Assessing Larry Holmes's all time heavyweight standing

Unique Way · Sep 6, 2023

#3, behind Ali and Louis

dmt · Sep 6, 2023

One thing i haven't seen too many people discuss in this thread: how much, it at all, do you take into account of what a fighters best weapons were? I personally think it influences my ratings quite a bit. Holmes did not have any major weapons. Even his biggest weapon (his jab) isn't comparable to other heavies biggest weapons (Ali's speed, Louis and Tyson's combinations, Foreman, Liston's and Lewis's power etc.)

He ranks higher than a lot of these guys due to his consistency and other holes in their resumes but surely this must factor into people's rankings somewhat. Its one of the reasons why i don't rank Hopkins as high as Hagler or Monzon or SRR at 160- IMO he truly lacked big weapons despite his consistency.

BCS8 · Sep 6, 2023

dmt said: ↑

One thing i haven't seen too many people discuss in this thread: how much, it at all, do you take into account of what a fighters best weapons were? I personally think it influences my ratings quite a bit. Holmes did not have any major weapons. Even his biggest weapon (his jab) isn't comparable to other heavies biggest weapons (Ali's speed, Louis and Tyson's combinations, Foreman, Liston's and Lewis's power etc.)

He ranks higher than a lot of these guys due to his consistency and other holes in their resumes but surely this must factor into people's rankings somewhat. Its one of the reasons why i don't rank Hopkins as high as Hagler or Monzon or SRR at 160- IMO he truly lacked big weapons despite his consistency.
Click to expand...

That's a fair post. I think Holmes was a very organized fighter and his jab certainly helped his other attributes shine brighter. I think that he did virtually everything above-average and when you add that stinging jab to the equation it makes everything so much better. Holmes is a boxer's boxer - a guy that exemplifies the idea that technical excellence means that you don't need Ali's speed, Lewis' power etc.

KINGWILDER · Sep 6, 2023

rinsj said: ↑

Not sure about Lennox being a better fighter than Larry. After all, Lennox got stopped by McCall while Holmes went the distance with him, arguably beating him. Holmes also gave Mercer a boxing lesson, whereas Lennox went life-and-death barely eeking out a decision. And in both cases, Holmes was in his 40s. Whereas Lennox was in his early to mid-30s.
Click to expand...

Lewis has a better resume and did not lose to a light heavyweight (in Leon Spinks). He also beat Holyfield (should have been twice). Triangle theories never really work out and ultimately styles make fights. I think Lennox would be too big for Holmes and too disciplined. I get where you are coming from, Holmes was a tremendous fighter and I am not means certain in a hypothetical fight Lewis would win.

Seamus · Sep 6, 2023

I got him #4 behind Ali, Louis, Lewis.

Levook · Sep 7, 2023

I'm terrible at lists, change my mind too often lol.

I'm thinking Holmes & Marciano tied at 3rd.

OddR · Feb 20, 2025

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
Wladimir Kiltschko

That is usually my top 5. So 3rd for Holmes.

Noel857 · Feb 20, 2025

OddR said: ↑

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
Wladimir Kiltschko

That is usually my top 5. So 3rd for Holmes.
Click to expand...

Your top four i am in complete agreement but i dont have Wlad in my top 10

OddR · Feb 20, 2025

Noel857 said: ↑

Your top four i am in complete agreement but i dont have Wlad in my top 10
Click to expand...

Most people don't have him top 10 to be fair. I just happen to disagree that's all.

Overhand94 · Feb 20, 2025

Holmes was definitely in the top 5, great and smart fighter.

PolishAssasin · Feb 20, 2025

dmt said: ↑

Where do you rank Larry on your all time heavyweight list?

What is the lowest he can be ranked on a reasonable list? Highest?

I have Larry at #3 on my atg heavyweight list.

The lowest he can be ranked on a reasonable list is #7 IMO. Any lower than that and i find it hard to take the list seriously.

For me, ranking Larry at #3 is more about the defecencies in other heavyweights than Holmes's greatness itself.

Now don't get me wrong, Larry was a great and well rounded fighter. But compared to most other ATG's, he did not have the x factor. Ali was the fastest heavyweight (considerably faster than Holmes) and was a more creative fighter in terms of movement and combination punching.

Louis was the greatest and most lethal combination puncher ever. Foreman was the heaviest two handed hitter with immense strength and ability to dominate virtually anyone with his physical attributes alone. Liston was a slightly less powerful (but still extremely powerful) version of Foreman with greater skill.

Lewis had tremendous size and a dynanamite right hand. Tyson had an unparallelled combination of handspeed, footspeed and ko power in both hands.

Frazier was the best body puncher with the lethal left hook. Marciano had a perfect dynamite right cross and great power in his left too.

