Why is Larry Holmes thought of so highly?

Cheers mate.

Actually i have him #4. I have Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes then Marciano. The price Holmes pays for my criticisms (opponents) is Lewis easing above him. I rate on resume and ability pretty much. Ali's incredible quality of wins gets him #1, Louis' longevity and dominance helps him big and Lewis' overall completeness counts for me. He beat some decent guys, was around for ages, is great H2H and beat everyone he faced, which gets me past the two shock losses. Marciano was quite simply never beaten, it's got to count for something.

 

Lewis got lazy at times, but so did Holmes. Watch him vs Weaver. Mike was landing shots and Holmes did not really seem to care or interested in changing strategy... he was reckless, but got away with it because of his enormous talent, as did Lewis at times..

 

Exactly, Holmes was just as likely to be lackadaisical. Quite a few times he commented he hadn't taken his opponent seriously and was not in the best shape. Weaver and Witherspoon had him off his game. He made technical errors vs Shavers and Snipes. He could sometimes hang his jab. Lewis got caught out twice, once thru pathetic preparation and once thru a technical flaw, not unlike Louis - Schmeling.

When fighting the most dangerous oppoents (Morrison, Tua, Rudduck etc etc) Lewis was very much firing.

 

Does Lewis even get up from the single shots Snipes and Shavers dropped Holmes with? (Or even the first two knockdowns Tyson used to floor Larry?) Do the individual punches McCall and Rachman used to upset Lennox even allow them to carry the remainder of the knockdown round against Holmes, assuming those haymakers even put Larry on the deck? (Check out the footage of the complete round Snipes dropped Holmes in. Does Renaldo deserve to win that round by two points? I scored it as a 10-9 round, knowing that the judges would reflexively have it 10-8 in all probability, but Larry outscored him decisively over the last 2:30, and I felt the discretion allowed by the ten point system had to count for something.)

Lewis did not get caught cold in the opening round in either loss, but had a chance to warm up first. I could dismiss getting caught cold out of the gate once, having an attention lapse in the course of a longer match, or the results of fatigue or sustained punishment creating a fatal opening, but Lennox lost twice in the worst way to lose. Coming off his UD loss to Holyfield, Mercer shouldn't have been good enough to push Lewis to the edge as he did. Finally, the trouble he had with Holyfield in two consecutive bouts raise real questions about whether or not he would have beaten Evander in a peak for peak matchup, as he certainly should have taken Holyfield out when they did meet.

For me, Lennox falls short in some very direct comparisons to Holmes. While in his 40s Larry was far better against Mercer than Lewis would later be, and he was infinitely better against McCall than Lennox was in McCall's very previous fight! (Some have argued that Holmes actually deserved the verdict over McCall.) If Larry could be so much better in his one match with both Mercer and McCall during his 40s than Lennox was in his first meetings with each during the prime of Lewis, what does that say about how the 1978-1982 version of Larry might have done against Mercer or McCall?

Jersey Joe concluded post #98 by stating that Holmes is in his top 3 with a big gap between number 3 and number 4, and to me that's a reasonable conclusion. (Holmes and Ali are permanently locked into my top three until or unless the championship distance is restored anyway.)

I understand the reasons for JohnThomas ranking Lewis one place higher than Holmes, and I've previously stated my case for Larry. I suppose it really is a matter of preferences. For me, a single punch should not be producing multiple upsets of this magnitude against an ATG heavyweight.

On the other hand, I will say this. Big John Tate lost on a single punch to both Stevenson and Weaver, and it ruined his career. Lennox managed to recover, so I have to give him credit for that, but would he have even been granted the opportunity to come back in Tate's day?

 

:good:good:good My all-time favourite heavyweight!! A true legend who was an absolute master. Would I have him at number one? No, simply because the "60's" Ali (Who we probably never did see perform at his "Peak") truly was (In my humble opinion) "The Greatest". Ali apart, who beats this superb champion? He would have been competitive against anyone. An ATG of extremely high rank!!

