Why is Larry Holmes thought of so highly?

Foreman was a lot stronger than Ali.

Ali was more skilled, so any purists with their bias for pretty fighters will go with Ali here.

But strength is a massive asset in the sport, as George showed against Ali at times.




You people put way too much empathis on a one-off fight in a really hot climate, where one fighter messed up his strategy big time and claimed he was drugged.

Sure Ali had a good style to beat Foreman, but it wouldn't be enough for the very best Ali to beat the very best Foreman. the disparity in talent is just too great.

 

Top 5 with out question?? There is a lot of arguement as it stands in my view to put him top 5 imo. Top ten, yes. I have him top 7. But I dont think he can warrent a top 5 ranking with the slew of contenders he miss in his hayday. Never mind unify the title.

 

Chinahand.

Come on man. Ali is greater and better than Foreman. A 32 year old Ali beat a 25 year old Foreman. He beat Foreman in his mind, soul and body and KO'd him in 8. Foreman never showed the skills that Ali had. Plus you say FOREMAN WAS STRONGER THAN ALI. So, Ali beat Foreman, Foreman being stronger does not make him better than Ali all round what so ever. Ali was never KO'd, Ali had 25 title fights, Ali fought more punchers, Ali fought more ranked contenders. Ali past prime beat George, it is written in history, it happened, people saw it. For you to rank him over Ali has no credence. Foreman's best wins in his prime are against guys Ali had beaten (however more destructive they were).

 

He could do both. Not saying it would happen, but Holmes has always been open to the right hand and slugging it out when not in his best interest... but at the same time, Holmes' jab and speed could trouble Lewis just the same. They both bring a LOT to the table.

 

Lennox was a terrific fighter and would have been dangerous for anyone but INfeel Holmes beats him.

 

I don't see Lewis outjabbing him.I can see him landing his big right though. :think

 

Even if he did, no single right was ever going to take a peaking Holmes out, or else Shavers would have done it. Stopping Larry with a follow up attack was another matter, and even a peaking Tyson had difficulty doing this to an aged, rusty and misfiring Holmes.

Renaldo Snipes knocked a completely unprepared Holmes silly with a bomb Snipes had never before shown he was capable of producing. (His previously televised wins against Cummings, Mustafa Muhammad and Coetzee made him look like Maxie Rosenbloom.) But Snipes had a full two and a half minutes left in round seven to try finishing Larry off. Not only did he fail to do that, but Holmes actually won the remainder of the round, so much so that a real case can be made for Snipes only winning that round by a single point. A hurt Holmes was a blocking, clinching, moving, slipping, ducking, fighting target, a real pain in the ass to try following up an advantage on.

 

He had 20 successful title defences, second only to Joe Louis, and 1 ahead of Ali's run.

He had great skills and physical abilities - arguably the best ever jab in the division, an iron chin (only KOd once, at age 38, by Tyson), good stamina, respectable power, very good technical skills, decent hand speed, sound defense, and excellent ring generalship. He also had great heart and handled adversity very well in the ring. His footwork was amongst the best of the heavyweights, he clearly learned a lot from sparring with Ali. Perhaps his best quality was his all-round game, he was very hard to beat because he had no real obvious boxing weaknesses - probably the most sound technique of any heavyweight boxer. His only real flaw was arrogance, he arguably underrated a few opponents.

He dominated all the journeymen he faced, and outboxed all the live contenders until the Spinks fights - basically two close decision losses versus a younger ATG light-heavy, when Holmes was getting a bit old and slowing down. The few times he was hurt and got in trouble in the ring, he came back and won.

I would rate Holmes as probably the most complete boxer in the history of the heavyweights. He lacked the crushing power combinations of Louis, or the insane speed of Ali, but he just did everything else very well and had no real flaws. In his prime he was possibly the hardest boxer to beat out of all the ATG heavies - whereas Louis could be a bit chinny or flat-footed, and Ali could sometimes coast too much or have his technical flaws shown up vs certain fighters, there's no real gameplan that would obviously trouble Holmes. Marciano went 49-0 with only half a dozen title fights against older men, Holmes was 48-0 with almost half his career in championship bouts against contenders in their prime, often younger than him. IMO it is hard to think of any fighter who would be a clear favourite in a prime vs prime matchup vs Holmes.

Some of his notable scalps were Norton, Cooney, Ali (albeit faded), Shavers, Witherspoon, Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith, and a post-comeback victory over Ray Mercer when Holmes was 42 years old. I have Holmes at 3 in my top 10 ATG heavyweights list, just below Ali and Louis. I think there is a big gap from number 3 to number 4.

 

I agree. One key difference is that Lewis was sometimes lazy, had technical flaws, and got shown up by adversity a few times. Holmes was always in good shape (until his first retirement anyway), had no serious technical flaws, and always pulled through in adversity.

If you talk about the intangibles and championship qualities, the things that often make the differences when two ATGs meet, Holmes had them in spades and Lewis didn't have them quite so much and could be complacent. On an off-night, you always felt Lewis could be taken. Holmes didn't really have off nights, and you knew any fighter that was going to beat him would have to fight the fight of their life.

Imagine Holmes and Lewis, maybe close on the scorecards going into the 10th round. Who is more likely to up their game? If one or both get hurt, who is going to pull through when the chips are down and it's all on the line? IMO Holmes is the sounder bet to come through in those touch & go situations.

 

Regarding the "close decisions", this applies to all fighters. Joe Louis arguably lost the first Godoy fight, and even admitted himself that he lost the first Walcott fight. Ali got some disputable decisions over Norton and Young. Holmes has no more benefited from 'close decisions' than Ali or Louis.

 

More like sensible people with a regard for reality will go with Ali here.

Yes, walking into right hands all night long and getting KO'd is an impressive display of strength.

More like they put the exactly appropriate emphasis on a fight where a prime fighter was embarrassingly KO'd by a clearly past-prime fighter.

Not at that time he didn't. His legs had slowed down by that stage of his career, and he was forced to stand flatfooted right in front of Foreman, which is Foreman's game. That he beat Foreman on Foreman's terms is a testament to how much superior he is to him H2H.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. :good

 

People say this as thought it's common for ATGs to meet each other prime for prime. But that rarely happens, the only time it was common was in the Ali era. Louis never fought an ATG in their prime, neither did Marciano, Lewis, Tyson etc. It's only the Ali 1960s-early 70s era where that was common - the other 90 years in the 20th century, there was one dominant ATG and no one really competitive with them until they got old and lost to the next top dog.

So IMO it is not a black mark on someone at all that they did not face another ATG. Beating out all the competition for 10, 15, 20 consecutive title defences is just as good as going 2-1 several times against 3 or 4 great fighters. And obviously champions don't get to choose the quality of their opponent. All they can do is beat everyone put in front of them, and for 48 fights and 21 championship fights Larry Holmes did that.

 

Interesting post! Who do you have above him, apart from Louis and Ali? And do those 2 unnamed fighters get above Holmes based on head 2 heard, resume, or what other criteria?