Holmes says he would have beaten Ali in his prime

LOL.....I have to agree with you somewhat. For all of Larry's positive qualities, his bedside manner was always lacking. I could never understand Holmes. The guy came from a dirt poor family and rose to be one of history's greatest heavyweight fighters, making millions along the way, and still the guy had to complain and moan and carry on. He always seemed to have a huge chip on his shoulder. I mean, I don't know Larry personally, but from what I have seen of him, he seems to be a little lacking in the class department.

If you haven't seen it already, Eddie Murphy does a comical impersonation of Larry Holmes after he loses to Michael Spinks. It's pretty damn funny. Murphy pokes fun at Holmes' sour attitude and the fact that he was such a poor, poor loser...It's posted on Youtube somewhere.......

 

I agree Holmes was a great fighter. And I agree with you that Larry Holmes could have beaten Ali if they had fought earlier than they did. If Holmes had fought the Ali that fought Norton the third time or Jimmy Young, I think he wins hands down! However, a prime Ali - or Cassius Clay - I think would be a tough fight for Holmes to win based purely on Ali's physical gifts - his speed, timing, reflexes, e.t.c. A prime Holmes would be a tough fight for any version of Ali, but I'm not sure if Holmes could beat a prime Ali.

 

That's what annoys me about Holmes: he never has anything good to say about any fighter! It's almost as if Holmes feels it costs him something to compliment a fighter in any way, and we all know how much HOlmes likes being rich and being able to brag about how much property he owns in Easton, PA.

 

Yeah Holmes was never much of a sport with respect to other great fighers. Hell, even Mike Tyson has made an effort to give other champions their rightful dues. What's more, it also seems like as time passes, Holmes' view of other champions gets worse. At one point, he gave Ali full credit as being the greatest of all time, and now all of a sudden he can beat Ali at his best. Holmes was a great fighter, but for a guy who never met all his mandatories, was stripped of a title, never unified, and had some very indecisive wins, he's sure full of wind.

 

haha...Yep, you are exactly right! I used to be a member of Holmes' website and message board, and it never ceased to amaze me the level of a** kissing that went on there. I mean, I was always a fan of Holmes as a fighter, so I enjoyed discussing boxing with other Holmes fans and boxing fans. But some of those guys and gals on that website had their heads so far up Larry's anus that it was pathetic. And then Holmes would get on there periodically and tell everyone how he would beat this guy and that guy and how today's fighters all lacked heart and how today's fighters didn't want to fight anyone.....And a few people - myself included - would always remind the others how Holmes didn't always fight the toughest guys available during his reign and how Holmes avoided toughter matches with Page, Thomas, rematches with Witherspoon and Williams, e.t.c.....And then a big argument would ensue between other Holmes fans who insisted that Holmes would have beaten those guys easily if they had fought, e.t.c....I got tired of it all! And then Holmes started charging a fee to be a member and that was that!

 

I know. The same goes on here with certain members who are a bit touchy when it comes to the subject of Holmes, and who he either fought or didn't fight. Frankly, I think in all fairness, some of those matches with other alpha champions may not have occured because of politics, but still he certainly could have fought better men in the latter half of his reign then M. Frazier, Bey, Rodriguez and Frank. Some of those guys were pretty **** poor excuses for contenders.

 

Truthfully, I think Ali vs Holmes would be a boring fight. If anything, it could be a tactical boxing match that would probably go the distance. Both fighters set up almost everything off the jab and counter with right hand leads. The real argument is who has the better jab. I think Holmes' jab is technically better than Ali's but not as quick as Ali's jab. Ali threw his jab from the hip and set up his right hand with a slightly downward motion to chop and cut his opponents. Holmes was a very good athelete but I can't see him catching the 1960's Ali and doing enough damage to win a fight against him during those years. 1960's Ali wouldn't knock Holmes out but he'd win a unanimous decision. The only Ali I could see Holmes beating is the Zaire/Manilla version that was slower on his feet. Other than that, Holmes was lucky to get the win against Norton in a very close fight.

 

I'm sure politics played a role in the prevention of some of those fights being made. But I agree that many of those matches against some of the better opponents could have been made if Larry really wanted to fight them. I mean, sure, a champion is entitled to an occasional easy match, but come on! There were a lot of decent fighters at the time - Dokes, Page, Thomas, Witherspoon, e.t.c. and Holmes didn't fight any of them. I can see trying to make as much money as possible, but I think a champion owes it to the fans, to the sport, and to his legacy to fight the best. Holmes fought a whole string of patsies in the latter stages of his career. After the Cooney fight, Holmes seemed to want to take it easy.

 

Agreed,

I can't think of any fighter post 1982 who Holmes fought, who was truly the best man around at the time he fought him. I don't know how in the hell men like Scott Frank or Lucien Rodriguez weasled their way into the top 10.

 

I can see that too, but Holmes really is an irritating SOB.

 

Maybe the 70's as being a great HW period makes sense to some/most boxing fans?

 

Holmes fought the best his era had to offer. Some might argue not fighting Page and a couple of others works against him. I do agree that Holmes never fought a truely great fighter with outstanding credentials throughout his reign. Witherspoon was a young hungry challenger, but lacked the experience as he was only 15-0 going into the fight. Cooney was termed a threat with his big left hook. But he turned out to be a failure as "the great white hope". Norton was a superb win, but again a fighter who was 3-4 years past his peak.

If you look at most fighters with long reigns, Louis and Hagler, their quality of oppostion can be questioned. It's scary to think that Hagler's biggest win during the first 5 years of his reign was against Duran, who embarrassingly took him the distance. Duran was marked down for the first knockout defeat of his career, nobody gave him a prayer. Antufermo was a couple of years past his peak, Hamsho a credible challenger, Sibson European class bordering on fringe world class, Caveman Lee a journeyman, Scypion again no more than an aveage challenger, Duran a natural lightweight. Only when Hagler beat Hearns did he get the acclaim he deserved.

Bernard Hopkins is another who's quality of oppostiton is questioned by many after a reign containing 20 titles defenses over a 10 span.

 

For half or a little over he did, but not Page and Thomas in particular, Weaver, Witherspoon and maybe Williams rematches, with Dokes (managerial interests hurt this one) and Coetzee on a lesser level. He avoided the best of his second half era, and told us himself he was going to do so, even naming 2 or 3.

I still however rank him 4. Great fighter IMO.

 

Homes certainly had a great career, and I rate him highly, but I just think he could have fought a few additional good men.

1983 is a year that stands out in my mind. Holmes fought 4 times in this year which was good, but his choices for opponents needed to be better. I don't have a problem with him fighting Witherspoon but Marvis Frazier, Lucien Rodriguez, and Scott Frank were simply not the right guys for him to be fighting at that time when we consider that Dokes, Thomas, Page, and Coetzee were hanging around.

Holmes would have been better off in 1983 fighting only 3 times instead of 4, and taking on a schedule that looked more like this: Witherspoon, Page and Coetzee. You can also substitute Dokes or Thomas for one of the previously mentioned 3.

This would have been a bit more reasonable in my opinion. In any case, he would have retained his WBC belt and perhaps even acquired an additional title. He also likely would have made as much or more money, and certainly gained substantially greater respect. On the otherhand, he might have lost while facing one of those guys, given that he was nearing the end of his prime, but at least he would have gone out like a true champion.

 

how was ken norton 3-4 years past his peak when his main credentials were between 1975-1977, I mean who was ken norton when ali fought him, just a journeyman really. When larry Holmes beat him, he was the #1 heavyweight in the world.