Assessing Larry Holmes's all time heavyweight standing

if he fought Foreman earlier on and also in the 90's, tried to avenge Tyson and Holyfield, and fought Bowe or Lewis there could potentially be a top 10 placement

 

I am interested in your personal top 10? Who you got?

Mine would be vaguely this.

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Tyson
Holmes
Wlad
Dempsey
Johnson
Forman
Liston

 

Good list.

 

Tried to avenge his losses Tyson and Holyfield?

Do you limit Louis's rating because he didn't attempt to avenge his losses to Charles and Marciano? Or Tyson for not doing the same with Williams and McBride? Both had lower cumulative ages in those pair of defeats than Holmes's vs Tyson and Holyfield.

 

Holmes wasn't completely mentally disheveled like Tyson was, and compared to Louis some of Homes' best competition were pretty second tier, he fought Bonecrusher in 1999, no reason he couldn't have tried Bowe on for size a few years earlier

Louis
Frazier
Marciano
Ali
Charles
Moore
Holyfield
Tyson
Patterson
Bowe

11-12 I would go Lewis and Holmes, I put Bowe ahead of Lewis because Lewis pretty much required Steward and I think Bowe would have beat him in the Olympics had he not been cheated over a nonexistent headbutt

 

Tough one. I have him at 9 but the group between 4 and about 12 are so close that I change my opinion frequently.

Ali
Louis
Marciano
Johnson
Lewis
Foreman
Dempsey
Holyfield
Holmes
Frazier

I just look at Holmes list of title defences and ask myself about the way he won those fights and the guys he beat. Yeah, he got the wins but he struggled with Witherspoon, Shavers in their second fight and Cooney gave him some trouble (and some low blows to be fair). His opponents were high calibre but there's not a signature ATG win there aside from when he won the title from Norton who many think won that fight.

But then, he defended his title 19 times against mostly good to very good opponents and you can only beat the best around at the time. And his only losses were in title fights.

I'll probably do the list again next week and have him at 5 or something. We are all really splitting hairs trying to rank these legends.

 

Thanks! Charles is hovering around the top 15 and sometimes top 10 but I tend to put him top as LHW. I don't care for Wlad as a fighter much but due to his reign, consistency and H2H ability I feel I have to rate him top 10. Holyfield (considering he heat Tyson twice!), Frazier and Patterson are pretty glaring omissions and I could probably swap them out for Johnson on some days but I have him for historical importance. Also I think H2H these three are the most vulnerable to the others I listed ahead on them. Fury due to his size and skill is in top 15 but simply does not have the wins IMO.

 

Firstly props for the term "mentally disheveled"

Interesting list, Moore at number 6 while Holmes doesn't make your top 10 is a very ballsy pick ( and I respect that!). I can't imagine anyone having Archie as even top 30/40 as a HW although almost certainly number 1 or 2 at LHW. What was your thinking there?

Re your comment on Joe Louis, I reviewed Louis' title defenses and even though he is my number 2 pick I don't feel his list of defenses is that much better than Holmes, and you can definitely pick apart his reign in the same way you can with Holmes.

I don't agree with this but you could say excellent wins over Schmeling, Braddock, plus rematch wins over Conn and Wolcott against his struggle with a LHW in Conn 1, very close possible loss to old man Walcott in their first fight, struggle with a Brit level fighter in Farr, knocked down by a walking beer barrel in Galento, KO'd a blind LHW in Lewis and then we have the famous "bum of the month" candidates with Baer and Godoy probably the best of that bunch. I am sure some other posters leave Joe out of their top 5 using this type of analysis.

One difference though is Joe always gave people a rematch, I know Larry gets stick for not fighting Weaver or Witherspoon again and I feel that is a fair criticism.

 

I think the term "splitting hairs" is a good one, it is fun to debate but I think we are all agreed we are talking about some of the greatest fighters of all time.

 

Agreed!

 

my thinking was because Archie beat heavyweights at LHW, I suppose Charles is probably a bit controversial because of his weight too, if I had to replace them with more accepted "true heavyweights" I would go with Foreman and Dempsey

splitting hairs is a great way to put it, I value grit, overcoming big obstacles, the disadvantages a fighter has

 

Thanks for the thoughts, also worth remembering Archie came close to upsetting Marciano as well! I seem to remember Archie says something like that he got complacent after the knock down and let the fight slip away, in the book In This Corner, but I maybe mistaken. I am pretty sure he felt it was a winnable fight for him and then had some excuses for losing

 

6


Lowest 10

Highest 5

 

This is completely mental.

Since when do you we weigh so heavily a heavyweight's performance over the age of 40 on his legacy? If we are going to do that, I feel we must also count Marciano's retirement at 32 against him, or Frazier never winning a fight older than 31 against him. Hell, Joe Louis could only make it to 37.

 

He had no chance of avenging that Tyson loss. He'd have needed to have been at his very best to have a shot there.

A rematch with Holyfield is an interesting idea. He only really seemed to lose that fight due to cardio. If he could have done an immediate rematch, got back down to 220lbs or so while focusing on cardio like crazy in camp, he might have been able to eeke out a win.