Why is Larry Holmes thought of so highly?

I called him a "true fighting champion", ie. an active champion, putting his title on the line regularly.

 

Theres an excellent interview with Holmes on Boxingt**k.net today if anyone cares to read it. Insightful and excuse ridden, but an interesting read nonetheless.

 

Few charged out the gate at Shavers this way (Ellis paid for it). Earnie didn't get stopped by single shots. While Lewis might've had the ability to quickly swamp him, his temperament would tend him to proceed cautiously here, using his height and reach defensively. Nobody knew Snipes could hit like that. I doubt Lewis would have any respect for his power. Snipes, was awkward, extremely well conditioned, and defensively active, continually moving his head and swiping away punches with his hands. Only Holmes was able to stop a prime Snipes. (Stopped too early, but it didn't look like Snipes would've finished round 11 on his feet.) An underrated stoppage for Holmes. Snipes was a pesky target to try finishing off.)

Except for the knockdown, Snipes actually was a stroll in the park for Holmes. Nobody expected Snipes to be any kind of threat, so I can't buy the idea that Lewis would have possessed any more focus for him than he did McCall or Rachman. Could Lewis recover from the same sort of completely unexpected surprise?

I agree that Lewis should have been allowed to continue against McCall, but Larry was walking off the effects of the Shavers and Snipes knockdowns immediately after getting up and regaining his equilibrium while the eight count continued. Lewis was swaying about and unsteady. While I agree he should have been allowed to continue, he was clearly in greater distress for a more prolonged interval, and was leaning into the referee when he belatedly held his gloves up.

There might actually be some referees today who would balk at the way Holmes fell face first into the corner before regaining solid footing, but again, Larry was walking across the ring right after that, not wobbling to and fro. Compare the post knockdown footage of these three bouts.

This brings up your earlier question, "Do Snipes and Shavers even get a chance to land such a shot (on Lewis)?" While I think Shavers would have a chance to try, Earnie was no sharpshooter, so the percentages would never be in his free swinging favor. I absolutely believe that a previously undefeated Snipes, boxing defensively and showing nothing in the way of power punching, could have suddenly turned over a deadly right behind two flicking jabs.

In the case of Schmeling-Louis I, I'll simply reiterate that Max needed around 70 big rights to finally do a poorly prepared Joe ("I thought I was hot ****") in. (One of these days, I might do an actual count of how many rights Schmeling landed after that first knockdown. I'm no critic of Joe's chin. Louis could take a shot.)

But here, we're talking about a prime Lewis defending a world championship before an international audience, not a pre title developmental neophyte or washed up post championship has been. (And Ezzard Charles did, in fact, get tremendous criticism for losing the heavyweight title on a single punch.) That Lennox was stopped for the title twice doesn't concern me, as this happened to Patterson as well. That it was due to one punch both times is something more troubling to me.

Nobody should ever be dropped by a larrikin like Snipes, but Holmes recovered from these surprises better than most would have. I had Larry winning all rounds except the seventh, which I only gave to Snipes 10-9. Weaver's challenge of Holmes was spirited in comparison to what he'd shown in his career up till then, but after just 11 rounds Larry had clinched a win on one scorecard, and a draw on a second scorecard. Weaver needed to sweep the final four rounds and had to have at least one of those be a two point knockdown round to have a chance at winning. It was Larry's weakest performance as champion until Witherspoon four years later, and it wasn't that close.

This is with reference to former cruiserweight Evander's availability to be hit, combined with the supposed Shavers like power in Lennox's right. Certainly, Lewis was a big man who could hit, but he's not wiping out a peak Holmes with a single shot in a head to head matchup, and with both appropriately focused, a knockdown is unlikely to happen. This one goes the distance.

In 20 title defenses against 20 different challengers (an all time record) only Witherspoon and Williams came genuinely close to dethroning him, and neither is remembered as the highway robbery Lewis-Holyfield I was. Holmes did have some tougher than previously expected matches, but like Lewis, only two clear cut defeats over his entire career.

