Walcott was the FARRRR greater technical fighter than Holmes. Not close. Holmes was more durable and this more than likely would lead him to victory in a close bout.
-
-
In all other sports, athletes have made progress.
If we are to believe �boxingscene.forum? boxers have not.
Matching John L. Sullivan against Anthony Joshua, and our minds are puzzled about what the outcome would be.Comment
-
It has been well written that the progression one has seen in other sports has not been observed in boxing. Who is a better inside fighter than Frazier or Marciano today in the hwt division? No one. Who is a better combination puncher than Louis today? No one.Comment
-
Since he can't beat Holmes on the outside he would have to do work on the inside and that would need someone like Frazier, Holyfield or Tyson with that strategy to stand a good chance. Walcott doesn't have the right style to beat Holmes.
Well the most important aspect of size in this matchup is Larry Holmes' 81 inch reach which was 7 inches longer than Walcott's, as well as Larry's 6'3 height(Walcott was 6') which he fully utilized if not extended even taller by moving on his toes when he was younger, so he'd be dancing @ 6'4-6'6 with an 81 inch reach with one of the best jabs ever(most say the best ever).Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View Post
So yeah it's pretty damn significant here, it doesn't have anything to do with newbies or size favoritism. Walcott never faced anything like Holmes. I'm surprised that quite a few are picking Walcott in this thread.Last edited by BKM-; 05-26-2018, 07:11 PM.Comment
-
No its not. Having longer reach or being taller does not mean these would be of an advantage. Speed and timing....skill is more important than raw reach and height numbers. Far more important. Tyson as an example had very short reach but he outjabbed the vast majority of larger opposition.Comment
-
Yes it is, when you have the skills to use it. You know we're talking about Larry Holmes right? One of the best jabs you'll ever see, it had exactly what you just mentioned: speed, timing, technique. If you have that on top of the size advantage it becomes a crucial component for this fight. Walcott's gonna be at the end of that jab all night long. You can argue the exact significance of this all you want, but to say it's NO advantage is absolutely delusional.Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View PostComment
-
Again Walcott was the FAR greater technical fighter. Not close.Comment
-
You haven't made one argument for Walcott and how he'd actually win this matchup other than "Fighter A is far more technical. Not close." It's lazy and baseless.Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View PostComment
-
Never stated Walcott would win. I've just stated Walcott was the far greater technical fighter than Holmes. Holmes is more durable and in the end this would be the deciding factor.Comment
-
--- not so ben. Better shoes, equipment, playing conditions, yeah, with year round training, huge medical advances and different rules of play, but the advances come as specialization.Originally posted by Ben Bolt View Post
Nobody yet as good athletically as Jim Thorpe, Babe Ruth, and Wilt Chamberlain. Baseball is 3 centuries old, boxing 4 centuries, whereas Basketball and football barely passed the 100 yr mark.
Could snipes beat Walcott? Coetzee outboxed him before Snipes dropped Lar like a sack and might have had a stoppage with another ref. Walcott could do the same, so don't play at Lar being some kind of �bermensche. He was highly insecure and arguably beat during his streak.Comment
Comment