 

:good A GREAT POINT!!! It was only when Larry retired that he began to earn the respect he so richly deserved!! All through his career it bugged him and at times made him very bitter. I remember his comments following his first "LOSS" to Spinks, which were bourne out of sheer frustration!! The guy got crucified and he rightly felt under appreciated. And I must admit it was only when he retired that I wished he had of broken Marciano's record!! I also remember his comments regarding Tyson prior to their fight, how prophetic they were!!

 

I'm not sure if i should debate this with you, considering you're extremely high on Holmes, but here we go:

Who knows if he does or if he doesn't? We DO know that he took plenty of shots from harder punchers, and without problem.

The argument can easily be reversed: does Holmes get up from Morrison's right hand, or from Tua's hook? Does he survive a peak Vitali Klitschko at 37? Etc, etc.

I'm not sure if Lewis gets up from that shot from Shavers, but then again, if the referee of Lewis-McCall was at either Holmes vs Snipes or Holmes vs Shavers II, then the history books would read Shavers TKO7 Holmes or Snipes TKO7 Holmes. Because he was in every bit as bad a condition as Lewis was against McCall.

This is all selective pickings of bad moments.

Again, i can do exactly the same with Holmes in saying that Weaver, who was a 19-8 journeyman going in, pushed him to the limit, as did Witherspoon (who made a fight closer than Mercer did), and that Holmes never beat anyone as good as Holyfield - even the version that Lewis beat. Norton? He was aging and matched up perfectly with Holmes, but got KO'd in a single round by the mediocre Shavers, then drew with LeDoux (!!!! watch him fight Greg Page to see how a top contender handles that calibre opponent), barely gets by Cobb and then again gets annihilated in 1 round by Cooney. Cooney, although he is a very good hitter, never beat a live contender in his entire career and therefore i couldn't put him over Holyfield, either. Witherspoon? His performances after the Holmes bout were not impressive... not to mention that Holmes hardly established being superior and avoided a rematch. Lewis easily dominated Holyfield the first time and gave a rematch, in which he fought Holyfield's fight and still won.


How about i say: the best boxers that Larry faced were Norton, Witherspoon and Weaver. Holmes was at his peak against every one of them. Yet Witherspoon basically drew with him, Weaver had him in loads of trouble and Norton pushed him to and nearly over the edge. What if he faces someone of Lewis' calibre?

Again, i don't believe in the reasoning of the last paragraph, but i'm showing you how your selective criteria lead to possible false conclusions.

Again, this is all due to styles.

Shavers easily dispatched the same Norton that gave Holmes a close fight (where there are also people, myself not included, who think Norton deserved the verdict). Scott freaking Ledoux drew (which is close to what Holmes did) with Norton.


If you make a list of who Lewis has beaten, and who Holmes has beaten, then Lewis easily wins the comparison. Of course, Holmes doesn't have two losses, so that kind of evens things out.... but still.

How about the comparison in who they chose to fight? Why did Holmes not fight any of the following contenders when they were established: Page, Dokes, Thomas, Coetzee? Why did he not give well deserved rematches to Norton, Witherspoon and Williams? Hell, let's not forget that two of Holmes' best opponents, Weaver and Witherspoon, were considered easy pickings, one of them in fact a journeyman, before the fight.


You think Lewis' KO losses bring him down far. And they do. But i think it's a great sign of a champion when you prove your superiority to the best out there. Holmes was lacklustre in this area and that is a fact. Lewis did not avoid others, but was avoided himself, by Bowe in Tyson, both of whom dropped their titles, just like Holmes did when he had to fight Page, but wanted Scott Frank instead.

The part i've made bold is the bottomline, for me. Holmes and Lewis are fantastic boxers who have accomplished a lot, and i think either man is a good fit for the #3 spot and both should be in the top7 at least, and are in my top5.

I do think there's a significant gap between Ali and Joe Louis, and the rest (including Holmes), though.

How about i reverse this argument, and say that Lewis would've been allowed to continue against McCall* had he fought in Holmes' time.



*If King isn't in on it

 

No problem Chris. I phrased many of my comments in the form of questions rather than assertions so that others can consider and form their own conclusions. Our positions are well established, so it's really for the benefit of the undecided and objective viewers (which I'm most definitely not on this particular subject) to intelligently and perceptively read between the lines of our discussion.

