Would you back Larry Holmes to beat all four of Lennox, Bowe, and the Klits?

Honestly, I no longer take you seriously. You're one of these guys that like to go round and round with half baked arguments and it's boring.

 

I'd back a Peak Larry Holmes to beat those four, yes!

Holmes had it all! He's one of the very finest HW's ever. Top-Five no doubt about it!

 

What ****ing idiot would say that any of those bums would beat a prime Larry Holmes?

 

I stopped taking you serious a long time ago...you pick hairs with some and miss the bush with others...Its OK to worship a childhood Hero but you wear blinders and run from the truth when it suits you.

 

Half facts? Lets boogie, because i have all the full facts with little to no bias.

20 defenses, indeed there's gonna be some **** in there. We need to be honest and not star struck however when we dig a little deeper and it starts to get ugly.

Lets go post Cooney, because that's exactly when Larry started to take the easy road. Prior to that i have very little drama with him.

Tex Cobb - Ezy pezy defence, but he'd just beat Cooney and Cobb was one of the divsions great characters. No drama here.

Lucien Rodriguez - Another very easy one.

Tim Witherspoon - Another easy choice (Just 15 fights and some thought him lucky to get the decision over Snipes in his previous fight)that turned out to be very hard. Just because it turned hard and Witherspoon ended up a sizable player in the division doesn't mean we go all silly and pretend Larry was defending against a top line contender in there. Yet revisionist history seems to attempt just this. Witherspoon was about 5-1 and his chances were thought to be slim and none.

This is a pivotal fight. It was seen as proof Holmes was aging and ready to be taken. Not long after this Holmes basically told the world to get stuffed and he'd handpick opponents from then on and take the easy street from then on. He also told Witherspoon he wasn't getting a rematch in no uncertain terms.

Scott Frank - I mean come on. Scott who? This is his fourth easy fight in a row.

Marvis Frazier - Holmes drops his esteemed WBC title not to fight Page. Page was the mandatory and it was a mixture of politics and not wanting to face live opponents. Page was coming off a superb win and certainly a better one than any of Holmes 5 recent opponents. Many thought Holmes might be right for the picking. Frazier has all of 10 fights.

James Smith - Groan. A nobody at the time coming off a quite lucky stoppage of Bruno. 15 fight career. This is 6 easy choices in a row. Ridiculous?

David Bey - 14 fight career. Coming off a reasonable win over Page who was now reaching his peaks of inconsistency. Next fight he was a different man in poleaxing Coetzee.

Carl Williams - 16 fight career. Are we seeing a trend? We be pretty thick not to. Williams was considered promising but sure wasn't experienced and had not done anything special. This fight also turns hard as an obviously aging Larry gets more than he bargained for. Williams was stylistically tough. But again, another fight against anything but a more dangerous fighter of the division.

Michael Spinks - Holmes goes after more easy meat to tie Rocky's 49-0 record. Spinks is a big underdog at 7-1 and no 175 champ has ever won the big title. The jokes come out that Hagler is Holmes next fight for the big 50-0. Spinks shocks the world and it's all over for Larry as a champ.

This is 9 easy (on paper) defence choices in a row. No-where do we see the bigger dangers such as Page, Coetzee, Thomas, Dokes, Witherspoon and co. Granted he wouldn't be expected to face all but not even a single one? ffs

Thomas had a great streak and the public was calling for Holmes to unify with him. Larry was having none of it coming out with a couple of very poor excuses not to fight.

Terrible championship reign and decorum post Cooney overall. He had his political drama's but that doesn't excuse him not fighting ANY of the real dangers. Saying they didn't dominate long enough is BS as the mob Holmes was fighting were doing next to nothing. At least these guys were clocking over some big wins here and there. Thomas was winning for ages and it was logical they get it on.

TBC

 

Massively biased and flawed post. The "fight who i want" equaled easy street and Holmes admitted this himself. He said he wasn't going to give the public the satisfaction of him being beaten. These are the cold hard raw facts of the matter. Again, as far as not being big draws or dominating, well look at who he did choose for goodness sakes. Jesus H. This isn't splitting hairs, it goes against everything a champion is supposed to stand for.

The shame of it all is that Holmes may well have beaten all these guys anyway, but he sure wasn't taking that chance knowing he was declining.

Well if you're gonna be like that - this charade is a simple case of your extreme bias toward Holmes. Either that or you have no idea of what was really going on in the era. Holmes also said he'd never ever under any circumstances fight Coetzee due to apartheid but when the huge dollars came out that suddenly went out the window. Another double standard.

