Tell my why Larry Holmes should not be Top 5 HW

I would definatly put him over Ali and the Rock. I think maybe over Louis too.

 

I can't think of a reason.... Holmes is my # 2 man, but I am partial to "The Homer" since he was the king when I was in high school...

MR.BILL

 

Based solely on your list, I think if you have Marciano above him, you must put Jeffries above him. Jeffries did everything Marciano did and was every bit as dominant, probably a little more so. Also, physically, he is that little better than Marciano in every department. I think the two legacies can barely be split, unless Jeffries is ranked higher. So that bumps Holmes down to at least 5.

Johnson probably bumps him out. He reigned for longer and cleaned the division out that little bit better, although admittedly (and sadly he became a little complacent for want of a better word). Also, what he did in his second career when past prime was very comparable to what Holmes did and perhaps even a little more impressive. I think he is the slightest improvement in each department. They must rank very close to each other, and i would have thought that Johnson should be a shade higher.

Tyson is an interesting one. I know about age when they met, but to be honest, the way that Tyson landed on him, you have to wonder whether there was ever a time Holmes could have beaten Holmes. It must be tempting to rank Holmes higher.

Lennox probably didnt quite do as much as Holmes, but physically he was quite a bit better, as does Foreman, who performed at a similar and arguably better level when further past prime, in the nineties.

 

Perfect thread for Bummy Davis.

 

I have him at 5, painfully true .

 

Holmes is Top 5 no doubt.

 

5 or 6.



But he's still a ****.

 

Not a good enough resume for my list to be top five. I have him under Lennox, Frazier and Holyfield, as well as the obvious Ali and Louis.

 

I have him 4th behind Louis, Ali and Lewis. My ATG heavyweight list is a bit **** though. I just haven't seen enough of everyone to back up many of my rankings. I rate heavily on consistency, head to head ability and overall resume- but not so much on individual wins over other greats

5000 posts mu****as arty

 

After his reign he fought a couple terrific fighters...in losing efforts. I meant his winning resume. Faded Norton was his best win, imo. Very good, but then... Ali's corpse? Cooney? Leon Spinks? Earnie Shavers? Bonecrusher? Marvis? Tex? I'm not saying it's a terrible resume, but it's not a top five resume. He never bothered to unify anything either. And look how he became "linear". I have him in the top ten though.

 

Holmes is top 5, just watch videos of him fight while champion. Seeing him fight always makes me a believer again.

 

Even though it does not remove him from #5 on my list he did duck this guy as a pro.Probably afraid to lose for the 3rd straight time against Nick.

This content is protected