Tyson was peaking, and a noteworthy fast starter when he blew the notoriously slow starting Spinks out. But Michael was previously expected by everybody to get broken in half by the huge body hooking Cooney. I don't think Lewis crushes a peaking Michael quickly any more than Cooney did. Of course I wouldn't expect Spinks to prevail, but he'd have a chance to warm up and reduce Lewis to settling for a dull decision win.

Oh, there's no debate that this brings down Holmes as much as the nature of Lennox's two defeats hurt his standing. As I've mentioned before though, I do applaud him for ditching the 12 round format in favor of a return to the championship distance by hitching his wagon to the IBF. (In his own mind, might Larry have sensed that Witherspoon would have faded with three additional rounds to go? I'll need to review Holmes-Williams again, but I wonder if Larry saved his title through one more defense because of the championship distance being the time limit. Those body shots on Williams wouldn't've been as pivotal over 12 rounds.)

I mentioned Stevenson because that was also before a world wide audience, affecting popular perception of Big John's vulnerability. (Lewis and Bowe in the Olympics fall into the same category.) That's why I went with it, rather than Weaver and then Berbick.

Again, if Tate had stayed upright against Stevenson, he wouldn't have been plagued by the resulting self doubts and doubts in the public mind which made him vulnerable to Berbick. Weaver would have been shrugged off as an anomaly.

As Cosell himself trumpeted at the end of the opening round of Holmes-Shavers I, "Suddenly, Larry Holmes had the look of a FIGHTER about him!" Howard had watched Larry for the better part of a decade, and wasn't as ignorant about boxing as Gil Clancy claims. Still, it did take several years for Holmes to overcome the stigma of the nature of his nationally televised loss to Bobick, just as it took the same interval of time for Ingo to shed the ignominy of his 1952 Olympic performance against Sanders. In the cases of both Ingo and Holmes, redemption was a long time coming. Getting pole axed "behind closed doors" by Wells isn't as deadly as having it happen on a world stage as it did to Bobick against Stevenson in Munich. It took five long years and 39 fights before Duane finally got another big opportunity with Norton. (Teo himself was slammed down like a traffic pole twice in domestic competition in Cuba, but again, only before a live audience and not on film. When the lights are on though, so's the pressure to perform. Lucky for the Marvelous One that a snowstorm prevented the film crew from reaching the Philly Spectrum for Monroe-Hagler I.)

 

So Monroe-Hagler I is not on film?

 

Ok, hard to argue much with that. Mine is usually Ali, Louis, Holmes, then Marciano or Lewis, I can never decide which order to put those two in. 4 of them had long runs as champion (even if they had the odd interruption), and Marciano being undefeated makes up for not winnings so many title fights. After that you get the people who were still dangerous but had slightly shorter or more flawed records, like Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Dempsey etc.

What I notice is that the more complete boxers are at the top of the list, and the intimidating bangers are a bit behind. I.e. the boxers tend to having longer reigns and more impressive wins than the sluggers & swarmers. The public seems to gravitate more to the "fighters" than the "boxers" but I think the latter are usually the favourites in a fight.

 

Actually that's a fair point. I also thought in the Spinks fights that Holmes got "lazy" (I have to use this term relatively as anyone in a boxing ring for a title fight is not lazy in any normal sense) and basically threw away the wins he could have got if he'd been 100% and aggressive.

The one difference is that, at least until his Spinks fights, Holmes *did* get away with it, whereas Lewis didn't on 2 occasions. IMO Holmes just had the edge in toughness, chin, and probably skill as well.

 

I rate Holmes very highly, especially H2H, but I respectfully disagree with Eddie Futch. I don't believe Holmes would beat a prime Ali. Mid to Late 60's Ali would have been to fluid and quick for Holmes.

 

terrific post!! Some great points and, if im honest, some great info that i never knew

 

A couple of things.

1. Ellis was over the hill.
2. Shavers was ko'd very next fight by an aggressive Quarry.
3. Lewis has ko'd very dangerous sluggers early.
4. An early Lewis ko need not be via chasing, Shavers would come forward and we all know how open he was. A quick KO is possible via opportunity knocks in this one. I think you don't factor in just how big and intimidating Lewis was. Shavers/Snipes et al have never seen a guy of this size that could actually fight to a great standard. These guys face something they never faced before.

