Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

I hear you DP loud and clear.

I’ve been in several similar situations to your own.

I hope you know my post was in no way a dig at you. Just interjecting some levity into the discussion.

I had a pair in the General forum tag teaming, making indirect comments re myself.

I think you might be well aware of that particular situation.

Anyway, I duly called them out for their transparent MO of making sideline Johnny comments between themselves.

After being exposed, they quietened down somewhat thereafter but it doesn’t always work - some are very persistent in the methodology of indirectly referencing other posters elsewhere.

 

20 fights against who? That is the point.

35 isn't a death sentence.

 

Alot of solid contenders, future world champions, that would be amongst some of Foreman’s better wins of his career.

Well it depends Holmes was on a busy schedule defending his title 20 titles over 7 years. That would definitely of taken something out of Holmes aswell as being 35 years old.

As I said if it was that easy why does Foreman only have 1 win over top 10 ranked fighter after the age of 27 ? And why did Foreman have such a short reign ?

I mean ok yeah we can excuse that Foreman lost to Ali but still he wasn't able to regain the title or consistently beat ranked fighters and retired after being beaten handily by Jimmy Young at age 28.

 

Holmes future champions like Weaver and Bonecrusher who weren't that good. There is no way to big them up.

Again, none of this has any relevance, because back to the original point, quality should rightfully count for more than quantity. Frazier and a younger version of Norton are better than anyone on Holme's list, and Lyle is better than Shavers...Holmes third best. Holmes mountain range may be broader, but the mountains Foreman climbed were higher.

 

Good luck.

 

Larry Holmes played a mean game of boxing. Legendary Heavyweight champion. Good man.

 

It's a given you're wrong but act is what has become boring.

 

Yes Frazier is the best win for both fighters but both still beat Norton though and Norton was a champion when Holmes beat him. Norton was still in very good form vs Holmes and was coming off many notable performances wins over Young, Quarry, 1st round KO of undefeated Bobick, controversial loss to Ali in their 3rd figjt that many had him winning.

I wouldn't say Shavers was Holmes's 3rd best win I would say it was Witherspoon based on the fact Witherspoon become a 2 time champion and peaked vs Holmes in which he never had a better performance.

Foreman’s wins over Frazier, Norton, whilst impressive were only over a year period then pretty much Foreman fell off quite dramatically after that. Is a year period really enough to trump what Holmes did over 7 years ? I don't think so.

If Foreman had more quality and depth to his record I would agree with you but he doesn't. Holmes has so many more wins over ranked opposition and so many more title defenses I don't think it can be ignored.

 

Hi DP,

I hope you're well mate. I just thought I'd add my own views, largely in support of yours, as I refer to the notes I made to support my top 25 all time HWs:

• Career records - Foreman 76-5; Holmes 69-6
• Prime records/run - Foreman was 45-2 when he first retired; Holmes was 48-0 when he lost to Spinks 2-months shy of his 36th birthday & past prime.
• World title records - Foreman 7-3 including 2 x "reigns" (the 2nd based entirely on the concept of lineage, hence the inverted commas) of 21-months & 3-years respectively; Holmes 21-3 including a single 7-year+ reign.
• Key wins - I should qualify this by saying my criteria for a key win is usually a Ring Magazine ranked opponent, though I sometimes make exceptions, e.g. beating an unranked opponent who would shortly afterwards go on to be ranked or beating a big unranked name, for example me crediting Foreman here for a win over a borderline shot & unranked Cooney and Holmes beating the unranked & shot, but lineal champion Ali, annoyingly I've lost the notes as to where these opponents were ranked at the time of the fights, so some may not have been - Foreman = 7 - Frazier x 2, Norton, Moorer, Lyle, Cooper & Cooney; Holmes = 16 - Norton SD, Witherspoon SD, Shavers x 2, Cooney, Weaver, Mercer, Berbick, Snipes, Smith, Jones, Williams, Spinks, LeDoux, a shot Ali & Cobb.
• Losses that occurred at an age/experience level generally considered to be during a fighters prime years - Foreman = 2 - Ali & Young; Holmes = 0.