I ask you to show me how the group of mugs and fledglings Holmes was fighting were better fighters/more dangerous than the group he missed and where their wins were better. He took easy street, no if's and buts. I cannot even fathom your argument given Holmes said he was going to do just this. I mean wtf? If i said i was going to travel the world, then travelled the world, there'd be no argument that i didn't travel the world, right? It really is this simple.

Witherspoon gave him the fright of his life, why no immediate rematch to stamp his championship authority as Joe Louis was fond of doing? To show the young pup and the world who was the real champ? Kenny Norton?

Thomas didn't lose a fight between 1978 and 1986. At the height of it he beat Weaver and Witherspoon back to back. Not bad apples right there. The more the public clamoured the more Holmes wrote it off.

I lived, breathed, slept and ate this exact era. If i'd have looked down i may have been shitting out little brown boxing gloves such was my fascination with the game. I have just about every fight Larry ever fought. 100's of mags/clippings from 78-85ish. It's obvious what's at play.

I have always given Holmes credit pre 33 thanks. I rate him 4 for goodness sakes. I'm not however going to sugar coat his "**** the public" mentality in his last few years as champ.

We are talking Holmes, no? Picking out an age is flawed for starters. Did they all win titles at the same age? Did they all decline at the same age? You are welcome to dissect the others, i'm just hammering out some facts for younger posters so they can make some informed choices either way. You are free to start threads debating the other championship reigns.

Whether they were or not doesn't change the facts on Holmes. I like a lot of your work but am going to have to strongly disagree on this topic sorry.

Regarding Bummy, i think a few with good memories on here know i think he is quite left of center regarding Larry. We actually had a couple of go's on the topic years ago :thumbsup, but the thing is he believes in his stance and has never wavered and is entitled to his opinion. Others might feel strongly against a frazier, or a Marciano. We've all got our quirks.

Now where's Dinner with his good old mallard pic from the days of yore

 

Excellent post and very fair and balanced. I sometimes get carried away because I was frustrated during that era,I wanted to see the best fight the best.

I have no axe to grind against Holmes but I shake my head with all these revisionists who were in diapers in the era and simply do not know the facts. You gave a fair account in a very articulate manner

 

Yeah i wasn't disputing that.

 

Holmes UD VK
Holmes TKO 10 Wlad
Holmes UD Bowe


Holmes Lennox for me is the tightest fight. 50-50.

 

Cheers Bummy :good

 

Good post.

Actually, TWO good posts.

I don't like Holmes much and have stated on here that I think he was pretty much of a **** at times. Especially his disrespect of a dead champion that never even heard of him. Sour grapes !

But I do rank him 5 or 6 all time.



Also, IMO, Witherspoon beat him by a narrow, but clear margin.

 

Thanks kindly.

Holmes was definately a ***** but seems to have mellowed a bit in older age thankfully. The sour grapes were compounded by the fact he was taking easy opponents aiming for Marciano's record and still failed, going for 49-0. For those who don't know the Marciano couldn't carry my jockstrap comments came when Larry lost to Spinks in the fight to tie Rock's record.

I have Larry about #4 ATG and #2 or #3 maybe H2H. I certainly won't be taking criticism i am a hater or biased against him. Many would think i am overrating the guy.

I had Holmes ahead at least by a point and can't give Tim better than a draw no matter which way i look at it. You are far from the only guy i've seen score it for Tim tho, one prominent mag had him winning by 1 and another scored a draw.

 

Wlad and Vitali destroy him. Bowe is a UD. Holmes beat Lewis.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

You too Bloody dumb for words you fugging IDIOT. atsch:nut

 

atsch:roll: Your credability as a poster is on par with the likes of Bretchko and Farmboxer.

Vitali and Wlad destroy Holmes but Lewis loses? dude you need educating.

Holmes KO's Wlad and outboxes him too. Vitali stylistically poses problems but Larry's speed probably gets him the win. Bowe would have real trouble with Larry's jab and Lewis (in destructive mode) is the only one i give a chance of beating Larry H2H (That's the same Lewis that at 38 years old and weighing the heaviest of his career won the last 2 rounds prior to the stoppage and made your lover Vitali into a walking tassle..... cut him to shreds... over 60 stitches needed for his mouth and eye.... A PRIME VITALI.... but Vitali and his soft chinned, jab reliant brother demolish Holmes while Lewis loses? :-(