Half of Larry Holmes' best wins were against inexperienced fighters

I remember his fight vs a green Witherspoon, who only had a handful of fights but gave him hell and just about beat him

 

15. I'll say it again, Smith was comming off of a KO win over 21-0 Frank Bruno when he fought Holmes. Bruno had knocked out every person he fought in the pros until he himself was KO'd by James Smith.

 

Snipes put Holmes on the canvas with a punch from left field, Holmes was almost out! Snipes had very poor skills too.............

 

That those guys were all top 10 really speaks to how weak the era was. But that's besides the point- the bigger issue is that Holmes never really cleared it out. Here's what I give Holmes alot of credit for:

1)Great longevity

2)Excellent all-around fighter

3)Exceptional consistency over the course of his career

4)Showed fantastic recovery whenever he was down/hurt, and typically rose to the occasion in his biggest fights.

Here's his shortcomings:
1)Best in a weak era (not his fault), and lacks the great top-end wins as a result

2)Never unified

3)A good % of his defenses were against green fighters. A third of his title defenses were against guys with 15 or less fights. Just seeing all the 0's with that low of a win total tells you that these guys weren't tested against each other before facing Holmes- it was usually after that they'd fight.

4)More carefully matched up than his ATG predecessor, which is a big reason why he was in Muhammad's shadow along with the personality differences. Of all the long-reigning heavyweight champs, I think Holmes has the most holes in his resume. Dokes, Page, and Pinklon Thomas really ought to appear on there somewhere as well as a Witherspoon rematch, even if you give his political stance for not fighting Coetzee enough credit not to hold it against him.

All in all, I think Larry was a great fighter that was managed for money first and legacy second. I don't hold that against him in the slightest given how tough it is to make a buck in the boxing game, but I don't like the revisionism taking place that implies his resume was really good now and we just didn't realize it at the time. He didn't fight everyone. He didn't clear his division out. But given a dollar to bet on anyone in that era, I'd still likely put it on him being the best head to head guy. But it's not nearly as set in stone as it is for many others.

 

If you take out the green kids and the fighters far past their best, Holmes has a very weak record......

 

IMO Riddick Bowe would have beaten Holmes.

 

:good Well put .

 

You and I both(as well as everyone else)know that fighters get caught once in a while.In the case of Holmes v Mercer and Lewis v Mercer,a 40+ past it Larry looked much better against Ray than far closer to prime Lennox did as both fights went the distance.Am I missing something or isn't that what happened?

 

not to mention they were all WBA champs... which says alot when there was unifying, they only fought each other it seemed

 

Larry Holmes is top 3 greatest heavyweight of all time.

 

id rather have guys 15-0 on my record who are young, than a guy like ruiz who haye defended against whos credentials at the time were , 3 wins in last 7 fights....last win over a top 10 guy was 2004...he fought haye in 2010....he was 38 with haye handing him his 8th or 9th loss.... give me a young carl the truth williams, tim witherspoon, renaldo snipes...over audley harrison, john ruiz, michael sprott, carl davis drummond

 

:roll: And we also know MERCER blew hot and cold . Hot and motivated against LL and cold against a perceived old man in HOLMS . my point stands !

 

I second that. Sometimes a hater has to find someone new to hate on, Im guessing. :-(

 

I must admit, I've never rated Holmes as highly as a lot of people do for this exact reason.

Some good names but he fought a lot of them before they reached their primes.