Holmes's comp... How highly do you rate it?

I think mainly the 1990s had more hype, Pay-Per-View broadcasts (starting in second half of 1980s as the norm in the USA) and the enduring enigma surrounding Tyson (who, incidentally, started the decade getting smashed in by Douglas).

Holmes fought regularly on network TV, and in the post-Ali era he was regarded as colourless while the media rallied around the likes of Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns. The only heavyweight they got behind before Tyson was C00ney, and for obvious reasons.

The perception in quality of heavyweight is largely due to marketing.
I think the early-mid 1980s probably had more depth than there was 10 years later.

 

Yeah, I reckon Tyson caught Larry on a bad day too................

 

It had more hype but mainly because there was more to hype about.. You had former olympians in their primes being properly managed and looking good against decent comp. I don't see the 80's having more depth. Not with Lucien Rodriguez, Lorenzo Zanon, Scott Ledoux, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank and David Bey getting title shots.. Sure you had Ferguson getting a shot at Bowe in 1993 and Cooper getting a shot at Holy in 1991, but these were the exceptions not the norm.

 

So I take it we're done?

 

:rofl:rofl

 

Well, I'm off to bed in a bit if that counts?

 

:good

 

Look at the WBA?WBC line while Holmes held the WBC/IBF. Almost every challenger there is a solid (often undefeated) challenger, and people complained that the titles were changing hands so often. It was because fighters were being evenly matched.
Holmes' own reign had plenty of soft touches, but he was fighting regularly, 3 or 4 fights per year. It would have been better if he'd unified.

The 1990s had old Foreman, Axel Schulz, Frank Bruno, Oliver McCall and Bruce Seldon holding the actual belts, nevermind the weak challengers.
Tony Tucker was brought back to contest the WBC and WBA titles. Lionel Butler was in a WBC title eliminator. Phil Jackson, Vaughn Bean and Joe Hipp were getting title shots. Old Dokes, Jesse Ferguson.
If Larry Holmes had fought Zelkjo Mavrovic, the Croatian would be thrown among that list for ridicule too.
But the guy took Lewis 12 rounds on HBO in the 1990s so everyone figures "he was pretty good!".

 

Only 10 MONTHS after fighting Holmes, Witherspoon was the WBC heavyweight champ ... so the "novice" label is a bit of a reach.

I don't think Spoon went from novice to one of the best in the world in 10 months. I think he was kind of good when Holmes fought him, too.

 

Comparisons with Ali, Frazier, pre-comeback Foreman and any earlier champions are moot. They didn't fight in an era of three or more belts, meaning loads more champions for them to add to their records.

Holyfield faced 15 heavyweight champions, Tyson faced 12, Lewis faced 12. Add one more to each of them if you count Botha, who actually won a title in the ring, unlike Norton. Wlad is currently on ten. If he loses to Fury he's one away from matching Holmes. Facing 12 champions is nothing out of the ordinary in an era of multiple champions. Heck, Jose Ribalta faced 11.

 

He was good. He wasn't the soft touch Holmes thought he would be when he agreed to fight him. Almost losing to Witherspoon is one of the reasons Holmes vacated his title and started fighting softer touches. His next two fights were against inexperienced Marvis Frazier and mediocre Scott Frank. When the WBC and King tried to force him to fight Page, he bolted to the newly formed IBF.

 

I'm not sure Holmes' pre-Shavers competition was all that soft, first of all. Young Sanford Houpe was a "pushed" fighter who showed out very well against then more highly regarded Duane Bobick and was no cakewalk. I had the pleasure of getting a Grade A sparring beatdown from Tom Prater shortly after the Holmes fight, so I might be biased there, but he was considered a solid prospect at the time. Ibar Arrington was a solid foe and well respected and we already know about Tiger Roy Williams. I think there might have been a step of two missing either before or after Shavers, but Holmes fought solid guys although maybe a few shy of what we'd grade as optimum.

