Tyson Fury v Larry Holmes

How does prime Holmes at 6′ 3″ / 81″and 215lb work out the 6´8″ / 81″, 260lb Fury puzzle?

 

Yeah what a puzzle

A guy that moves his feet and feints a bit the way everybody used to in Holmes's time... how on Earth will he do against a guy that's taller and considerably fatter that can't do either thing anywhere near as well as him???

What a mystery

Some hilarious "isn't it exciting that two reserved, awkward Ukrainians aren't champions any more? That must mean the division is suddenly talented" predos to follow

 

Holmes didn’t get a lot of credit for his resume but when old fat Larry Holmes came back and started handling guys it exposed the fact that Holmes just came from a different era that was on a higher level. Boxing was lucky Tyson was there to show there was still young talent worth watching.

Like cdogg said Fury prides himself on doing things other hw’s don’t do but guys actually did that stuff in Holmes era. They weren’t all just guys that couldn’t play football or basketball well enough.

 

Come on now.

80s was the better era, but it is not like Weaver, Smith, Cooney, Williams etc. were completely different class compared to Fury, nor did Holmes dominate them easily. That's ludicrous

 

Ugo really presents nothing of substance anymore. His posts are as predictable as David Tua. I swear to God, you wouldn't be able to pick Tommy Hearns over Keith Thurman without him whining about nostalgia. It's beyond annoying.

In any case, it takes Larry a few rounds to adjust to Fury's height and awkwardness, but once he does, he controls the fight... an awful, awful fight, I might add.

Despite being 6'3, Holmes had FREAKISHLY long arms, rest assured his jab would still find Fury.

 

First three were all better at boxing than Deontay Wilder and hit hard

The fourth was better at boxing than either Fury or Wilder but his chin was shaky as fuck

 

The 70’s and 80’s had a different level of talent and participation in boxing and its most obvious at hw. HW boxing wasn’t always “a different game” than other weight classes, that happened when team sports started paying absurd money and the leftovers just couldn’t do the shit the more talented guys had done before.

When I’ve talked about the relative lack of skill at hw you’ve defended it as “a different game” where some skills aren’t practical but here you are on Fury’s dick for doing ‘boxing stuff’.

 

Cool. I'll start to post mismatches and parrot somebody's opinions from now on and I'll add great value to this site.

Btw. What, in your dream world, should thread such as this accomplish?

 

Sorry, I could have sworn this thread said Fury.

So is it your take that Fury couldn't possibly do as well as Smith against Holmes? After all, that is all I am questioning here.

 

1- And my point about Wilder compared to these guys isn't relevant to Fury? Who did Fury just fight a few days ago? You brought those guys up and none of them are much like Fury so I guess I figured you were making some sort of comparison to Wilder fighting Fury

2- Are you the Finnish Double L? I made no such assertion and I wouldn't anyway because they don't really present the same issues (how well did Smith really do anyway? That wasn't a close fight)

 

I mentioned those guys, because you said everybody in Holmes' era moved and feinted as well as Fury. While you were obviously using a hyperbole, I think you are still selling Fury short there. For such a huge guy he has some skill, and yes, size does matter.

As for the second point, the picture about Holmes as a dominant force is mainly false. He only blistered guys like Evangelista and Frank, most of his top-10 contenders gave him a fight. And that is what I suggest Fury would do.

For Xplosive that was more than enough to cause a tantrum, but I don't think we are that far apart.

Also, eat shit and die

 

My point was that Fury succeeds in this era because nobody does that shit ... Bernard Hopkins was a factor at 175 almost to age 50 because he did what was once commonplace shit. Which is why he wouldn't have been able to do it if you took him and placed him in 1979 as the same guy, he'd get his ass kicked

I would certainly argue Carl Williams was a far better boxer than Fury and streets faster and the other guys all were KO punchers and yes they all moved their heads in a fashion that would be "advanced" in today's game (even Smith, who was basically just durable and strong and was considered a poor technician in his day... today, he'd look like he could really box well) ... as for Fury's size ... I don't think he really uses it in a particularly meaningful way. He's not mauling guys or shoving them around or making love to them like wald pussy ... he dances a little, throws a few jabs and sometimes a right hand, feints a bit... he seldom brings his mass to bear on proceedings... he was in there Saturday against a guy nearly 50 pounds lighter and at no point did I think "oh this guy's just too big and strong" ... my only thought was "wilder is too dumb and unskilled"

In summation, DIE

 

Fury has an 85" reach.

 

Oh yeah my mistake.
So an extra 4" reach makes a big difference.
I still think Holmes wins this by a few points - just a better all-around boxer.

 

It's hard to say really. Would be a really interesting fight.

 

From a purely technical boxing point....no-one gets dropped or anything.

 

Close close fight. I like Holmes jab to be the slight difference, but it's far from a given

 

Getting back to this.

Do you others think that 80s was on higher level than 90s, too? Holmes 'started handling guys' in the 90s, which is considered by many as a solid era for heavyweights.

 

Not a close fight. Holmes negates what Fury does well.

Boring fight, but Larry wins very clearly. 12 rounder... Holmes 9-3 or 8-4. 15 rounder, Holmes around 10-5.

This exactly what I mean by recency bias.

Fury outboxes a washed up Wald and goes life and death with Wilder, and suddenly he might beat a top 5 all time heavyweight?

Jesus fuckin Christ.

 

I think there were more good 80s heavyweights than there were 90s heavyweights but for various reasons only one really reached his full potential (Tyson) ... Holmes was really a 70s heavyweight more than an 80s one

The 90s had two great heavyweights in Holyfield and Lewis while the 80s really just had one in Tyson but I think the 80s "rest" was a little better than the 90s "rest"... not a huge difference but I think the second half of the 90s was pretty bad once you get past Lennox and Evander, the contenders started to look really awful, clearly worse to me than any point in the 80s... Very very top heavy division after Bowie fell apart... Tyson was still a major factor during that period despite having descended into outright self-parody

 

Well, you could argue Bowe was great in 92.

 

I meant to quote Ugo's post

I only partially agree with Terp on that ... I think Holmes took things a lot more seriously in that comeback than he did with Tyson and I think he was well managed during it, which has a lot to do with the results

 

I personally dont think any version of Holmes beats Tyson, but that's another topic.

Mike would always expose that low left of Larry.

 

Of course but one night doesn't make you great ... there's several guys in the 80s who were great for a night or two and then were neck deep in cocaine the next night

 

This is where your argumentation goes wrong, again:

A result of a single fight doesn't define the greatness between the two fighters.

A result of a single fight doesn't tell you anything about the levels of the eras

Assuming a close fight doesn't mean a lopsided win.

Yet, you take such a pick as a statement against values.

Should Carl Williams or Trevor Berbick be anywhere close to the top-5? Of course not. Yet, both were able to challenge Holmes.

Has Fury proven he would beat Holmes? Of course not.

Has it been proven he couldn't be as good as Berbick? No.

And that is all anybody has claimed

 

Holmes was too good and his class would tell by the mid rounds. As previously pointed out, everything Fury does well (Feints, movement,
jabs) Holmes does better, despite the height and reach disadvantage he’d be at. If Fury has enough power to hurt him, I’d give him a better chance but he doesn’t.

 

Holmes would knock Fury tfo.

 

Holmes was brought up in the 70’s and that was clearly not just a better era, but the last “real era” of hw’s.

 

Go buy a tampon you whiny euro woman.

 

Why won't you just borrow me your ping-pong ball?

I know men over 120 lbs are scary to you