:rofl:rofl:rofl Larry Hoooollmmesss!!!!!!!!!!????????? atschatschLennox Lewissssss!!!!!!!!???????????? You've gotta be kidding me Tommy!!!!????? Only joking Tommy I'm not going to stoop to **** taking but seriously Holmes and Lewis???
and head to head. head to head, he ranks highly. he has A heart of a lion, and a granite chin. he also had a fine left jab, great footwork and movement, dazzling hand speed, and underrated punching power. he would give trouble to ANYONE in the sport. acomplishment wise, he also ranks highly. he holds wins over shavers, weaver, Cobb, norton, weaver, bonecrusher smith, spinks, mercer, Williams, and marvis frazier. and he had 20 defenses, and held the title for 10 years I think? much better resume then Dempsey or Marciano... Marciano did fight greats, but they weren't PRIME. so that's why he can't be higher on my list.
Only joking really - but I do think Holmes is hugely...massively over rated - Cobb is not a great win by any stretch of the imagination, and Marvis Frazier if anything is a lot worse than that, Bonecrusher is no great shakes really - Bruno had virtually clean sweeped it against him if he hadn't of got caught, Spinks was so far gone that was no fight, and going life and death with an old Norton is nothing to shout about - based on that fight I would say the Norton of the first two Ali fights beats Holmes - Weaver and Shavers are decent wins - so yeah I think Holmes was class for his time but I do think he is over rated by those who have him in the top three at least - he wasn't that good - Tyson would've KO'd him at any stage IMO even if a gracious Mike conceeded otherwise
That list of wins isn't any better than anyone in the top ten (with the possible exception of Dempsey). And anyway, Larry for sure doesn't rank high in dominance over opposition.
Not a bad list, that. I've stated my reasons why I think Holmes shouldn't be at 3 (I have him at 6) but that's a good list.
actually he completely dominated cobb but cobb was still game and came back with hard shots so that is a good win and it proves his heart. Marvis Frazier actually is a good win because Marvis was beating everyone else besides Holmes and Tyson- He had good wins in Tubbs and bugner. Bonecrusher is a good win as well... Spinks was good because he was skilled and fast imo. But he should have beaten spinks more soundly then he did. oh please. He may have been old, but he still put on a good preformance, and continued to fight well after that against cobb and ledoux. he wasn't that good? I wonder what you have to say about Some of Jack Dempsey's opponents or Rocky's opponents :dead I doubt Tyson would have KO'd holmes. holmes wouldn't be staying still trading with mike. he would be dancing around and shooting that jab like he was for 10 seconds in the real match ahha
Marvis Frazier never beat Tubbs. That would be without a doubt his best win if it were true. His best win is over Bonecrusher.
His list of wins is better then Listons, Marcianos, Dempsey's, and Louis's... How does he not rank high in dominance? He reigned for like 10 years and had 20 defenses against good competition
he doesn't? my bad. i was thinking about tillis when i said that lol he did beat tubbs in the amatuers though so i got mixed up
Holmes beat no one better than Walcott and Charles. Moore is probably better than Larry's best win as well. I already addressed Dempsey and I don't consider him a top ten heavyweight. His best wins simply aren't as good as Louis's. Walcott, Baer, and Schmeling blow Holmes top three wins out of the water. Holmes didn't reign for ten years I don't know why you keep saying that and he didn't defend against good competition for the most part. You want defending against the best look at Marciano whose every title defense consisted of the number one contender with the one exception being Don Cockell who was the number two.