Why is Larry Holmes thought of so highly?

You often see him referred to as the GOAT at heavyweight? :blood We are a pretty puny minority, you could barely call us fringe..

Not to presume to speak for all who rate Holmes #1, but for me it's far more to do with perceived head to head ability than with resume; although his resume as you said is very good, and more than passing fair for a top ten ranking.

 

Holmes was the only stable and consistent force the heavyweight division had between Ali in 1978 and Tyson in 1987. For eight consecutive calendar years, he successfully defended his championship while alternative paper claimants played hot potato with theirs. (This compares favorably with the WW II interrupted 11 year reign of Louis.)

He was the first undefeated boxer to win 20 consecutive championship fights. Through his first 14 title defenses, losing even a round was a rare event. Witherspoon and Williams provided the only competitive scores among the 20 different challengers he turned back. He defeated five future champions during that run, and nine previously undefeated challengers. He proved mastery over opponents of all shapes and styles during his reign.

In 75 total bouts over a period of nearly 30 years, he sustained only two decisive losses, to a peaking Tyson (when he was 38 years old and coming off an 18 month layoff) and a peaking Holyfield (when he was 42). Within a year after reinventing himself for his second comeback, he upset an undefeated Olympic Gold Medalist over the 12 round distance (a longer distance which HE insisted on when he was offered a shorter ten round limit). At 53 years of age, he won his last bout, not as the result of a staged quick dive, but over the ten round distance (an aerobic feat of endurance which can't be faked before an audience).

Against Earnie Shavers, he got up from possibly the hardest single punch ever delivered in championship competition to continue his briefly interrupted domination of the match. Many believe that Shavers deserved the decision over Ali in 1977. In 1978 and 1979, Holmes won 21 out of 22 completed rounds over Earnie. (Henry Clark and Roy Williams managed to touch gloves with Shavers for the tenth and final round in 1976, by which time Earnie had them both completely and hopelessly swamped on the scorecards. Larry's scoring dominance of Shavers was unique.)

Tex Cobb had previously lost a split decision to Mike Dokes at a time when many believed Dokes to be the world's number two heavyweight. Holmes shut Cobb out over 15 rounds in one of the most one sided heavyweight bouts to ever last the distance. (In his next defeat two years later, Cobb would extend future champion Buster Douglas to a majority decision. During the early 1980s, only Holmes could make Tex look like an easy opponent.)

Larry's most famous wins during his first career came over Norton and Cooney, but his most impressive performances came in the first match with Shavers (when he won 34 out of 36 minutes of action), the first title defense against Evangelista (when he produced the only true single punch knockout of his championship career on an opponent who was only stopped four times in 78 bouts), the second title defense against Ocasio (when he did it almost with the jab alone against a challenger coming off two consecutive decision wins against jab maestro Jimmy Young), Leon Spinks (who earned this title shot with his career best stoppage of Mercado), and Cobb (when he went nonstop for 15 rounds at a time when some questioned whether he still could).

Mercer is clearly the signature win of his second career, and it came over two and a half years before Foreman-Moorer. The most impressive stoppage win of that second career may be Paul Poirier, who Holmes beat with a single body shot that ripped through Poirier's body and separated his rib cartilage, causing a delayed knockdown.


Janitor has argued that he doesn't have three wins to match Max Baer, Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Schmeling, but it can also be argued that three wins over opponents of this caliber were not available to be won during his prime years. It could be countered that Louis and Ali never would have been able to match the success Holmes had in his 40s. Larry's freakish longevity didn't include a decade long layoff like the hiatus Foreman enjoyed.

Pinklon Thomas, Gerrie Coetzee, Greg Page and Mike Dokes were the best heavyweights Holmes failed to meet in the ring during his reign. Each of them won an alternate title, and all of them failed miserably to distinguish themselves once given an opportunity to prove themselves as viable champions. (Only Mike Weaver was able to competently hold a title through more than one defense while Larry was champion.)

 

Excellent post. I just want to add that Holmes would easily defeated Schmeling, Baer, or Walcott. Schmeling beat Louis into the canvas, and Walcott had Louis looking dumb.

Clearly Holmes is better than Louis head-to-head and accomplished more than Louis. Holmes is second only to Ali.

 

Pretty much agreed here.

He was probably underrated in his heyday, but I'd say he gets somewhat overrated today.

I think there's been some revisionism on his reign because of matters that have unfolded since then - namely, that a number of his undistinguished challengers went on to win titles sometime later, and his surprising success during his "second career" comeback.

 

And what record of "easily defeating" HOFers does Holmes have?

There's no basis for either of these claims.

 

Holmes belongs in the top five or six of all time because of his extraordinary ability. He was excellent ring athlete, one of the best ever. Holmes had incredibly fast hands and feet, and superb boxing ability. He also had the size and durability to mix with almost anyone in history. Holmes was a better than average puncher as well.

 

Get some DVD's of him in his prime and you will see why he is ranked so high.
A truly great fighter.

