Where do you rank Holmes?

Larry Holmes is barely top ten for me

The biggest knock against him is that slightly pst his prime he was destroyed by Tyson

So uh at exactly is Holmes legacy fight that defines him?

 

With the title on the line combacking Joe Louis did not get knocked out against Charles. He saw the last bell. Dempsey too. Gene Tunney might have beat him but it was not KO.

Ali was pulled out against Larry it's not the same thing as being flat out on the canvas and its not like it was Ali's first comeback. that was after regaining things with Leon and George Foreman.

Larry Holmes went on to have a good comeback after the Tyson pasting so it's not like Larry was all washed up for TYsons title.


To be fair to Larry those rival champs kept blowing their titles in their first defence and they all wound up either losing to Holmes or a victim of his. To make a showdown they had to beat more than just one contender. Often those guys only decent win was winning a belt they lost in their next fight. Where as Holmes at least established himself..... but it was a slow burning recognition he achieved. He got there in the end. Lennox also "got there in the end". Nobody said Ali, Louis or Dempsey "got there in the end". They were always considered the best heavyweight whilst champions. That's why I put them ahead of Larry.

I can't put any "got there in the end" champs ahead of the "domination throughout the era" champs.

 

Because Lewis got caught napping against inferior men to Ali and joe Louis in title fights. That's why.

 

:roll: :-(

Slightly, huh? :roll:

:roll: What part of 'longevity' and 'making the absolute most of the hand dealt to him in a so-so era' do you not get?

Anyway, probably Norton, Shavers I, or for sheer name value, Ali.

 

Holmes' resume is criminally underrated.

His reign gets really shortchanged.

Hell, 40 of 66 voters in a recent poll here thought Wladimir Klitschko with a victory over Povetkin would have a superior reign.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=485445


When you scrutinize it enough, sure you can nitpick it, but same with any title reign of every ATG...none of whose approach his length (and the few that do not approaching the sum quality)

 

Reminds me of someone else.

 

Yes. Hello Tennis, aka Elroy, M.G., & who knows how many other nom de plumes.

If you are going to advocate for a strong egenda, it would behoove you to not start with name calling & insults. Whether to be respected yourself, or gain an iota of traction for your arguments.

Also getting basic facts wrong immediately erodes credibility. The shortest you ever see Louis listed is 6' 1 1/2" & a 76" reach. He was not at all short then, & close to average height & reach for today. And somewhat moe than typical swarmers like Tyson.

Anyway, for the serious talk. The HWs do have the biggest H2H disadvantage when there is no weight limit & folks get bigger. Legacy & H2H, Holmes cannot be lower than 6-10. A peak ATG KOing a 3 years retired 38 Holmes means almost nothing. The question is, who did he face, how many others should he have fought or rematched, & consider gift decisions.

I do not see him near #3, cannot see him likely beating great swarmers like Tyson & Frazier, would lose to a few others. But he accomplished a great deal, & few eras had many greats to face. Around 6-8 may be fair.

 

A lot easier to do when you effectively retire from facing elite competition at 25. Dempsey's title reign is a case study in low risk/high reward, the latter part of the equation being a complete fabrication of Rickard & Co. How any astute follower of the sport could give credence to the likes of Carpentier, himself a coddled and protected Euro, being a threat is beyond me. Likewise Brennan. Likewise a completely incompetent Firpo. Or a Miske who almost had to be assisted into the ring.

Give Larry Holmes this cast of misfits to defend against and he would STILL be champ.

 

This...

Holmes avoided way too many fighters during his reign to be rated near the top of a top ten list. His 20 title defenses are against guys who, for the most part, were not seen as legitimate threats (at least going into the fights).
There were a lot of talented guys around during Holmes reign who never got a shot at Larry's title. Granted, a lot of those talented guys didn't always show up in shape or train hard for their fights, but that doesn't negate their talent -- just their work ethic. And in a big money fight against a champion like Holmes, I would expect Page, Thomas, Dokes, etc. to show up in prime condition.

Larry was a very good fighter, but he didn't showcase his talents against the best available opponents. After beating Cooney in '82, Holmes really took his foot of the gas and coasted. He fought Witherspoon and Williams because those guys were inexperienced and green -- and they both pushed Holmes to the brink. And of course, Holmes didn't grant either one a rematch.

I think Holmes' legacy often gets overrated.

 

His title winning effort against Ken Norton. It was an epic fight and Holmes showed all the qualities of a great fighter. Boxing skill, stamina and he had to dig deep in the last round.

Holmes showed his class well past his prime when he beat the undefeated Ray Mercer who was pretty highly regarded at the time. He did it with his ring IQ and experiance.

Also Larry Holmes demonstrated the ability to comeback when hurt. He got off the canvas a couple of times to KO the man who put him down. That is something that Mike Tyson or Lennow Lewis never did.

The picking apart of Holmes`s resume is laughable. Page, Dokes and Tate?

I could say the same thing about Lennox Lewis just as an example. Lewis didnt fight George Foreman, Micheal Moorer or Riddick Bowe. He never even fought Tyson until he was a shell of what he once was etc...

Mike Tyson never fought Witherspoon or Dokes or Foreman etc.


Larry Holmes did it all.

 

Just as an aside..cant believe anyone rates foreman higher than lewis.

 

Holmes was a sharp and clever fighter. When needed he also showed great ability to recover from big bombs, climbing off the floor and fighting on to victory (in his undefeated streak).
What more could he have done as a fighter in the prevailing politics of the day? Maybe rematched Norton/Witherspoon and Williams. Failure to solve spinks is against him too I guess.

I give him credit for his "second" career against Holy, Mercer and yes Tyson too. With diminished everything he went in against peak fighters over a decade younger.

In the tough fights he found a way to get the decision (bar spinks) so I think he should be higher than 10, and maybe top 5.

 

Very good fighter. but his title defenses were on par with the title shots of Virgil hill. Lots of bouts and lots of wins but those opponents weren't being brought into Bismark to win.

Even if you subscribe to the opinion he beats those guys, what you have to do is factor in the additional wear and tear of facing those guys instead of all those soft touches. The wear and tear caused him to look stale against Spinks and he lost. His previous fight was against a guy barely on the radar screen in Carl Williams. Lots of folks think Carl should have got the nod. How many more rounds does Holmes lose with deteriorating reflexes from tougher rounds than the guys he faced like Leon Spinks and Evangelista and so on?

He had minimal mileage on him prior to the Spinks loss. No way he hits 20 defenses if he deteriorates faster. Just like Hill--no way he puts together all those successful defenses together if he had bothered to sign contracts with the premeir lh around at the time.

 

Holmes had been on the shelf for 2 years when he fought Tyson.And THAT Tyson was a beats at his ferocious best. Comparisons to Louis/Charles, Demspey/Tunney not relevant as Charles and Tunney weren`t punchers...True Holmes won some fights after Tyson but the REAL Holmes was long,long gone...

 

Yes he did...
And isn`t it kind of comical that people `wonder` about, Page ,Dokes and Tate... Holmes would have cleaned them up to