These stats clearly heavily favour Holmes. However, if best win, or best 2-wins are your key criteria, then Foreman would rank higher. Frazier is clearly their best combined win & whilst Foreman's 2nd best win is probably Larry's best (Norton), Foreman beat a version generally considered a little better, far more decisively.

It really does come down to criteria. Like you, I prefer Holmes's substantially deeper resume & greater consistency.

Dominating an era scores highly with me too, which obviously benefits Holmes in this comparison. I know some will make the valid observation that Holmes didn't share his with a still brilliant version of most people's pick as the GOAT HW, though, whilst I accept they had different career trajectories relative to their respective ages, when Foreman was the age Holmes began his reign, neither did Foreman.

I understand the argument that Foreman was never the same after the Ali loss & who is to say how Holmes would have faired had he to face, and lost to, that version of Ali, but we're then getting into a discussion about how their respective careers would have panned out under different circumstances. Whilst there's nothing wrong with speculating on that, there's enough subjectivity involved in ranking the storied careers of these two great fighters as it is, so I prefer to limit my analysis of their careers, for ranking purposes, as they actually played out.

In short, I believe my rankings are based on a sensible balance between quality & quantity, and I have Holmes ahead of Foreman comfortably. I can see, however, if someone's rankings were very heavily weighted to the quality of the best couple of wins only, how they'd have Foreman ahead.

 

Yeah I totally agree mate I think quality can trump quantity but it depends on the circumstances.

For example Usyk doesn't have many fights but I have him over the likes of Crawford who has double the fights based on beating much larger opponents and having more quality wins for me.

Foreman doesn't have that type of resume TBH he had a burst of really stand out performances for 1 year against Norton, Frazier, but then after that his record becomes alot more unremarkable to me.

The big thing for me is Foreman having a really short reign and his 2nd reign I have a major asterisk over as he never defended his title against a top 10 ranked opponent, and on fair scorecards he should've lost in his first defense to Axel Schultz because that fight is considered a robbery I had it 8-4 for Schultz for reference.

To put it simply I don't think Foreman has enough quality wins to trump all of Holmes's work.

 

Personally, I agree on all points, even though I can see how others could view it differently.

 

I'm for Holmes here, but I don't think that Norton was his best win, and I believe the claim is a little played out. Kenny was still in pretty good shape here, and it was his last real good performance before his steady decline, but he just doesn't size up against other fighters that Holmes faced after the fact. Witherspoon, Cooney, Weaver, Snipes, Berbick, Smith, I think that all of these guys were likely superior wins on Larry's record, even factoring in that most of these guys were early on into their career, simply because of how good they were H2H.

For example, Holmes beat Weaver (With the flu, might I add) before he went on to beat guys like Tate, Coetzee, Tillis, Dokes (Arguably), and Williams, and after he was coming off of a stoppage win against Mercado- But most say that Norton was the better win due to what, name recognition?

I feel like naming an on the decline version of Ken as Larry's best win gives those who prefer Foreman a free pass to make an argument out of both fighters' encounters with him and how it shows that George was, "Obviously better." (It's obviously a bogus comparison, but giving people ammunition isn't the best idea, even if they're all bum shots)

 

Your point is spot on :

Norton was at the end of his prime when Holmes beat him .
Many of the fighters Holmes defeated were the men that beat the men as in the case of Weaver, Berbick, Bey, Cooney and others.
That said both of Foreman's wins vs Frazier were works of art , especially the first and his destruction of Norton was terrifying ...

 

Yes, there is no doubt that Foreman's decimation of Frazier and Norton are impressive. I don't know that we'll ever see destruction of such high class fighters on the same level.

 

For the record, I was at the local library today and saw a collection of Thomas Hauser’s writings on boxing … flipped through it, didn’t check it out … and one of the offerings was about a personal appearance by Holmes a few years ago. At that appearance, Larry said that he fought for one reason and one reason only: money. And someone asked him if there was an opponent from the past who he’d like have fought, and he said if the money was the same, he’d take the easiest opponent he could face.

Again, Holmes was a professional, for better or worse.