I have no strong opinion on this either way, but I will say that most top fighters' resumes are 85%+ bums and 15% top prospects, contenders, and title holders. The fact that we can name seven quality opponents at all during his reign puts Holmes ahead of most. Certainly ahead of Foreman, Frazier, Marciano, either Klitschko, and Tyson
:deal He was like an aggressive version of Ali, a more hellish jab and offensive minded. But he was never as smart or cunning as Ali.
Dude had an atg jab, but his physique was mad flabby not an Adonis whereas Tyson and Holyfield look like super heroes. There tends to be a stigma towards visually fatter fighters such as the disrespect over Tyson fury, how many times has he endlessly been made fun of for that? To compare him to an Anthony Joshua, he gets no complaints aesthetically except for "body builder." I personally think it should be a fighters job to be always on weight, just like in hockey, how you are responsible for your own stick= play by the rules, and play fair. Some guys just never get out of shape (Tyson) angel Manfredi, Connor McGregor= they all look like (one is) actual hws. Whereas odlh showed up pudgy for the Felix Sturm fight. I'm sure there's more examples.
He had 19 defenses. No title was on the line for Frazier. Holmes was a bit undervalued in his time and wildly overvalued now. Yes, he had 19 defenses. None of them were against impressive names, unless you count Ali, who was already showing Parkinsons and thyroid issues. The toughest fights he did have, Norton and Witherspoon, were either-way fights, and he sometimes struggled with low-level guys like Snipes and Weaver. He openly ducked Page, Thomas, and even declined an opportunity to fight Coetzee. Not only did he not attempt to unify, he split belts by giving the IBF credibility. He was dethroned by a LHW. Great fighter, yes, but hardly a top-five like a lot people have him now. Fighters are re-evaluated every generation, and I have a feeling that in 10-20 years, when the fond memories of the 90s have faded, he will assume his proper place in the pantheon somewhere between 6 and 15.
It's not fair to say "he openly ducked Page and Thomas". If so, then Lennox Lewis also openly ducked Chris Byrd and John Ruiz
Had a habit of winning ugly but a ****ing gun in my book, maybe a bit boring in and out of the ring (though not always) but you can't do more than win. He would be in my top ten for sure.
An ATG, definitely a top 10 ATG at heavyweight, who had the misfortune to have his prime and his reign stuck in between two great and exciting HW eras, and the misfortune of not having a lot of charisma (like Ali had, and, to a lesser degree, also Tyson). Try to follow up a championship reign after a man like Ali. You're in a hard place, no matter how good you are. We can see a similar situation now with Terrence Crawford having to follow the reigns of Mayweather an the Pacman. And Holmes had the great misfortune of having to fight Ali at the height of the latters popularity but with the whole world knowing that Ali was shot to pieces. Had that fight happened in 1977 instead of 1980, then maybe the boxing world would have forgiven Holmes. But he had to fight and beat Ali when he got the call, and just imagine if he had declined that fight - his career would have been over before it really started. And he still couldn't afford to lose to Ali. So that was a big lose/lose situation for Holmes, and he wasn't at fault. Holmes also had a couple of close calls, both winning and losing (the M. Spinks fights, Oliver McCall). He wasn't as as dominating as Tyson was (before B. Douglas). But a win is still a win. I also think that Holmes would have beaten Foreman head to head. I don't know for sure because we would have had to see it in the ring. But I favor Holmes 65/35 here, both fighting in their respective primes or in their 40s. Still, Foreman definitely had the greater career, he was the greater - if not necessarily the better - fighter.
IMO Larry Holmes is a top 5 HW h2h or otherwise. He was simply not a dynamic fighter (hence some fights where he limped to the finish line as opposed to sprinting through the tape). He was steady and would do enough to keep a win out of reach for his opponent. But his attributes (durabiliy, chin, respectable power, good speed, great feet, great jab) allowed him to always outpace his opponents. Him being steady is the only reason questions like this about him even exist
Holmes was a ATG in my opinion, he was created with the all round skillset and physical/mental attributes that made him a formidable champion. I believe he could be put in against any former or later champion and more than hold his own, i cannot identify a area of deficit in Holmes that any other champion could obviously exploit.
No, you have misunderstood. Openly means OPENLY. He bragged about it. He said things to the press like "if they want me back, they got to give me someone I can beat." He made no bones about the fact that he wanted risk-free fights. The other difference is that Lennox unified belts and gave a couple up to wind down his career, whereas Holmes accepted a belt from the gutter and gave us a whole noe alphabet soup organization. No comparison. Everything I have said about Holmes is factually correct.
Holmes was kind a jerk and not very articulate so people didn't like him. Saying Marciano couldn't hold his jock strap cost him a decision in at least one of the Spinks fights. Also, dumping the WBC title and jumping to the IBF wasn't popular (Think about that Tyson). That said, he had great foot movement and one of the best jabs in boxing. In his prime he would beat anybody today.