 

You can nit pick any champ, even the greats. Holmes had some pretty sorry excuses for opponents in that run of title defenses. So, I give that number less credence than some. Otherwise, he was immaculately skilled, physically able and had immense heart. What else do you want? He poses a great challenge to any heavy past or present and could be considered a favorite over almost all.

 

Listen, I've no bias in saying what I'm about to say that is pro-Larry. Larry is one of the few dudes I could never stand. Thought he liked to use his thumb, bitter arsehole that could care less about respecting the majority of fighters before him, after him or during his career and pretty much an all-around jackass. That said, I can't personally argue him into any place other than 3 as far as the greatest HWs. That's how highly I think of his accomplishments. The life and death struggle with Norton, the long, long reign, the incredible longevity, the arguably best all-around jab, the underrated right hand, the iron jaw, the ring IQ. He was great. Can't stand him but he was great, both in legacy from his consistency and domination and great when contemplating H2H matches.

 

My wife and I met him at his resturante this summer.
He couldnt have been nicer or humbler. A true gentleman.

 

That's nice that he's nice to the fans. Really. But he has shown such a polar opposite so many times in front of the camera it's no wonder he often doesn't get his due.

 

He really wasn't/isn't any more arrogant and disrespectful or dismissive of other greats than his idol. Who, incidentally, he's never picked himself over prime for prime (to my knowledge). Even though many fans would be so bold as to do so on his behalf..

 

I'd actually struggle to find a 2nd heavyweight (Ali 1) that i would feel comfortable putting my money on vs Holmes. Man, head to head he is just so solid vs various styles and his sheer heart and determination allied to his skillset put him top 5 for me.

To be totally fair to Holmes following such a great and enigmatic champion (Ali) is the reason why he was not rated in his own day, well lets be honest - early in his own day. Mid reign Holmes was accepted and immensely respected by the public, the experts and his peers.

The kicker is that you make fantastic other points. Probably nobody in here has been harder on Holmes for his emphatic avoidance of Page, Witherspoon II and Thomas. You are 100% correct that he didn't fully fight the best and therefore stamp his complete authority on the era.

I can understand why yourself and others don't rate Holmes as high as myself and others. One's own criteria is critical on this one. Not facing a couple of the best of your day (Via steadfast refusal basically) and not giving rematches after tight fights could sure nab him some demerit points. This exact reason is what eventually put Lewis ahead of Holmes on my own list. Serious detractors will say it undermines his entire existence and he failed in his role as champion of the world.

I could not stand Holmes in the day and cheered the likes of Witherspoon and co against him strongly. By the end of his reign however i had come to fully appreciate the man's talents.

At the end of the day Holmes is one of those rare oddities where one can put forth a VERY strong argument both ways. In the end, as said, it boils down to ones own values and what he actually saw in the ring.

I have him #5.

 

Lewis in alot of ways was a modern day Holmes, in the sense that he never was fully appreciated when he was active. 'History will judge me more kindly than my critics', Lewis once said, and the same is true of Larry Holmes. Like Ezzard Charles before him, and like Tunney before him, Holmes had the misfortune of not only following in the foot steps of a legendary champion, but for beating that legendary champion. He was branded a villian for no reason because of it, and criticised more so when he made his famous 'Rocky Marciano couldn't hold my jock strap!' comments (which btw was understandable in retrospect as people kept talking Marciano when Holmes was 48-0 and getting prepared to take on Spinks).

His was an era that was arguably the weakest in HW history, but its clear that despite never unifying the WBC/WBA/IBF titles, Holmes was THE heavyweight king. Sure he never fought Page or Coetzee, but his 20 title defenses alone shows that he was superior than the WBA trinket holders who often lost their titles in their maiden defenses. Holmes had one of the greatest jabs in history (imo his was better than even Ali's), and could rise off the canvas to win. He also, like Foreman, had amazing staying power at the weight, fighting into the 2000's.

Personally, I rank him no higher than #6 but no lower than #10. It's a shame that it wouldnt be until the 1990's that he would finally face top quality HW's, but the amazing part is he held his own and beat the majority of them when he was in his 40's. Norton was his toughest fight, Cooney was his most memorable, but it was Shavers, imo, that showed how tough and determined he was in the ring---performances against Holyfield and McCall and Mercer dont hurt either!

Shame the 1999 Foreman/Holmes bout never took place.

 

But that's the problem with only rating wins over other ATG's as meaningful. Being consistent over many years might be even more difficult than one or two outstanding wins. Fighters like Holmes, Clazaghe or the Klitschkos get underrated too easily because so many people regard any opponent below ATG status as a bum. While Frazier is immortal with his win over Ali, I don't think he could have lasted as champion as long as Holmes did, in any era. Holmes in his prime would have never been blown out of the ring as easily as Frazier was by Foreman. So whose career was really greater? Maybe we can acknowledge that there are different roads to greatness. Frazier and Tyson did it with short, blazing careers, Holmes did with consistency.