Where do you rank Holmes?

Holmes needs to be top five (I prefer third) on any list to be taken seriously.

 

Style wise he could beat Louis. Its hard rankings heavys, Larry Holmes was fantastic, you could make a claim putting him at number 2 on the list behind Ali. But you could also claim with an argument that every boxer on that list could beat him. He is in my top 4 for sure along with Ali, Johnson and Louis.

 

I cant disagree with that!!

 

Anybody know why Larry never fought Page, Thomas etc.

I believe the title was in Africa or something?

 

Oh, let's have a look-see! Well, one giant major ****ing flaw right there.

1. Louis
2.Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Johnson
5. Tunney
6. Marciano
7. Charles
8. Foreman
9.Frazier
10. Holmes

It's bad enough to put Dempsey at #3, a guy who had a miraculous prime of 18 months or so where he fought every "name" guy on his way down (still couldn't handle the great Willie Meehan) capped off by the worst title reign the division ever witnessed based on quality/length ratio… but to try to cover one's tracks by putting Tunney, who had a classic "capture the flag" title run, at number 5 disqualifies a lifetime of better judgement.


Horrible, horrible ****ing list. Just repulsive.

 

Larry publicly stated towards the latter part of his reign that he did not want to fight big, strong, good heavyweights. I think he said that after his close call with Witherspoon. He said something to the effect that he wanted little people to beat up on.
Yet many Holmes fans argue that Larry took on all comers and fought everyone that merited a title shot. I guess Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, and Lucien Rodriguez were more worthy than Page, Thomas, etc.

Strange!

 

Page won the elimination to be next in line to fight Larry Holmes. Instead of facing his mandatory number one contender, Larry Holmes vacated his portion of the title. Whether Page was motivated or not, he earned his shot at Holmes. Giving up a hard-won belt like that is not the act of a champion.

 

Page won an elimination?

Greg was 3-1 in his last 4 fights after Berbick popped his cherry. If three wins over Larry Frazier (wpts 10), Renaldo Snipes (wpts 10) and 14-5-1 Rick keller made Page some kind of sensation that's not how I remember it. The Renaldo Snipes win was given the eliminator tag even though Snipes had only won once in his last 3 fights! An eliminator between a man Larry knocked out and the man who lost to Berbick?

The WBC did what ever Don King wanted. Larry was the recognised people's champion by then. I beleive the way Holmes saw it was "let Greg win some more big fights while I deal with Marvis for the same money". As it was Page could not win another big fight. Page went on to lose to another guy in his next fight whom Larry also beat..

 

Holmes was an all time great. On top,of physically gifted he had an exceptional inner toughness and will to win. I really don't know who I'd pick over him straight up at his best. He matches up well with pretty much anyone.

 

You can make a strong case that Homes did beat Spinks in the rematch. I wouldn`t put too much stock in that either way. A fighter in his mid 30s is gonna slow down a step or more anyway.

Losing to Tyson? Well Mike was a great heavyweight at that time and Larry was 38 years old coming off a long layoff.

Most of the great heavyweights were dropping fights well before that age.

 

I believe that Holmes wanted to get away from Don King who had been stealing his $ for a quite some time. He helped the IBF belt gain some credibility. I don`t think it had anything to do with Greg Page. It`s just revisionist history for the most part.

 

You seem more than willing to give Holmes the benefit of the doubt. He chose the easier fighter (Marvis) for more money. A good move from a business standpoint, but in pure boxing terms, that was a duck! But relax: a lot of past champions have ducked fighters along the way, so it's not just a Larry Holmes thing.
If Page was such a slovenly, unmotivated no-talent, Larry should have jumped at the chance at such an easy fight, especially when Page was the mandatory challenger at the time. Fulfill your obligation as a champion by fighting your mandatory challenger, then take the Marvis Frazier fight.

 

It would seem most scribes thought Larry deserved the win in the Spinks second go and while that was the best Larry had looked in some time he really was slowing down big time already in the William's bout. Any bouts he had after this was s clearly diminished Holmes.

 

Nah, page was only a mandatory because the WBC said so. Page was no more a outstanding contender than say Berbick, Weaver or Witherspoon was at that time. If a champ is defending three times a year and has already cleaned out the last generation (Ali,Norton, shavers, spinks) what does it matter if he takes two voluntary defences in a row? Larry already beat a lot of mandatory challengers. The WBC was getting a lot of sanctioning fees out of Holmes fights as it was. It's not like Holmes would not have got round to Page had he kept winning, but page couldn't.

I think Holmes saw Page as a tough fight, but no tougher than Smipes, Berbick or Cobb. Larry would just sooner fight him for bigger money than Marvis could draw. For a fraction of what Cooney could draw and Larry would have signed to meet Greg quicker than you can say Ray Robinson! He was not fighting page for marvis frazier type money because Larry felt he had paid his dues already. He was the champ. Nobody was talking about Greg Page. He lost to Berbick!

Holmes even went after David Bey BECAUSE he beat Page for the USBA title'..... and knocked him out.

During this whole period Larry was the real champ and he defended three times a year. The problem was the top contender had a belt and this belt kept getting passed around among the top five because just like most era's niether contender could win more than two fights in a row at elite level. That's what separates champs from contenders.


This was the period where all the contenders had a turn of holding a belt. The champ however was always Larry Holmes.