He had been given the benefit of the doubt in his most important close losses? First, he's given the official W against Spink's the second time around as many feel he deserved. He takes Michael's 0 before Tyson (Which would make Tyson's win less impressive as well, in my opinion) and more importantly becomes the heavyweight champion of the world for a second time. Next, during his comeback, he's given the nod against McCall. Again, some feel he won this fight. He's now a legitimate 3 time world champion and is neck and neck with Foreman for regaining the title at a extremely advanced age, which does wonders for George's ranking. Fast forward to the very end of his career and give him the nod against Nielsen for an alphabet title. He finishes his career at 72-3. He still loses to Holyfield, is knocked out by Tyson and loses a decision against Spink's in their first fight. Honestly, I can't see how he'd be anything less then a consenus top 4 heavyweight if things worked out that way for him. Would have just been icing on the cake for a guy who's already in many peoples top 5. Thoughts?
I can't see why so many people, including some of the judges, scored that fight so close. To me, and I'm no expert of course, Holmes clearly beat Norton in June 1978. It was a tough, tough fight, and it was a close fight, but I thought Holmes clearly won by at least 3 rounds. I've watched that fight numerous times, and I never saw it as a razor-thin decision.
I never had the Norton v Holmes fight as wire close as they made out either, it is and always remains one of my favorite fights of all time, but i agree, Larry was always in charge..
I would never base my rating of a fighter on the opinions of judges. In regards to decisions, I rate fighters' records according to what I thought the score was.
He ALREADY got the benefit of the doubt plenty of times during his prime. The decisions in the Norton, Witherspoon and Williams fights could have easily gone to his opponents. Would he even rank in the top10 if they happened? He got screwed over against Spinks in the rematch, but the damage was done already when he lost fair and square the first time.. Holmes has nothing to complain about, there's a pletoria of fighters who were less fortunate in this area.
I thought Holmes lost those bouts to Navarre and Williams and Witherspoon and Harris even. It's my understanding he was out and saved by the bell in the Roy Williams bout & maybe different refs stop the Snipes/Shavers bouts as well. Maybe a different ref stops the Smith bout from that cut even. It sure seems like he was a beneficiary far more often than he was ever a victim & that McCall loss was no robbery and a bout where Holmes just hung in there. That Neilsen bout was the first time he ever tried his hand at being the road warrior & it shows just how tough a job it is to get a lofty record wearing those shoes.
The Norton and Witherspoon fights were not robberies. The Williams fight could have gone either way, but Holmes was so past it by that point that I don't think too many people would have held it against him had Carl's hand been raised in victory. The Spinks rematch was not just a robbery but quite possibly one of the very worst in heavyweight history.
True but avenging a loss and becomming a repeat champion always holds some degree of value, even if it comes against someone that you weren't supposed to lose to in the first place.
Exactly he may have lost some close decision but he won some too he record is pretty much what it should be.
The only one of Holme's fights that can even be considered as a possible robbery was the Carl Williams match which I thought was right around 50/50, and Holmes was damn near shot by that point. His rematch with Spinks was not even close, and he still got the shaft. He also should have gotten the nod in the Brian Neilson match as well..