What Was Larry Holmes Greatest Fight?

I think it’s a tie between Cooney and Norton. Both were great fights and both were of high importance

 

Holmes didn’t have great competition but Weaver was a one of his toughest opponents. He never looked very good and usually was getting whipped by good opponents and then all of a sudden he was knocking the hell out of you. Shavers big puncher but bad skills and slow. Norton was good but was bad against big punchers which Holmes was not.
Ali was washed up and had a medication issue but Holmes showed supreme skill in totally outclassing him. That may have been his most impressive effort.

 

The Norton fight was entertaining but I don't see where fighting a 35 yr old, always vulnerable Ken Norton to a close decision is that great of a performance. It should not have been that close.

 

Perhaps viewed as ironic in some ways but the overcoming of extreme adversity can count for a lot in the perception of a great (greatest?) performance.

Some champs might encounter greater adversity due to the particular quality level of their era’s opposition and/or specific negative circumstances surrounding the champ otherwise.

At the end of the day, however it comes to pass, adversity is what it is.

The ability to overcome adversity draws on several, invaluable intangible qualities.

At least as I see it, when considering fantasy match ups, when an imagined match will likely come down to or mostly down to pure heart, determination etc., the well proven ability to uphold same can take some fighters, per forecast, that much further into ultimately successful outcomes.

Just imo, Holmes was the epitome of the guy who, once you hurt him, you better be that much more wary of even more savage offence coming your way. A terrific ATG quality.

 

Well, at the time, since Ali had lost, Ken Norton was really the best heavyweight in the world. So, I'd agree, that the Norton fight was his biggest win (in terms of his career).

In terms of "bigness" ... the Cooney fight was just a huge event. Really big. In fact, had Larry lost, he'd probably still be considered a pretty solid heavyweight champion. He had made a lot of successful defenses at that point and was 39-0. But the way he beat down Cooney really surprised people. He almost did too good of a job taking Cooney apart. Because people began thinking Cooney had been overrated instead of just giving Larry credit for beating the holy hell out of the top heavyweight contender in the world.

The Mercer win was probably my favorite, just because it was so unexpected. I was so happy for him. And Mercer was in his prime. Larry just boxed his ears off. It seems weird to rate that as Larry's best win, but he was least likely to win that fight, more so than the others.

So, I wouldn't argue with any of those three.

I also agree the Leon Spinks defense gets overlooked. At the time, that was definitely an impressive win. Spinks not only had beaten Ali (which, if you were alive then, was such a huge deal ... only the third time it had happened in nearly 20 years and 58 fights), he had also just beaten the number-one contender Bernardo Mercado in a fight Leon really wasn't supposed to win. Yet Leon wasn't in that fight with Holmes at all. Holmes ate him alive.

But I wouldn't say it was his greatest win.

Witherspoon doesn't rate as high for me because he was virtually an unknown. That was really the first time Witherspoon made a name for himself. And Larry wasn't expecting what he got. I'm sure Holmes would've performed better in rematch once he knew what to expect. More of an off-night instead of a greatest win.

 

"Always vulnerable" Norton? Nobody in 1978 thought that.

Norton was 40-4, most thought he should've been 42-2 and the defending heavyweight champion in 1977 after the last Ali fight in '76.

When Holmes fought him, Norton had beaten everyone he fought as a pro except Foreman, who was retired.

Once Ali lost, and Spinks ducked him, Norton was seen as the best heavyweight in the world. Not someone who was "vulnerable."

Had Leon defended against Norton first, like he was supposed to in 1978, Norton likely would've killed him.

So, Holmes beating Norton was huge.

You're clearly someone who came in later after Norton's career had wound down. Nobody at the time viewed Ken Norton as vulnerable. Certainly not to Larry Holmes, who usually fought on undercards and, though six years into his career, rarely was featured in main events to that point.

 

Shavers 1 probably his best in terms of pure boxing skill, movement and defense.

Cooney in terms of combining offense and defense.

Mercer in terms of sheer IQ display considering how old he was.

Shavers 1 or Cooney for me.

 

When that version of Kenny is your best heavy, you are truly in a horrible span of years for the division. Bro only won 2 of his next 5 fights. Beating Stander, Middleton, Bobick and Zanon is just make up for a guy who didn't want anything to do with the elite, let alone power punchers. I don't know, the win by Holmes just doesn't shine. He should have thoroughly outclassed Norton.

 

Norton said he hung back during the first 5-6 rounds or so, looking toward Holmes tiring.

Of course Larry didn’t notably tire and perhaps Ken was also trying to preserve his older self at any rate - and that’s not to minimise Larry’s persistent, sterling jab that also helped to keep Ken at bay for about the first 7 rounds or so.