Maybe Shavers lasts 4-6, but an early night is anything but impossible.

Lewis had the size and power to have Snipes pondering his safety. Again, don't forget the sheer size and power here.

1. Snipes wasn't a stroll in the park, Cosell commented on Holmes frustration at not being able to put him away.

2. Lets not pretend every non great Lewis faces is going to find him unprepared and likely to be getting ko'd and droped and the likes. It happened twice in a gazillion fights vs top competition, one loss mostly from being incomplete at the time and the other terribly prepared, partially Steward's fault.

Same situation and the roles are a great chance of being reversed. Lewis certainly continues. Nobody is questioning Holmes ATG recuperation. It's pinnacle shelf.

It's not impossible it's stopped. Should Holmes have been walking away from the ref? What are your thoughts on that one? Regardless Lewis showed great interest in continuing.

Shavers was mostly terrible when stepping up in class. Great power but sloppy fighter.

Lewis beat so many better opponents than Snipes it isn't funny. Have you not seen Snipes vs Coetzee? Coetzee's power had him freaking, and Gerrie is worlds away from Lewis as a fighter and for two handed power. Lewis' size, power and skills would have Snipes in awe.

Doing the count proves one of my points, Louis at the time had a technical flaw defensively vs the correct right hand. It was later shored up as was Lewis' particular deficiency.

You keep clutching at the single punch thing as all Lewis critics seem to, their big vestige of hope. They all forget Lewis was up on one of the two occasions and absolutely wanting to rumble. A loss is a loss, and the beauty of it is a better Lewis came back to slaughter both men. He beat every man he ever faced.

I'm more worried about Holmes not facing the best second half of his reign, who knows for sure what may have happened? What if Thomas outjabbed and outfought him? What if Page was the right man in the right place in 1983? How about Witherspoon with more experience? There's some what if's right there.

Addition - Don't forget Moore's 1 round ko to a nobody among other things. Still goes quite ok.

Snipes was potentially a couple of well placed shots off being champ, as was Shavers as was Weaver. What happens when Larry gets into the same predicament vs greats like Lewis, Tyson, Louis, Foreman et al? Guys that can finish a man and have the class to make coming back 5 times harder? It's a very very legitimate question.

to be continued......

 

I'd be wary trying to understate "former cruiserweight" Holyfield's durability. The man is a legend. He took loads of what Tyson had too, more so probably.

To attempt to base Holmes not getting dropped vs Lewis on these two fights is flawed. Holmes may or may not be floored in this one. Holmes has never faced anything like Lewis' league (except Tyson when way past it and a ko result) whilst Lewis has faced much closer to Holmes level.

Firstly Holmes didn't face some of the best men of his time when he should have. If he did this topic might be quite different.

The thing is Holmes is going to have a tougher time vs Lewis' opposition overall than vice versa IMO.

1. And weren't those picking such an unproven and rusty Cooney who hadn't done a thing in ages (and even then handpicked) left with egg on their face. Cooney was a disgrace in this. It's unbelievable that the Cooney enigma still had so many fooled. Incredible.

2. Spinks has no-where to go vs Lewis. It's like David vs Goliath without the fantasy end. When Lewis nails Spinks hard itr could potentially end anytime. Lewis could also come out hard vs the slow starting and small Spinks. Steward would likely insist on it actually.

3. To evenly compare this lumbering pathetic version of Cooney's chances of stopping Spinks early is ludicrous.

Don't kid yourself, many don't rate Holmes because of it. Lewis avenged, Holmes never stopped ducking :good

Holmes decision had nothing to do with your cherished 15 round limit, it was 100% to avoid tough opposition as he slowly shut down his career. This is the fact.

Maybe you forget how badly the Bobick embarrassment affected Holmes career and perception by the public? He was called a dog and many claimed he was run out of the ring. They said he would never amount to anything. The loss caused Holmes HUGE trauma.

If Tate had self doubts because Stevo ko'd him why didn't Holmes with the Wells hammerings? I think this is just excuse making myself, Tate just didn't have the stern stuff and is not as good as you would like him to be.

Look at Lewis, he came back from two stoppages to be the top fighter in the world, and he did so impressively. Hearns came back from debilitating stoppages as did many from yore. Lewis had it, Tate didn't. Simple.

