Can You imagine Larry Holmes Around Now?!

Holmes' overhand right would have given Fury fits imo.

 

Holmes has major trouble with usyk. Honestly i have yet to see someone control and dominate a high level southpaw while relying on a snapping jab from a low position.

The snapping jab/up jab whatever you want to call it would invariably be neutralized by the southpaws parrying lead hand... uselessly slapping against the inside of the southpaws right arm.
Holmes didnt have that much of a left hook, nor did he really have the ability to get inside quick, so its Holmes straight right at range vs both of Usyks hands

Holmes can circle and move back as quick as usyk but is slower footed moving forward. Theyre about the same size as well. Nightmare for Holmes.

 

I don't think he was prime even in September of '76 for the rubber bout. He looked notably slower, than he did in the two previous bouts. Also, I don't think he'd quite mentally recovered, after getting brutally knocked out by Foreman. His confidence wasn't quite the same, especially against punchers, and I think it played a part in his losses to Shavers and Cooney (though he was passed it for the former and flat out shot against the latter). I don't know which fight was Norton's peak performance but I'd probably go with the 2nd Ali bout.
But yeah their's no denying he was passed his prime against Holmes. Norton himself said he'd lost his passion after feeling he was robbed in the trilogy bout, and never trained as hard. It's also clear as day, that he thought Ali was better than Holmes, and had he trained as hard for Holmes as he did Ali, he likely would've won.
Frank: In your book you say, after the third fight with Ali went against you, you lost your heart for boxing, but you continued boxing. Why?

Norton: I lost my edge for boxing, I didn’t put as much into it as I did before. I didn’t run as far. I didn’t train as hard. I didn’t eat correctly. I started drinking a little bit every now and then. Of 1-10 I put in about a 5. I felt that no matter what I did that they would do what they want anyway.

Frank: In other words, unless you scored a knockout you weren’t going to get the decision.

Norton: Right. This is not to take away anything from Larry Holmes who I fought after that, but if I trained for Larry the same way I trained for Ali, I felt I could’ve done quite a bit better.

Frank: Who was stronger, Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes?

Norton: Oh Ali definitely, Ali was very strong but because he wasn't a one punch KO artist it is overlooked. Hitting Ali in the body or on the arms was like hitting a piece of cement.

Frank: In your book you say Ali is the best ever. Do you believe that?

Norton: As far as I’ve been around, yes.

Frank: Is Ali the best fighter you ever fought?

Norton: Yes.

Fair assessment but I thought Ali beat Norton more decisively in the 2nd bout than Holmes did in their fight. I was quite frankly shocked their was any controversy regarding the victory to the point where I made a thread regarding the matter. https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/norton-vs-ali-ii.663954/

Sounds about right. I think Holmes won clearer than the cards indicated, and he didn't necessarily need that last round as the commentator stated. That being said, that in no way contradicts my opinion that this was a very close fight.

Fair point, but Weaver had literally less than a year earlier lost to Leroy Jones, who sounds like a gunslinger from the old wild west. I have a hard time believing his five victories against the likes of Mike Creel, Olliver Phillips, Stan Ward, Abdul Khan, and Bernardo Mercado (his only good win in that period imo), allowed him to vastly improve in less than a year. Apparently neither did the public, as they saw this fight being a mismatch, as all the networks avoided it like the plague, with the exception of the newly formed HBO

You seem to be misinterpreting my statement. As I literally just said, though Holmes wins nearly every round, Berbick has success in most of them. Just not quite enough to actually win them with the exception of the odd round or two. I think I scored the round 13-2 last time I saw which is consistent with the judges card but I think Berbick did a bit better than the scorecards reflected. This is not a contradiction. In nearly every round, he gets passed this so called impenetrable jab, and has some limited success with Holmes, just not enough, as I said to actually win the rounds.

Yeah that's another thing, as I mentioned his opponents are going to be much much bigger, which will put a lot more wear and tear on his body.

I agree. An even bigger concern for Usyk is his age. He turns 37 in two months ffs!

 

I wish Larry had an account here. I imagine him bored knocking back a beer chuckling as he types out all the reasons he’d effortlessly beat the flavour of the month and pulling rank on anyone that questions him.