I thought his challengers were hard to assess then and harder now. He fought some softies such as Rodriguez/Zanon/Evangelista, but a whole group of guys with clean records that were generally unknown or untested- Ocasio/L. Jones/Bey- and others who graded better than average in retrospect- Williams/Witherspoon/Bonecrusher. All in all, I didn't feel cheated by his reign as the choices, while perhaps cautiously selected for the sake of risk verses reward, held my attention at the time and were interesting fights to watch.

 

the lines were divided at the time and for a reason, splitting the titles benefited Holmes and if you look at Kooney and Shavers record, none of them fought the Thomas,Weaver,Coetzee,Tate,Page,Dokes guys Holmes best opponents were arguably not the best of the pack and either had very limited experience or past it like Norton and Ali. I find it odd that Holmes is rated so high on ESB while Dempsey is often dogged for not fighting Wills and Greb...a double standard indeed

also Renaldo Snipes robbed Coetzee (he was dropped 2X by Gerrie) to get the title shot vs Holmes and L. Spinks was already KO'd in 1 by Coetzee

A lot of guys make excuses for Holmes but my guess is they really didn't live the era, they are boxrec experts

 

John Tate, Michael Dokes and Tony Tubbs were the only WBA title holders who were undefeated prior to winning that belt. They all lost in either their first or second title defenses and none of them ever fought Holmes. The undefeated challengers who actually DID fight Holmes were mostly of the 10,13,14,15 fight variety with the exception of C00ney, Snipes and Jones who I agree were decent contenders. As for the titles changing due to even match making I somewhat disagree.. You had a generation of men who as soon as they sniffed a little success proceeded to sniff it up their nose, hence losing motivation within a matter of months. And some of those fights were controversial such as Weaver's early stoppage to Dokes and the questionable draw in the rematch. Also in most cases they were slow paced dull affairs resulting in indecisive verdicts.

He probably had more soft touches than just about any long reigning champion if truth be told. Of his 20 or so world title fights, about a good 11 or 12 of them were against unworthy opponents and that's without actually taking the time to scrutinize them much. Joe Louis and Muhammad had plenty of lesser challengers too but at least they were taking on all the top comers as well. Holmes didn't or at least not from 1983 onward.

Yes I have always credited Larry Holmes with being an active champion. He certainly didn't sit on the title for three years doing nothing as Dempsey did. He did however fight only twice in 1982 and only once 1984 however. And part of this prolific activity was made possible through the caliber of opponents he was taking on. Fighting four times in 1983 looks good at first glance. But when one discovers that the calendar was occupied by Lucien Rodriguez, Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank and a 15 fight Witherspoon it begins to look less impressive.. Still not a bad year.

Better to the extent of probably elevating his all time rating in a lot of peoples eyes.

But most of those men didn't represent the cream of the crop in the 90's as Witherspoon, C00ney, Weaver and Berbick did in the 80's though. George Foreman's presence in the 90's is something I view as positive not negative. He was a reincarnated fighter with a different approach that worked for him.. Think of it this way.. You had at least five hall of fame heavyweights co-existing at the same time between 1990-1996 with one of them ( tyson ) being absent for part of that time. Who was second best next to Holmes during his reign? Weaver? Witherspoon? Both very good fighters and ones I think highly of but certainly not ATG's.

Yes I commented on how some of these men ( or at least ferguson ) got unwarranted shots or eliminator opportunities. But again this wasn't the norm. The other thing the 90's had which the 80's didn't was historical heavyweight rivalries like Bowe vs Holyfield, Tyson vs Holyfield, Tyson vs Ruddock, etc... You had none of that in the 80's unless you want to call Weaver vs Dokes I & II and Smith vs Spoon I & II classic rivalries.

Zelkjo Mavrovic competed in two olympics, was undefeated 27-0 in the pros and had pretty good power and durability. While I won't claim he'd be at the top of Holmes' trophy case he'd very likely be viewed as better than Ossie Ocasio, lucien Rodriguez, Scott Ledoux, Alfredo Evangelista, Lorenzo Zanon, David Bey, Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank, the faded version of Muhammad Ali and possibly the 10 fight version of Marvis Frazier.. Just to let you know that's roughly half or more of Holmes title challengers.

 

Enjoying the thread, guys.

All expect for the individual who keeps throwing Ali's name around like it was a notable win for Larry.