Larry Holmes Is rightfully considered an all time great heavyweight but how badly does his record hinder him? When his best win was against and old Ken Norton and his losses include Michal Spinks, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield.
Do I don't think he dominated a weak era as such. There were one or two guys he missed but that was the politics of the King Era more than anything. Holmes was the world's best heavyweight for me till around 83 - 84, then he started slipping. But even then, he almost beat Spinks, beat Mercer, went the distance with Holyfield and m call, so not a bad record.
IMO it doesn't matter who Larry Holmes fought, he was one of the best. His jab, his movement, his heart, quickness, everything is there. He did things right and he did them at high speed. I don't care who or what "names" a fighter fought, the test of a fighter is seeing him fight. His record does not "hinder" him at all IMO. Besides, if comparing opponents, beating the versions he fought of Witherspoon, Cooney, Williams, Smith, and Weaver is extremely impressive to me. I don't think many champions who came before LH could have beaten them.
I don't think it was really that weak an era I think if it had fallen between any other 2 eras it would be looked more fondly on. But coming between the the early and mid 70s and the late 80s/early 90s is a tough spot.
Not weaker than Tyson's, I'd say. He faced a greener version of Smith, yes, but a younger version of Spinks (and lost, though). Don't think Berbick improved on the wrong side of 30, but Williams might have. Cooney and Weawer etc was probably about as good as Tucker, Biggs et al. Better than Biggs probably.
I don't want to call it a weak era, cause there was a number of 70's contenders in the middle of their careers during Holmes reign in the 80s and legitimate prospects who would come to make something of themselves. To be entirely frank I think its a misnomer to call Holmes era weak when it was more so quiet. There is unarguably less attention on the heavyweight division until the arrival of Mike Tyson on the scene. I am speaking retrospectively as I wasn't alive during this time, but it seemed like Tyson brought vigor and interest back into the division. Holmes was not a flashy champion, and was more of a technical marvel than most Heavyweights, but he just didn't draw much attention. He at the time of the early 80's was not as much Larry Holmes as the guy who beat the day lights out of Ali. When he won his first title it was a somber win, one that showed Holmes beating up the most popular and beloved old man the division had ever seen who was a shell of his former self. I think Holmes got a bad start, at a bad time. If his career happened 10 years early, or 10 years later... I think he would be much more well known and regarded as his resume would be far stronger.
I think his Weaver win is of good note, Weaver could be hot and cold, but he was conditioned and determined when he met Holmes.
That makes sense, he had some great fights and choice match ups during the 80s. Cooney, Spinks(both), Witherspoon, etc. But man. Someone should've taught Larry how to work a crowd in and out of the ring, to be more of an entertainer. He wasn't really doing himself many favors in that department as far as I know.
Hmm, I don't really see a difference. When the subject comes up here, most will say that there was nothing wrong with Tyson's era. Holmes on the other hand rightfully gets some criticism for not facing the best of the mid 80's generation. Tyson is seen as taking on all comers during his reign as undisputed, and rightly so. What can be said, is that those that claim that lack of desire and discipline were bigger obstacles for Tyson than the guys that actually beat him, rarely acknowledge that that was just as much the case, if not more, for most of the top guys of that time. Holy excluded.
I see what you mean but guys like Tyson Fury get loads of hate for dominating weak eras so how come Holmes gets let off the hook..