Compared to all these greats, Larry's biggest weapon (his jab) just isn't as leathal. No way Larry's jab is as big of a weapon as Ali's speed and creativity, Louis's dynamite lightning quick two handed combo's, Lewis's monstorous right hand and size, Tyson's speed and two handed power, Marciano's power and endurance, Frazier's hook and endurance, or the sheer brutality that Liston and Foreman had in their hands.

Larry was quick without being exceptionally quick. He had solid power without being extraordinary. He was skilled but not Mayweather like in that he was very hittable even in his prime. His jab was tremendous but his combos were predictable. His level of competition wasn't as good as Lewis's or Foreman's let alone Ali's.

So why does he rank so high on my listt? Because he did everything well without being exceptional. He had longevity unlike Tyson. He was never ko'd by one punch twice like Lewis. He had a long title reign unlike Liston or Foreman. He beat some big 200 pound plus punchers unlike Marciano. He did not have a near prime one sided loss like Frazier.

Put it simply, Larry has fewer weak spots in his resume than the others. Had Liston captured the title a few years earlier and defended it 6-10 times, no way would i rank him below Holmes given how much more lethal and dangerous Liston was. Had Foreman made 10 title defenses instead of retiring in 77, no way could i rank Holmes ahead of him given Foreman's biggest weapon (power) made him a far bigger ATG threat than Larry and his biggest wins were better than Larrys biggest wins.

Had Lewis not been ko'd twice by one punch, i could not rank Holmes ahead of him. Lewis beat better compeitition, and again, his biggest weapons were far superior to Larry's.

Holmes to me is history's greatest overachiever. A reasonably talented fighter who always showed up, did his job consistently, and did not have any glaring weaknesses. Compared to most other greats, he did not have weapons that they did but his consistency made up for it.
Click to expand...

Holmes is top 3 in my list. The lowest he can be is 10

jabber74 · Feb 20, 2025

dmt said: ↑

Where do you rank Larry on your all time heavyweight list?

What is the lowest he can be ranked on a reasonable list? Highest?

I have Larry at #3 on my atg heavyweight list.

The lowest he can be ranked on a reasonable list is #7 IMO. Any lower than that and i find it hard to take the list seriously.

For me, ranking Larry at #3 is more about the defecencies in other heavyweights than Holmes's greatness itself.

Now don't get me wrong, Larry was a great and well rounded fighter. But compared to most other ATG's, he did not have the x factor. Ali was the fastest heavyweight (considerably faster than Holmes) and was a more creative fighter in terms of movement and combination punching.

Louis was the greatest and most lethal combination puncher ever. Foreman was the heaviest two handed hitter with immense strength and ability to dominate virtually anyone with his physical attributes alone. Liston was a slightly less powerful (but still extremely powerful) version of Foreman with greater skill.

Lewis had tremendous size and a dynanamite right hand. Tyson had an unparallelled combination of handspeed, footspeed and ko power in both hands.

Frazier was the best body puncher with the lethal left hook. Marciano had a perfect dynamite right cross and great power in his left too.

Compared to all these greats, Larry's biggest weapon (his jab) just isn't as leathal. No way Larry's jab is as big of a weapon as Ali's speed and creativity, Louis's dynamite lightning quick two handed combo's, Lewis's monstorous right hand and size, Tyson's speed and two handed power, Marciano's power and endurance, Frazier's hook and endurance, or the sheer brutality that Liston and Foreman had in their hands.

Larry was quick without being exceptionally quick. He had solid power without being extraordinary. He was skilled but not Mayweather like in that he was very hittable even in his prime. His jab was tremendous but his combos were predictable. His level of competition wasn't as good as Lewis's or Foreman's let alone Ali's.

So why does he rank so high on my listt? Because he did everything well without being exceptional. He had longevity unlike Tyson. He was never ko'd by one punch twice like Lewis. He had a long title reign unlike Liston or Foreman. He beat some big 200 pound plus punchers unlike Marciano. He did not have a near prime one sided loss like Frazier.

Put it simply, Larry has fewer weak spots in his resume than the others. Had Liston captured the title a few years earlier and defended it 6-10 times, no way would i rank him below Holmes given how much more lethal and dangerous Liston was. Had Foreman made 10 title defenses instead of retiring in 77, no way could i rank Holmes ahead of him given Foreman's biggest weapon (power) made him a far bigger ATG threat than Larry and his biggest wins were better than Larrys biggest wins.

Had Lewis not been ko'd twice by one punch, i could not rank Holmes ahead of him. Lewis beat better compeitition, and again, his biggest weapons were far superior to Larry's.

Holmes to me is history's greatest overachiever. A reasonably talented fighter who always showed up, did his job consistently, and did not have any glaring weaknesses. Compared to most other greats, he did not have weapons that they did but his consistency made up for it.
Click to expand...

