This is my take The positives: From a technical standpoint you never got bored watching Holmes, or at least I don't. While the jab and stance were unorthodox, they worked brilliantly 80% of the time. Even in one sided blowout fights such as Leon Spinks or lazy going through the motions bouts his boxing is beautiful and amazing to witness. You can tell just how disciplined he was because he rarely leaves himself open, sticks to his gameplan, and had great fundamentals which implies tons of rigorous practice. As a champion, you have to respect how he carried himself and the belt with dignity. He frequently fought men younger than him or who had advantages in strength, speed, power, etc. Many guys he beat would go on to become champions themselves such as Witherspoon, Weaver, Smith, or Mercer. Hell of a resume even if the rankings and belts did end up becoming splintered. I don't criticize him for not turning over every stone in the division because he had earned the right to demand big paydays. And he did offer rematches to worthy challengers. Not only that, but he continued to fight big challenges long past his prime such as Tyson, Holyfield, the aforementioned Mercer, McCall, etc. Outside the ring he rarely got into any scandals or controversy. You have to at least respect him for being faithful to the same woman for decades and employing people in his hometown. You don't hear about his kids being on drugs or going to jail. He did have the scuffle with Berbick (which was goddamn hilarious btw, if you haven't seen it check it out), and rubbed some people the wrong with some of his sharp tongued comments but nobody's perfect. Larry is often misunderstood and is fairly easygoing unless you tick him off or don't give him credit. Which is a good segue for, The negatives: While I just defended him for wanting to be given props, he has a strange obsession with the Ali fight. In a recent Vladtv interview he insisted that Ali was still in good condition somehow. Obviously if you are a professional boxer you don't want your win tainted or people saying it doesn't count. But he really shoots himself in the foot when he says things like this and invites criticism. I mean he will be the first to point out that he was old and took the Tyson fight on short notice, but wants all the credit for beating an old Parkinson's ridden Ali. Technique wise, although he had a polished outside game with a brilliant Jab, he could be predictable. If Limited guys like Snipes and shavers can time you that is a serious flaw in your game plan. To his credit he got off the floor to win both fights but he was badly hurt by the same punch and this was a consistent issue with him. Holmes also could have made his life much easier if he worked on things like a better left hook, inside game, and having better actual defense when under fire (his go to solution was often to simply clinch for dear life or slug it out, which made him even more predictable). Overall he was a hell of a fighter and love him or hate him he deserves a top 10 spot for both resume and h2h. I have him anywhere between 4-6 depending on where my mind is at. I can't see any reasonable argument that can made to exclude from #6 spot which is arguably low.
When I first started following boxing in 1983, he was nowhere near the fighter that he is today, an unpopular champion, that people began to appreciate much later in time. But I liked Larry Holmes when I first started following the sport, it was a hard time convincing others. I got his autograph at Camp cadet in 1987, which was a week long camp for young people interested in a career in law enforcement. Larry came up from Easton and talked for about half an hour. He mentioned that he was comin out of retirement to fight Mike Tyson. Tyson was in his prime and was devastating. As much as I liked Holmes, I almost felt like telling him he's going to kick your ass, but I was only a 15 year old kid.
Holmes was an excellent champion. One of the very best at heavyweight. I think the idea that he doesn't get enough credit has gone too far, though. Not saying he's overrated, just that most boxing fans rightfully have him in or around the top five at heavyweight and appreciate that he's a great, great fighter. Although th general public probably don't. Definitely not as much as they should. He should be treated in a similar way to the likes of Dempsey, Marciano and Tyson were/are once they'd retired. After all, he was better than all of them. He's quite a polarising guy. People seem to either like his honest, frank attitude, or they think he was brash and arrogant. I like him. He's entertaining, honest, stubborn, gutsy and a healthy amount of arrogance doesn't put me off. Fighters need some degree of it. I always like to determine what personality trait drove people onward in hard fights and their careers. Often, it's determination, sometimes it's stubbornness, or a God-given fighting nature. Sometimes it's that desire to be the apex predator, or just plain nastiness. Not with Larry, though. I think what kept Holmes going in fights as grueling as the ones he got in, was sheer pride. The guy worked for everything he had and that title was the apple of his eye. He wasn't letting anyone take it, and just find a way to get back up and keep on going. The Charles comparison is apt. Very apt. Overshadowed and hated for not being what came before, then replaced and by the new, more enticing fighter. Most get their dues now - from 'hardcore' boxing fans, at any rate - but by and large, aren't appreciated by the general public. I can't see him not being top five at heavy. His résumé is pretty damn stacked; wins over Shavers, Norton, Ocasio, Weaver, Berbick, Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Bonecrusher, Bay, Williams, and Mercer. Not to mention going 48-0, arguably 50-0, and making 19 title defences. He's one of those guys who you can rely on to win. He isn't gonna be dropping decisons to low-level fighters in and around his prime. You can count on him to gut out those hard fights and always be in condition, which I think is a massive part of his appeal. He's a real beast head-to-head. As a fighter, he was pretty well-rounded. Watch the fights with Shavers to see some great movement on display, or the fights with Ali, Cobb or Cooney to see him walk someone down and **** them up (I appreciate that the Ali fight isn't a pretty watch). He's got a very flexible style, and he can make basic, fundamental changes to his guard, stance and jab to suit the man in front of him (been a while, or I'd try and name some specific instances). A straight up boxer-puncher. Punch selection leaves a little to be desired IMO, as his cross and right uppercut are good - not great - and his left hand outside of the jab is non-existent. That said, if I had a jab like that, I wouldn't give much of a **** about my left hook either. His body work wasn't particularly good, either. Combos were rare. Defensively, he was good. He could parry with his back-hand, slip shots and was great at getting out of range, but offensively, he was quite basic. Probably the best use of that stomping jab-type ever, which is where that massive power on it came from. Excellent judgement of range from it as well, it's variety and technical use is overrated, IMO. Good basics, flexible style, but some issues which weren't ironed out and he isn't a particularly great technician. A fighter like Kalambay was a much better one, IMO. What set Holmes apart was incredible intangibles, where he was almost unrivalled. One of the greatest heavyweights to lace them up.
Until then you had always got by on yr own. You never really cared until Ann Wilson met you. And now she thrills you to the bone. The best stache of all were the 2 power staches of Mancini & Pazienza. Their fur made Duran look like peach fuzz vs Lampkin.
I have a similar view of it. Lennox might squeeze into my top 10 on a good day, but Holmes will be several places higher. Holmes is greater than all the 1990s heavyweights and everyone since.
Huge fan. Top 2 or 3 heavyweight. My best friend lives in PA and met Larry and his wife twice. Says they were genuinely very nice people.
Misquoted for truth (all respect to you, Unforgiven). Only Holyfield, Steward-era Lewis, and 80s Tyson came close to that level. Especially Holyfield. Wlad was a very fine fighter, but I don't quite rank him with the other names.
I'm surprised this hasn't been noted for what it is - one helluva post. It's quite short considering how much it has touched and expanded on. Great praise but honest scrutiny where warranted as well.
