson imo. I like Larry to win by dec ,he was faster had better stamina quicker feet and marvellous recuperative powers when tagged ,something singularly lacking in Lennox.

[he grant]

Realistically Holmes had a bad match up in Tyson and I do not think anything but a prime Holmes beats Tyson ... however, the conditions under which Holmes took the fight were bad and the outcome painful to watch. Larry took the fight for the money. If he could fight Wlad tomorrow for a few million he would do it in a second.

[mr. magoo]

This is true, although it should be noted that Mercer looked pretty good against Holyfield.

I know you're not making the argument, but i think the people who say "look at what an old Holmes did to Mercer compared to a prime Lewis, nuff said" are overlooking things. First of all, it would be exaggerating to base that conclusion on one fight, and second, it has a lot to do with styles. Holmes was great against Mercer whereas Lewis struggled with him. But on the other hand, i'm pretty sure Lewis would blow out Norton with ease as well as Weaver (slow starter, questionable durability), whereas Holmes struggled with them. It goes both ways.

I'm not maintaining that a 1992 Holmes would beat a 1996 Lewis. Please understand that this is not my position. I'm simply claiming that its preposterous to think that Mercer was a better rendition of himself against Lewis than he was against Holmes. There are way too many factors that point to the contrary. And Frankly, I think that a lot of them should be common sense based. If we are going to credit Mercer as being better in 1996 than in 1991, then we might as well credit Gerry Cooney as being better against Spinks in 1987 than he was in 1982 against Holmes. I mean, why not? Cooney was younger than Mercer when he fought Spinks wasn't he? He had a better recent record than Mercer didn't he? He had only gained ten pounds since the Holmes fight, didn't he, same as Mercer? In fact, he actually had a very close level of recent activity.

Of course the Cooney comparison is ridiculous, and I don't really believe that there is any real congruency between the two examples, but I just wanted to point out the preposterousness that is generated by some who are trying to claim that Mercer was a BETTER fighter against Lewis, than the one who faced Holmes.

[Bill1234]

Realistically Holmes had a bad match up in Tyson and I do not think anything but a prime Holmes beats Tyson ... however, the conditions under which Holmes took the fight were bad and the outcome painful to watch. Larry took the fight for the money. If he could fight Wlad tomorrow for a few million he would do it in a second.

Painful to watch? How do you think it was to be Larry?

[he grant]

I was actually at that fight and remember how angry I was that he took the fight and went out that way ...now I'm older and realize how much $ 1.8 million dollars ...

[Bill1234]

I was actually at that fight and remember how angry I was that he took the fight and went out that way ...now I'm older and realize how much $ 1.8 million dollars ...

He got 3.8 million.

[Muchmoore]

I'm not maintaining that a 1992 Holmes would beat a 1996 Lewis. Please understand that this is not my position. I'm simply claiming that its preposterous to think that Mercer was a better rendition of himself against Lewis than he was against Holmes. There are way too many factors that point to the contrary. And Frankly, I think that a lot of them should be common sense based. If we are going to credit Mercer as being better in 1996 than in 1991, then we might as well credit Gerry Cooney as being better against Spinks in 1987 than he was in 1982 against Holmes. I mean, why not? Cooney was younger than Mercer when he fought Spinks wasn't he? He had a better recent record than Mercer didn't he? He had only gained ten pounds since the Holmes fight, didn't he, same as Mercer? In fact, he actually had a very close level of recent activity.

Of course the Cooney comparison is ridiculous, and I don't really believe that there is any real congruency between the two examples, but I just wanted to point out the preposterousness that is generated by some who are trying to claim that Mercer was a BETTER fighter against Lewis, than the one who faced Holmes.

Mercer physically may have been the same or heck maybe a little worse but motivational wise the one that fought Lewis had the clear edge and was the more dangerous fighter because of it...

[Bill1234]

Mercer physically may have been the same or heck maybe a little worse but motivational wise the one that fought Lewis had the clear edge and was the more dangerous fighter because of it...

Mercer was just comming off of his biggest career win going into the Holmes fight, so he was clearly very confident. Maybe too confident, but in the Lewis fight he was probably having some doubts with how lack luster and inactive he was up to then.

[radianttwilight]

Agreed, especially considering that nearly half the men you just listed were shells of their former selves, while some of the others never really accomplished much other than records built on wins over mediocrities and washed up has beens.......

You also left out his incredible performances against McCall and Rahman in his first meeting with them.... Absolutely tremendous :good

I left out the losses to McCall and Rahman because I could've just as easily pointed to his devastating knockouts he had over the two of them.