While I can respond to particular comments of yours by pointing out such things as Norton's lost to Shavers costing Ken his shot at a rematch with Holmes, or that Larry's next match after Williams with Mike Spinks made a title rematch with Carl a moot point, I'm confident that most of those who read our posts on the matter can identify and resolve any such gaps, discrepancies and omissions we might be guilty of on their own.

 

Fair enough. :good

 

Just going to work, i'll be back to answer Duo's post tonight at great length.

 

I agree, but to be fair to frazier it must be pointed out that holmes was more suited for longevity than frazier was. Holmes was much taller with much longer arms and his style was to hit and move. His was a style that caused him less physical damage than Frazier and enabled him to extend his career. Frazier on the other hand was short with very limted reach and was forced to take punches to get inside. This is a factor that definitely shortened his prime

 

Do Snipes and Shavers even get the chance to land such a shot? Lewis would have Shavers out of there in no time and Snipes would have been a stroll in the park for a focused Lewis. Lewis should have been allowed to continue vs McCall, he was no worse than Holmes vs Snipes. Under the same regime Snipes would have been champ. Lots of speculation here. Does Holmes take every career shot Lewis did?

Lewis' two losses are well documented and there are sound reasons. His preparation for Rahman has been well defined and vs McCall, hey he had a serious weakness as did Joe Louis at one time. Both shored these defensive deficiencies up and came back greater fighters.

As for Lewis losing by stoppage being such a big deal, i take it you don't rate the likes of Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore? Not to mention a dozen or so other worthy legends.

Pure nitpicking to suit an agenda. Holmes should not have been dropped by a larrikan like Snipes either, nor went life and death with Weaver. To name a few. **** happens, no one is dynamite every time out. They all have their struggles, sometimes surprisingly.

Nobody should "certainly" take Holyfield out. Personally i didn't see Lewis have much trouble in the rip off first fight and most of his drama the second fight was thru changing tactics in an effort to cover another rip off happening. It worked into Holyfield's hands.

So what and so what tho for me. Lewis was poleaxing other opponents that would have given Holmes fits.

In the grand scheme of things these results and percieved results have little to do with anything. Holmes was still dog tough and effective when old. He also lost his title to a light heavyweight. Can you even begin to imagine what Lewis would have done to poor Spinks, even when old?

For many, dodging and avoiding (and openly stating such) any and all tough fights for the last 3 1/2 years of ones reign isn't part of being a great champion either. This is why a guy like Janitor (and many others) barely rates Holmes at all. Many (fans) give him a pass now because this one lost to that one etc but it was simply not the case at the time.

Man there's some curly one's in this lot.

You say these punches ruined Tates career, but didn't he win a world title in the pro's after being ko'd by Stevenson? Scratch that one.

As for the Weaver ko ending his "opportunity", all he had to do was beat Berbick next fight and he stayed well in the picture. But no, he got pole axed again.

Lewis if you noticed came back strongly and would have in Holmes era as well. Don't forget Holmes was poleaxed by Wells in the amatuers and also lost in the most embarrassing of fashion to Bobick. He still got his opportunity.

 

One only has to look at Lewis' overall career. It's fantastic. Just two losses in 44 fights and 14 years, 32 ko's, beat the eventual heir apparent in his last fight ever to go out on top of the world and he beat a much much better array of opposition than Holmes ever did.

And just to show how easy it is to appease a set agenda.......

Lewis after 14 years went out as the best heavyweight on the planet. At the same stage Holmes had just had two losses to Michael Spinks and was all finished champion wise.

I believe either could pip the other ATG rating wise (and i struggled to separate them for years), but IMO noway is one WAY ahead of the other.

 

I'd rate Holmes number 3 all-time behind Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali.

Not only was Holmes an all-round effective boxer, savvy, tough and skilful. He was also very active as champion, a true fighting champion, and was certainly the number 1 fighter in the world without much doubt at all for at least 5 years straight.

For me, Lennox Lewis isn't even in the running. A mere 2 years after beating Holyfield he was being dethroned by Rahman. That just doesn't compare.

 

How can you call Holmes a "true" champion when he was avoiding high ranked contenders left right and center?

p.s. Nicely written posts, JT.