30 Year Old Lennox Lewis v 30 Year Old Larry Holmes.Who Wins

[ICB]

To say Larry nwould win is one thing but to say Lewis would not even bother Larry is another...You talk out of your ass sometimes.....

Thats why people on the forums get aggressive with you and when you can't come up with a good arguement you want to go to paper stats...

As for opp they beat

Holmes opp he won against had a combined 1270-379 w/l ratio

Lewis had 1064/229 w/l ratio

Larry accomplished this with 69 wins

Lennox with 41 wins

Why don't you read my previous post, i said i think Larry Holmes would win by 4 points. I never said Lennox Lewis wouldn't bother Larry Holmes, don't put words into my mouth. I said i think he would win comfortable decision, meaning points wise which is why i said by 4 points.

I never said he would beat Lennox Lewis from pillar to post for 12 rounds, without ever having problems.

And where have i brought out stats in this thread ? infact i don't actually use stats that often. I think i've gave very good argument why i think Larry Holmes would win. And are you honestly telling me, i got to paper stats when i can't debate something. Are you kidding me ? i thought i've always been a pretty decent debater. And i debate on many different era's and fighters, and i've done it without stats.

No comment's on any of my post's in this thread, should be replied to in an aggressive manner. All i've done is state my opinion, while backing it up with some good arguments.

I don't think Lennox Lewis would be able to deal with Larry Holmes's jab, sorry but i don't. And i think he would beat Lennox Lewis comfortably on points, it wouldn't be easy but there's no doubt in my mind. Larry Holmes would be the clear winner.

Lastly people can get as annoyed at my post, as they want. I don't really care i've said nothing wrong, and an opinion shouldn't make anyone annoyed unless its a ridiculous one. But my opinion isn't ridiculous and its an opinion backed up with a good case.

Doesn't mean its right doesn't mean its wrong, as i said to Eagle no one can ever be right discussing mythical match ups.

Ice, I think people can get a bit wound up because with certain boxers (Larry Holmes & James Toney most particularly) you tend to come across as if they were unbeatable & would have destroyed all & sundry.

Your assessment of Holmes acheivements could just as easily be turned around. For example on the Holmes/Norton debate, whilst you feel Holmes won it handily, I thought Norton just took it, & for my mind this was a Norton a little shot by the Ali trilogy. You might disagree with that, but others will get a bit irritated if you constantly twist the facts in a context that suits your fighter, which I think was what Daxx was implying.

However, whilst I disagree with your arguments for why, I do agree that Holmes would probably beat Lewis, I think his jab was just that fantastic that it could take him to a win & although I think Lewis would have him down, I reckon Holmes would just carry it over for a close & controversial decision.

I don't think James Toney is unbeatable by any means, are you on about the thread where i said James Toney had all the attributes ? yes i did say that and i think it would take, a hell of a fighter to beat a prime James Toney.

But i don't think he's unbeatable he struggled against fighters with good movement, and i can think of a handful of fighters, that could of beat James Toney.

As for Larry Holmes again i've never said he's unbeatable, and i've not once implied that in this thread. All i've done is state an opinion, i don't know why im getting this much stick either.

This is one of the reason's i don't come on the site as much, because all i seem to be doing is arguing.

As for the Ken Norton fight, its a fact Larry Holmes had a torn bicep i believe ? or ETC. Which IMO makes Larry Holmes look even better.

And i think he won atleast 7 or 8 rounds in a row. After the 1st round which he clearly lost. Then Ken Norton made a good comeback, but he still lost atleast 2 rounds IMO , especially the 13th round i believe it was.

I do think it is an overrated close fight, but thats my opinion. I would like to see your scorecard though.

But you can't tell me Ken Norton was a bit past his prime, after the Muhammad Ali trilogy.

Ken Norton fought the fight of his life, and was no worse than he was in the Muhammad Ali fights.

I never said Larry Holmes would destroy anyone, your saying i am but i never said that. All i said was that Larry Holmes's jab would the key, and that IMO he would win by 4 rounds 8 rounds to 4, comfortably scoring wise.

Hell Vanchilds had the same prediction as me, regarding the scoring why isn't he getting all this ?

Not that im saying anyone should, but i honestly don't see what i've done wrong other than having an opinion.