 

Maybe he wasn't quite ready...maybe Jerry Quarry should have gotten that slot after all

Well, anything to feather Ali's nest. Not much of a prime was it for Kenny, what 6 months?

Yet he fought so well, despite this. A grand effort and it was commented in either Ring or BI (can't recall which) commented that they thought it was actually his best performance. But either way, whether it was or it wasn't, he fought like a champion.

Wrong fight. It's in Yankee Stadium that he wasn't getting the nod. Two of the judges HAD to give Ali all the final three rounds for him to win in Yankee stadium, so guess what, they did... despite Norton so obviously winning the 14th at least. Even the worst Ali fanboy would laugh at this. Well, then again...

Yet Kenny said differently in 1974, highlighting body shots as an Ali weakness before the Foreman fight- as did Frazier, incidentally. Which 'may' have gone some way to feature heavily in Ali's training regimen for the Rumble i'd say. But this stuff generally doesn't appear in Ali's book or Norton's book etc.

Well, i'm not disputing this, he's definitely in the mix.

Of course you did . Incredible that someone (Ali) can have so many farcical judging in so many of his fights, yet you felt the need to highlight a fight where you think he won by more than the judges said. Also, it was far more controversial at the time that it appears to be years later actually. Which begs the question, does judging at ringside not count? I don't mean bent judges by the way, good writers and neutral reporters? Is it a case of "They were at ringside but i watched on TV, so my opinion counts more"? (I don't just mean you by the way, anyone. Do we now dismiss ringside cards of many a writer we respect?).

Ok glad to clear that up.

Well I can't argue with that. I think it was the Stan Ward win that got him a top 10 slot.

Y'know, i'm happy you said this (and was hoping you would actually)- and I agree with this kind of assessment. There's been many a fight where i've been scoring and after 5 rounds i have one fighter winning them all, despite every round being thisclose. However, you were very dismissive when I said similar about Ali vs Mildenberger, when Karl definitely had more success than Berbick in terms of punches landed, especially jabs- you just gave it the 'look at the scorecards' nonsense.

Agree 100%.

I forget this myself actually. But then again this isn't the 1970s and performing your best well into your 30s is now no longer considering "a miracle" and is commonplace in many sports. Messi is a similar age- as is Djockovic (Messi way past his prime mind, but still capable of excellence- as many a great sportsman are).

 

I think someone could make an alt account at pretty much nail it anyway...

"Today's fighters are all bums"
"I could beat any of them now, just give me 6 months to get ready"
"Big Roy Williams would dominate the division today"

 

I’m not sure if you were around but there was once a poster called Magna Nasaki or some such who apparently sparred them all from Foreman to Bowe to the Klits. Everyone swallowed his “insights” until a few things stopped adding up and once he was called on it he disappeared into the ether,

A learned poster like yourself could surely call themselves “The Real Larry Holmes” and set a few of these whipper snappers in their place about their modern heroes!

 

Well played my friend.

I'm not here to "feather" anyone's nest. Certainly not Ali's. I'm not that big a fan of him. Actually I think he's a **** and committed many detestable acts such as his treatment of Frazier (who IS my favorite fighter) telling Bugner to call him the N word and when Bugner refused, he told the media he did anyways, shattering his reputation. Not to mention him joining the Nation of Islam, a truly evil, racist, and ignorant organization that is literally in contradiction with the teachings of Islam.

He was still very good after the Foreman loss, but I find it very hard to believe it didn't have an effect on his confidence. Particularily against punchers. He didn't know what the **** he was doing against Shavers, and switched his game plan at least three times mid-fight the minute or so it lasted. Can't comment on the Cooney fight, as I think he was just flat out washed at that point.

I agree absolutely. He'd still visibly slowed down by that point, and by his own admission never trained nearly as hard as he did against Ali.

I don't know what you're referring to, nor what you mean by that so I'm just gonna leave it at that. Norton himself says this version of himself was better than the version who faced Holmes. And film clearly backs it up imo.