Can you explain to me which of the men listed were shells?

[Muchmoore]

Mercer was just comming off of his biggest career win going into the Holmes fight, so he was clearly very confident.

Mercer was over confident and it contributed to his defeat. Would the Mercer that fought Lewis lose to Holmes? Sure, but I think the one that fought Lewis was more motivated and knew he was in for a tough fight.

[JohnThomas1]

Painful to watch? How do you think it was to be Larry?

Holmes is a tough nut - for him it was cool cash.

[ChrisPontius]

Painful to watch? How do you think it was to be Larry?

I don't think it bothered him much, because he purposely didn't train despite the fight being a done deal 3 - 4 months before. Well, according to you, that is.

[he grant]

I'm sure he was not happy about it but he was not enraged like he was losing what he felt were bad decisions to Spinks ... he then adopted the Foreman like comeback strategy later on and had a semi-decent run .... Larry rationalized it and moved on ...

[Muchmoore]

I don't think it bothered him much, because he purposely didn't train despite the fight being a done deal 3 - 4 months before. Well, according to you, that is.

:lol:

People make it sound like Holmes was told on the way to the grocery store he had to fight Tyson and simply turned and went to the airport.

He had months to train, not the two weeks or month that many people say. Had Holmes won by a giant uppercut in round 4, everyone would praise him for showing up in such fantastic shape.

[mr. magoo]

=radianttwilight]I left out the losses to McCall and Rahman because I could've just as easily pointed to his devastating knockouts he had over the two of them.



Okay, well I can think of at least one fight you haven't seen. Lewis's rematch with McCall was not the result of a " devastating knockout. "



Can you explain to me which of the men listed were shells?


No problem. Below is a quote from your list, and the shot fighters are highlighted in green.



Mason, Biggs, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Mercer, Morrison, Akinwande, Golata Briggs, Mavrovic, Holyfield, Grant, Botha, Tua, Tyson and Klitschko.


In addition, there are a few other names on that list, whom I could make a fair argument for not being that good. Gary Mason for example, had a pretty record, but had never been in the ring with a true world beater, and looked like shit against Everett Martin and Mark Wills, going into the Lewis fight. Morrison had been sparked in one round by Michael Bent, and arguably gifted a draw against 8-8 Ross Purity. I won't say that Bruno was a shell when he fought Lewis, but a fair point can be made for him being past his best, and look at the fight he gave him. Dito with Mercer.

[JohnThomas1]

Not sure i'd label Holy, Tyson and Mercer as shot. Past prime yes but certainly not shot IMO. Shot to me is a stronger term.

[mr. magoo]

Not sure i'd label Holy, Tyson and Mercer as shot. Past prime yes but certainly not shot IMO. Shot to me is a stronger term.

He asked me to point out the fighters that he listed, and tell him which ones I felt were shells of their former selves. Frankly, I think Tyson and Holyfield fit the bill, and Mercer may very well have too. Holy and Tyson were both many years past thier primes, and had been exposed on a few occasions, not to mention had careers that were disrupted by either periods of inactivity, or health issues. Mercer was 35 years of age, and was losing or looking unimpressive against mediocrities. Personally, I think he was a far cry from the young olympian who defeated Morrison, Damiani and Cooper in the early 90's.

[ChrisPontius]

He asked me to point out the fighters that he listed, and tell him which ones I felt were shells of their former selves. Frankly, I think Tyson and Holyfield fit the bill, and Mercer may very well have too. Holy and Tyson were both many years past thier primes, and had been exposed on a few occasions, not to mention had careers that were disrupted by either periods of inactivity, or health issues. Mercer was 35 years of age, and was losing or looking unimpressive against mediocrities. Personally, I think he was a far cry from the young olympian who defeated Morrison, Damiani and Cooper in the early 90's.


To me there is no doubt that Tyson and Holyfield were passed their best. However, a great fighter operating at, say, 60%, can still be a tough cookie.


On Mercer, i think it should be pointed out that while he was getting old at 35 and coming off a loss, he had always been getting by because of his great strength, durability and power... and all of those were still there in 96. Let us not forget that he Damiani (an excellent boxer, by the way) was outboxing him handily and Morrison beat the crap out of him until his chin gave in. His boxing skills and stamina were already questionable back then. He also seemed to utilize the fine jab he did have more later in his career, from the Holyfield fight on.... of course it was too late then, but i think it's fair to say he gave prime versions of Holyfield and Lewis very hard fights.