A lot of good thoughts. I rank him the same spot you have him in. If he was missing anything at all, it's that he didn't have a big punch. I think he had a decent punch, but not great. He could hurt you and stopped guys, but he depended mostly on his jab to win fights. I think he was special and had that something extra though, which was his recovery ability and heart. When he went down, he got up, recovered well, and came back to win. That's the mark of a real champion. Most guys that would have gotten hit with Shaver's and Snipes' right hands would have been out. Had they landed those shots on say, Lennox Lewis, they would have won the heavyweight title.

WBARuinedBoxing · Feb 20, 2025

dmt said: ↑

Where do you rank Larry on your all time heavyweight list?

What is the lowest he can be ranked on a reasonable list? Highest?

I have Larry at #3 on my atg heavyweight list.

The lowest he can be ranked on a reasonable list is #7 IMO. Any lower than that and i find it hard to take the list seriously.

For me, ranking Larry at #3 is more about the defecencies in other heavyweights than Holmes's greatness itself.

Now don't get me wrong, Larry was a great and well rounded fighter. But compared to most other ATG's, he did not have the x factor. Ali was the fastest heavyweight (considerably faster than Holmes) and was a more creative fighter in terms of movement and combination punching.

Louis was the greatest and most lethal combination puncher ever. Foreman was the heaviest two handed hitter with immense strength and ability to dominate virtually anyone with his physical attributes alone. Liston was a slightly less powerful (but still extremely powerful) version of Foreman with greater skill.

Lewis had tremendous size and a dynanamite right hand. Tyson had an unparallelled combination of handspeed, footspeed and ko power in both hands.

Frazier was the best body puncher with the lethal left hook. Marciano had a perfect dynamite right cross and great power in his left too.

Compared to all these greats, Larry's biggest weapon (his jab) just isn't as leathal. No way Larry's jab is as big of a weapon as Ali's speed and creativity, Louis's dynamite lightning quick two handed combo's, Lewis's monstorous right hand and size, Tyson's speed and two handed power, Marciano's power and endurance, Frazier's hook and endurance, or the sheer brutality that Liston and Foreman had in their hands.

Larry was quick without being exceptionally quick. He had solid power without being extraordinary. He was skilled but not Mayweather like in that he was very hittable even in his prime. His jab was tremendous but his combos were predictable. His level of competition wasn't as good as Lewis's or Foreman's let alone Ali's.

So why does he rank so high on my listt? Because he did everything well without being exceptional. He had longevity unlike Tyson. He was never ko'd by one punch twice like Lewis. He had a long title reign unlike Liston or Foreman. He beat some big 200 pound plus punchers unlike Marciano. He did not have a near prime one sided loss like Frazier.

Put it simply, Larry has fewer weak spots in his resume than the others. Had Liston captured the title a few years earlier and defended it 6-10 times, no way would i rank him below Holmes given how much more lethal and dangerous Liston was. Had Foreman made 10 title defenses instead of retiring in 77, no way could i rank Holmes ahead of him given Foreman's biggest weapon (power) made him a far bigger ATG threat than Larry and his biggest wins were better than Larrys biggest wins.

Had Lewis not been ko'd twice by one punch, i could not rank Holmes ahead of him. Lewis beat better compeitition, and again, his biggest weapons were far superior to Larry's.

Holmes to me is history's greatest overachiever. A reasonably talented fighter who always showed up, did his job consistently, and did not have any glaring weaknesses. Compared to most other greats, he did not have weapons that they did but his consistency made up for it.
Click to expand...

I've got him at 7, once it was 5... However, his avoidance of certain opponents, lack of stylistic originality/pioneering, and the advanced age/careers of numerous tops made me change my views. That said, the longevity of his career speaks volumes. Honestly, I can see anywhere from 5-10 being reasonable, but thats just me. If you put him at #1 I might laugh, but I'd still take your explaining of why so high seriously

As far as guys with less weak spots, I put Foreman, Dempsey, and (under old rulesets) Johnson, Jeffries and Fitzimmons as being more ironclad, besides the immortals in Louis and Ali. Id say Liston is on par with Holmes here,

Log in or Sign up

Assessing Larry Holmes's all time heavyweight standing

Unique Way Active Member Full Member

dmt Hardest hitting hw ever Full Member

BCS8 VIP Member

KINGWILDER Well-Known Member Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Levook Well-Known Member Full Member

OddR Boxing Addict Full Member

Noel857 I Am Duran

OddR Boxing Addict Full Member

Overhand94 Active Member Full Member

PolishAssasin Member Full Member

jabber74 Active Member Full Member

WBARuinedBoxing New Member Full Member