Anyway, Norton was obviously still very much the goods but, if anything, it seemed that Ken perhaps didn’t quite have the same tank as he used to.

Both were exhausted at final bell but, at least to me, Kenny appeared that much more so.

That fight was Larry’s first 15 rounder.

Even if a fighter has a single or multiple 12 rounders already under their belt, until they actually fight a full 15 rounder you don’t know how they will necessarily fare.

The extra 3 rounds can make all the difference and it’s all in the actual seeing as to who it might make or break.

Of course, on his first passage through the championship rounds corridor, Holmes passed with flying colours, proving himself to be a true ATG 15 round fighter.

A hell of a fight and one which I think, from time to time, Holmes himself has cited as being his toughest ever.

 

The whole top of the division turned over in 1978.

The World Champ at the start of 1978, Ali, only won ONE of his last four. The World Champ in February, Leon Spinks, only won ONE of his next four. The #2 contender at the start of the year, Jimmy Young only won ONE of his next four. #3 contender Ron Lyle got charged with Murder again at the start of the year. The #4 contender Earnie Shavers lost his first fight in 1978 (to Holmes).

There was a complete turnover at the top. And all those upsets were significant wins for the guys who won.

As for Norton, when you said he didn't want to fight the elite, you also PURPOSELY left out Norton fought the World Champ Muhammad Ali between Middleton and Bobick, and #2 contender Jimmy Young after Zanon, and then Larry Holmes (who beat the #4 Shavers) after Young.

So, clearly, he DID want something to do with the ELITE. He fought the only guy rated above him and the guy rated just below him.

You also left out Bobick and Zanon were both top 10 contenders, too. Ken Norton was the WBC and WBA (they were the only two orgs) #1 contender when he fought Bobick in 1977. Bobick was 38-0. All Ali talked about in the first part of 1977 was fighting Bobick next. Bobick was the Olympic Silver Medalist. He was trained and managed by Joe Frazier and Eddie Futch.

Norton's demolition of Bobick in like 55 seconds was a MONSTER win (something Holmes couldn't do when he fought Duane), as well. It was also national news. Something even most title fights aren't these days.

According to the NY Times, an estimated 42 million households tuned in to watch Norton-Bobick live on NBC. Something even the biggest title fights these days couldn't dream of achieving.

Again, nobody thought the division was "horrible" or in the doldrums or that Norton was vulnerable then. Certainly not after wiping out Bobick, after coming off an "apparent" win over Ali in his previous fight.

You knowing how things would change later didn't make the wins that started all those downfalls less significant. They were all big upsets.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/05/12/...bick-in-58-seconds-of-first-round-with-a.html

 

It's absolutely untrue most thought Norton should've been 42-2. 41-3 perhaps, but most thought the decision in the second Ali fight was fair.

 

It was 6-5-1 Ali, 6-5-1 Norton, and 7-5 Ali. You almost can't have closer scores than that in a 12 rounder. As the NY Times said, "The conclusion seemed clear: there simply wasn't much to choose between the two tonight."

Ali-Norton 2 was the closest decision of Ali's career.

And the Heavyweight Champion George Foreman offered the title shot to Norton, not Ali. And nobody had a problem with it.

So, yes, it's fair to say there was some debate on who won the second fight.

 

Somehow, literally no one yet has picked his match with Benjamin Pitezel.

 

Here's the Ring's Top Ten heading into 1978 and it's just pitiful considering how good "the names" were at this point and how good the other "names" never became... nuf said.

Muhammad Ali, Champion

1. Ken Norton
2. Jimmy Young
3. Larry Holmes
4. Ron Lyle
5. Duane Bobick
6. Earnie Shavers
7. Kallie Knoetze
8. Alfredo Evangelista
9. Leon Spinks
10. Gerrie Coetzee

 

You're changing the claim. “There was some debate over who won” is not the same thing as “most thought Norton should have been 42-2.” There was certainly disagreement, but the actual evidence doesn't support a consensus for Norton. Two of the three judges scored the fight for Ali, and the majority of Ring magazine's ringsiders also had Ali winning. The NY Times saying there “simply wasn't much to choose between the two” reinforces that it was a close fight, not that most observers thought Norton won.

And Foreman offering Norton the title shot doesn't prove otherwise. Foreman had a financial incentive to fight Norton because of the tax advantages involved, so his preference for Norton isn't evidence of some widespread consensus that Norton had beaten Ali. At most, you've established that the decision was debatable. That's a long way from establishing that “most thought Norton should've been 42-2.”