Good story on Hagler.

Holmes was a fighter long before it slapped Cosell in the face. Inner circles knew full well Holmes was being frozen out. He could have got his shot far earlier but he was being avoided and some did not wanted to keep him in the shadows.

 

So the story goes. It took place on March 9, 1976, early enough in the year that a severe snowstorm could have taken place on that date. Reportedly, Hagler's own mother, sitting at ringside, turned to another of her kids and said, "You know Marvin lost." Some reports have The Worm winning eight of the ten rounds. (Strange to think that Willie would get knocked out in four by Angelo Dundee's resourceful hot and cold cutie David Love before the year was out.)

 

I did make reference to it, JT. I realize I typed an awfully long post, but do be sure to read it carefully to be sure of what I have and have not mentioned. (It looks as if you prefer to insert comments as you proceed, as most seem to do. My personal preference is to read through an entire post before making any comments. Actually, I try not to post replies on threads unless I have read through all previous posts in their entirety, but that's just my psychiatric obsessive-compulsive disorder at work.:nut)

I doubt that Holmes had to field many doubts from outside sources over Wells, but was certainly affected by the high profile nature of the Bobick debacle. Part of his greatness is that he was driven for a long time to prove himself in order to overcome it. Marciano was similarly driven by the memory of his hometown disgrace in his amateur debut, when his poorly conditioned body failed him against Henry Lester.

In some ways, it's remarkable to me that Tate got by Knoetze and Coetzee the way he did. Considering the stigma of the Stevenson knockout, Big John actually had a decent professional run to his title.

And Holmes should have been completely finished after Tyson, yet came back to raise hell. (Duran coming back from Hearns remains the most startling recovery to me of my time following the sport. A much younger Cuevas simply couldn't manage it.)

Regarding Shavers and the size of Lewis, Tiger Williams was just as big, and certainly a tough and competent widely avoided contender of the day. Earnie dominated him smartly over the first several rounds, and finally took him out after a barnburner of a tenth round. Lennox is not going to intimidate Shavers strictly by virtue of his size and strength.

I figured you already knew about this, but many younger fans aren't aware that this is supposedly the reason why footage of that match hasn't come to light. Such a tape would have been a gold mine for any future opponents of his to study, as even J. Russell Peltz admitted Marv was screwed in the first Watts fight. Hagler picked a great time to suffer the only decisive loss of his career. (He sure made Willie pay for it though.)

I didn't see Holmes-Arrington, but Howard was ringside for that previous match of Larry's, so he had something to compare that sudden explosion off the ropes against. (I did see Holmes-Prater, and I was startled by the progress Larry had made. I was not originally a fan of Holmes, and hoped Earnie would dethrone him in their rematch.)

We could certainly go on and on and on, back and forth, point for point. Instead, I would urge the curious to study the footage and careers of these men for themselves, and try forming their own conclusions.

 

That's what makes the fight game so compelling.

 

And why we're all here, pleasantly enjoying good company from before our screens and keyboards.

 

Yeah mate, i'd forgotten i'd posted about it by the time i got to your comments right down. Sorry about that.

Holmes definitely saw it as himself vs the world and establishment. It was all indeed a huge part of his greatness.

Tate was a fine fighter, for a time. Big man with decent skills.

We are on the same page. Even a ko at his peak would not have worried Holmes that much, and nor did it Duran, Hearns, Lewis, Moore and co. Some could do it, some couldn't. Curry apart from a few rounds vs McCallum was gonski after "it", and many others suffered the same fate.

I can't believe you're comparing Tiger and Lewis. The man never beat an important fighter in his life. To put it in Holmes immortal words, he couldn't carry Lewis' jockstrap. Lewis can actually fight, Tiger lives on the legend of gym wars.

Actually i didn't, and appreciate your telling. Let me add to it. Hagler was so beat up and swollen he had to be led by his handlers back to the dressing rooms.

Well we've made our points at GREAT length as to why we rank one over the other. Others make up their own minds by as you say, studying the footage and careers but also by deciphering many posts like ours and taking away their own key points and findings.

Much enjoyed the debate mate :good