I don't see this as a robbery at all. It was a very close fight, that I thought Ali edged. I had the fight coming down to the 15th round, which Norton gave away doing virtually nothing for the first 2 minutes and a half. Gives me a chuckle when I see people giving that round to Norton when Norton himself thought he didn't win that round, but only garnered a draw.

This was a rather irrelevant part of the interview. I only cared about Norton's comparing Ali and Holmes to further establish my point that not only did Norton find Ali superior, but a tougher battle as well.

Their were only two contreversial decisions in Ali's career that have any merit imo. Young and Norton III. So I think "so many farcical judging in so many of his fights" is rather outrageous.

Makes sense. Wouldn't be surprised.

I agree. Then there's the oppossite, where a fight is dead even or close to it, on the cards yet one fighter is taking an absolute thrashing and/or it's obvious he won't last. Louis-Marciano is one of them. Louis was leading iirc after 5 rounds or so, yet it was obvious he wasn't going to make it to end.

IIRC Mildenverger only really had success in the first round or two, which Ali would frequently give away to his opponents. I'll take your word for it, and rewatch the bout after class tomorrow,

I agree. I have friends starting at 24/25 who are still dreaming of making it pro. Years ago I would've llaughed at my friends dreams but now it's starting to look more and more like a possibility..

 

Kenny didn't need the last round though for virtually everyone at ringside and the majority of people- it's not like playing football when you're a kid and a case of 'Next goal the winner' because your mum has called you in because your dinner's ready.

Ali definitely got that bread basket in top shape for George- Usyk take note!

Yes, but that's not the consensus opinion- there's way more controversial decisions. And it's more a case of the judges' card 'patterns', as well as their final tallies. Have you seen two of the Ron Lyle cards (for example)- they're laughable? or the round-by-round scoring for the Shavers fight? Again, farcical.

For other bizarre judging 'rounds', see Jerry Roth's 10-10 for Holy-Moorer (when Evander floored Michael!) and Duane Ford's 'final round to Taylor' in the first Hopkins fight (B-Hop clearly won that final round, without doubt). By the way, i had Moorer and Taylor ahead but still, that's just bent to me.

I'd be interested how many Ali acolytes on here have scored a round for an opponent when Ali had landed the most punches? My guess is possibly 'zero' in many cases or very few 'at best' (which would be, say, FOTC)....yet they're scored dozens upon dozens in his favour when he's been outlanded. Funny how that works.

Yes, see Sanchez-Gomez for similar (one that immediately sprang to mind).

Good luck to them! Although, it took me until I was about 32 to realise that I probably would never play football for Everton.

 

None of the Guys Holmes fought were as good as the fighters today. Holmes would be competitive but fighters like Wilder (Right Hand Kryptonite) Zhang and Ruiz also dangerous.

Tyson Fury wasted a few years but not an easy task for Holmes not to mention Joshua and a few others. Let's not forget the 22 fight Renaldo Snipes had Holmes down and in serious trouble as well as the 6ft 210 lb. Shavers. Holmes was also beaten by Michael Spinks in MS 1st heavyweight fight and SPARKED by Mike Tyson.

The cream rises to the top in every era and the top of every era would be competitive in any era, no exception for Holmes.

Holmes was well managed and avoided a few good ones in his era Page Thomas Coetzee (Witherspoon - Weaver and Carl Willliams rematches).

Holmes also had some easy pickings when he was Champion, so while I believe Larry would be competitive in any decade let him not be so critical.

Holmes would not be a Champion today IMO Fury of Wilder 2 hard to beat, Zhang and Ruiz dangerous as well as Ortiz and Wilders right hand not only hard but fast.

Zhang tricky southpaw puncher (5'11 southpaw Nick Wells KO'd Holmes 2X at the end of Holmes amateur career) so Ortiz and Zhang dangerous for Larry also Ruiz fast hands and power caused a Suprise for Anthony Joshua but Anthony not a glass chinned guy and Larry not a tipping point puncher.

Wilder would be hard hurdle for Holmes and more durable than Left hooker Cooney and (Big Right Hand DW) Usyk much trickier and stronger physically than Michael Spinks.

 

"Alfredo Evangelista and Scott Frank would knock out Lennox Lewis,Mike Tyson,Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe on the same night"