What is this babble. Comparing todays bag of **** with Holmes. You must be mentally ill if u think Holmes isn't an atg. End of discussion!
As a heavyweight he most certainly was an all time great. This man was awesome and beat a huge array of notable opposition Larry Holmes 22-5-0 (15) Shavers(x2), Norton, Avengelisto, Occasio, Zanon, Jones, LeDoux, Ali, Berbick, L.Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Cobb, Witherspoon, Smith (x2), Bey, Williams, M.Spinks (x2), Tyson, Mercer, Holyfield, Ferguson, McCall, Weaver (24) For 5 years he ruled the division. He had a very good run before his fight with ali and also had a very good run after the first loss to spinks. The rematch was quite clearly a holmes victory. He arguably beat a prime oliver mccall also. To doubt this man's greatness is insane imho. He sits proudly at number 5 on my list. His resume is there for all to see. He left a fantastic legacy with his long reign and unbeaten run which was furthered by his brilliant run 4 years after being so disgracefully cheated against spinks. H2h he defeated a wide variety of styles as a young man, as a champ and as an old man. He had great fundamentals and the best jab in history. I greatly admire wlad's jab but larry's is on another level.
Dont worry, its a Klitschko thread, according to them everyone was overrated but their beloved Vitali And Wladmir. U can tell straight away because their thread will consist of "XYZ was overrated....But Wlad would......"
I believe him to be an all-around H2H nightmare at his best and even better than all but Ali and perhaps Louis if put up against the rest of history's best heavies.
The fact that anyone here doubts Holmes is an ATG shows why the general forum is a joke here and to other boxing forums. Bunch of uneducated sports fans who simply follow 1 fighter and don't even know anything about the sport of boxing and it's history. Holmes would rule the current division and be competitive in any era you care to put him in, it simply isn't even up for discussion.
Thread's like this demonstrate the difference between wlad fans and boxing fans as the majority have no concept of prize fighting history. Arguing wlad as on par with the likes of charles, walcot and tunney I can understand but claiming holmes beat noone save a green cooney shows a huge gaping lack of knowledge. The worst trait of all is the way they combine the two, that annoys me the most.
Well some went distance with prime Holmes, and Cooney was being dominated all the way. He had one monent where he stunned Holmes on ropes, but stood there like idiot and did nothing. Michael Spinks and an old George Foreman both blew Cooney out fast, beating Gerry was no big deal.
Holmes did not dominate own era, how could he dominate others. As I said, he did not fight 3 best of era, plus never gave Weaver a rematch he deserved. He is Hall of Famer, and near or in top 10, not a top 5 or 6 heavyweight of al time by any means. Tyson, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano were better, IMO so were Walcott, Charles, and Foreman. Tunney may have been better, but his early rtiremnt disqaulifys him for me. Also, Tim Witherespoon, in only 15th pro fight, deserved decision over Holmes. And never got a rematch, something he never forgave Don King, Holmes manager, for. Carl Williams won too, judges gave it to Holmes.
I find it ironic that Wlad gets so much hate for being boring, yet Holmes was hardly mr exciting imo. Holmes was in the odd entertaining fight, like Weaver 2, Norton, Shavers 2, Carl Williams, but for the most part, his fights were tedious imo, as he, like Wlad, tended to want to jab you to death. I guess you could also draw comparisons with how people question their opposition, although having said that, Holmes, whilst not having a stellar resume like Ali, did fight much better fighters than Wlad. Call me crazy, but I found Roy Jones's a bit tedious to watch to. In spells Roy looks amazing, but there are too many lulls in the action when he fights. I prefer to watch Whitaker than Jones.