[mr. magoo]

To me there is no doubt that Tyson and Holyfield were passed their best. However, a great fighter operating at, say, 60%, can still be a tough cookie.


On Mercer, i think it should be pointed out that while he was getting old at 35 and coming off a loss, he had always been getting by because of his great strength, durability and power... and all of those were still there in 96. Let us not forget that he Damiani (an excellent boxer, by the way) was outboxing him handily and Morrison beat the crap out of him until his chin gave in. His boxing skills and stamina were already questionable back then. He also seemed to utilize the fine jab he did have more later in his career, from the Holyfield fight on.... of course it was too late then, but i think it's fair to say he gave prime versions of Holyfield and Lewis very hard fights.

I really don't think that Holyfield was prime when he fought Mercer, in fact neither of those men were prime. While I agree that Mercer's actual skills and agility weren't particularly stellar during his best years, I do feel that he had a tad more handspeed and slightly more devastating power, along with more aggressiveness. Given how close his fight with Lewis was in 1996, and that both men were giving their very best efforts, I think its plausible to think a 1991 Mercer may have stopped Lewis, or squeaked out a decision. Lewis didn't have the right style for Mercer. Of course, he might have outboxed him with the jab, had he chosen to take the safe route, but I doubt he'd do this against an old rival.

[Bill1234]

I don't think it bothered him much, because he purposely didn't train despite the fight being a done deal 3 - 4 months before. Well, according to you, that is.

When did I ever say he didn't train? 3 months isn't enough time to shake off ring rust and get back into fighting shape.

[Bill1234]

Holmes is a tough nut - for him it was cool cash.

It helped him forget his pain when he got the money, but his temple was clearly bothering him after the fight.

[JohnThomas1]

Mercer was 35 years of age, and was losing or looking unimpressive against mediocrities. Personally, I think he was a far cry from the young olympian who defeated Morrison, Damiani and Cooper in the early 90's.

Ok, well Chris has answered your post pretty much but i'll just comment on this one point.

The fight after Mercer beat Morrison he was beaten by a very past it Larry Holmes then three fights later by the trailhorse Jesse Ferguson. So we see even in your selected time he was still inconsistent.

Actually, around the Lewis fight his only loss was to Holyfield, and a draw against Wilson prior. This would be the bad showing you are talking about but he came back to fight somewhat better vs Holyfield. I feel the Lewis fight was one of his best efforts, but it's all in how we look at things personally of course. Otherwise what would we have to debate.

[Robbi]

Not sure i'd label Holy, Tyson and Mercer as shot. Past prime yes but certainly not shot IMO. Shot to me is a stronger term.

A shot fighter to me is one who's a complete shadow of what he once was in his prime. Handspeed very slow, co-ordination and reflexes gone, and punch resistance not what it was either. And IMO he can't retain what he once had.

Holyfield was said to be shot in the mid-90's, but proved he wasn't by coming back and looking very good. Tyson and Moorer II were just two classic examples. Prior to those fights Holyfield was marked down as in the graveyard as a fighter. However he had everyone fooled and IMO those performances proved he simply had off nights inside the ring.

Hagler wasn't shot for the Leonard fight. Past his prime, yes. We would needed to have seen Hagler in the ring again to determine if he was shot or not as the Mugabi and Leonard fights simply showed he was slowing down. Who's to say he wouldn't have came back and retained some of his old muster close to his prime.

A fighter being shot is called too quickly in some instances. Being shot is something thats pernament, not a temporary kind of thing.

Leonard's performance against Camacho proved he was shot as he showed the signs of a shot fighter. In hindsight it's hard to see him retaining what he had 10 years previously. Highly unlikely.

[Unforgiven]

Holyfield was said to be shot in the mid-90's, but proved he wasn't by coming back and looking very good. Tyson and Moorer II were just two classic examples. Prior to those fights Holyfield was marked down as in the graveyard as a fighter. However he had everyone fooled and IMO those performances proved he simply had off nights inside the ring.

It's called getting old.

Holyfield wasn't completely "shot" (which implies nothing left) but he was definitely "over-the-hill" (meaning irreversibly past his prime).

Holyfield's "off nights" in the mid 90s happened because he was over-the-hill.
Holyfield's decline started around '93 or '94, clearly. Some would say earlier.

[Robbi]

It's called getting old.

Holyfield wasn't completely "shot" (which implies nothing left) but he was definitely "over-the-hill" (meaning irreversibly past his prime).

Holyfield's "off nights" in the mid 90s happened because he was over-the-hill.
Holyfield's decline started around '93 or '94, clearly. Some would say earlier.

I kinda covered all that.