Assessing Larry Holmes's all time heavyweight standing

Sorry, I like you, man, but I could see him a little lower than #7 for reasons well described in other threads.

The best of the other heavies of the 80s, were, to me, Dokes, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Page, Thomas,Tucker, Spinks and Tyson. He managed a win over 1 of those, and it was an either-way win.

Some of those were not his fault, yes. Tucker, Tyson, Spinks and Thomas were all a bit past his best, so he can be forgiven for losing to or not fighting them. Of course a lot of people think he won the second Spinks fight. Also, he beat guys who might have went on to be among the best, like Cooney. Also, some of the fights were just not on the table.

Still, he openly ducked Page and Thomas, and, as champ, he really could have pushed harder on his end to get a unification.

Also, there are the bad fights. The big argument that people give me about Page and Thomas are that he would have beat them anyway. I don't see it that way at all. Since he had either-ways against Norton and Witherspoon, and had real struggles against Weaver, Snipes, Shavers, and late in his career, Willams, I don't see any of these guys as gimmes. Yes, his record is more impressive overall, but I think on any given day one of these guys could have showed up in shape and off the nose candy and given him a run...had he given them a chance.

I just don't really see him as a 20 defense guy when it is padded out with guys like Evangelista, Ledoux, Cobb, Bey, and the ghost of Ali.

All said and done, his most impressive wins are Witherspoon, Norton, Mercer, Berbick, ShaversX2, and I would throw in Cooney for how good he looked at the time. I am just blunt about the fact that I don't consider that to be murderer's row, and that is a problem.

To me, it becomes real subjective after Ali and Louis. 7-10 Seems like a good range to me. I once had him lower, but I have bumped him up a bit if for no other reason, then his perceived ability by the other members of this forum.

 

I compare him to Jack Dempsey, who I also don't rate has high as most. Dempsey probably had about 16 wins in his career against contenders...but at the end of the day, there were just better guys that he should have fought.

 

As is always the case with any boxing rankings, it depends on your criteria.

Variation in rankings amongst knowledgeable boxing fans, are most often explicable by differing criteria, rather than differing interpretations of the fighters careers, or even skillsets.

My criteria excludes predicated outcomes of H2H cross-era fantasy fights and focuses on what fighters achieved in their own era. Consistent dominance within the fighter's own era counts most highly with me & whilst I do make some allowance for one era being stronger or weaker than another, I don't make as much allowance as others. If you're consistently & utterly dominant over world class opposition for a relatively long period of time, I'll rate you highly.

Holmes went 48-0, including 21-0 in title fights, before losing for the first time aged 35. Holmes never lost during his prime and beat Norton, Witherspoon, Cooney, Shavers x 2, Mercer, Berbick, Snipes, Smith, Weaver, Williams, Cobb & Jones. His resume gets no boost, imo, for his win over a completely shot Ali.

During his 7-year reign as the best HW on the planet, he won 21 HW world title fights, which is equalled by Ali and only surpassed by Louis (Wlad too, if we include straps when he wasn't universally recognised at the #1 HW). He never lost during his prime & whilst his win resume isn't spectacular, it's depth can get underrated, imo.

Yes, as is always the case with long reigning champions, he missed some contenders that were better than some he defended against, but I don't consider that he missed an outstanding contender that was clearly better than everyone he defended against. Holmes has no Harry Wills.

So, I rank him #3 all time. I have him a fair way behind Louis & Ali. I wouldn't be any happier with my #3/4 ordering between Holmes & Lewis, had I tossed a coin to decide it. I don't allow myself ties in my rankings, if I did, Holmes & Lewis would be tied at #3. With my criteria, I can only see him at #3 or #4, but totally appreciate that those with other criteria could have him lower. One's criteria would have to massively different to mine, in order to rank him outside the top 10, though.

 

My #3 behind Ali and Louis.

 

Quality application of the word "riven". I haven't read or heard that word used in ages.

 

I'd never heard if it

 

I'd like to hear your angle, in brief, for someone arguing him outside the 10. I'm somewhat of a detractor (hater if you ask some of his nuthuggers of yesteryear hahaha) but still have him around #4 usually. The minus's would be avoiding anyone with a pulse the last third of his reign, struggling with the odd average guy and barely ever defeating the next best guy as shown by your excellent thread a while back. Given he missed a lot of the best it was also weaker era than most want to accept.

 

I believe prime Holmes would have given prime Ali a tough fight and maybe his toughest fight. Holmes was vicious when he had the upper hand. He was mean and merciless. I rate his jab equal or better than prime Ali's jab. It may have been a shade slower but it was harder. He wasn't a heavy puncher but he was a stinging, hurting puncher. He used his right hand like a whip. I rank him in the top five.

 

Ok i'm picking up what you are putting down.

 

And he was a big heavyweight by any measure. His combination of size and hand speed was unmatched except by Ali.

 

I'm another who places Holmes number 3 behind Ali and Louis. Number 5 would be the very lowest realistically.