When he retired after losing to Spinks in 1985? Did the media and pundits and fans see him as an all time top 5 heavyweight back in 1985 or did his reputation increase with time?
He and Spinks fought again in April 1986, many thought that Larry had defeated Michael, it was close.
When Larry Holmes burst onto the scene in 1978 many viewed him as the heir apparent to Muhammad Ali, who was on his way out as far as the boxing scene goes, given his experience as Ali's sparring partner. Larry moved while he boxed his opponents, sticking and moving as he did in the early rounds against Ken Norton on June 9 1978, in winning the WBC Title. Many fans of Muhammad Ali resented this, and it appeared so did Ali, who came back in 1980 to fight him.
I don't think Larry was looked down on too much but it didn't look that great, and Larry knew it by the look on his face after the fight-and his comments. I do think it hurt his legacy, similar to how Ray hurt Marvin Hagler's legacy a bit. Had Marvin stopped Ray and Larry stopped Michael what could anyone say negatively about their career at that point. It would have been all dominance pretty much.. Well all wins. People knew Larry and Marvin were great, but that a smaller guy like Spinks or an inactive smaller guy like Ray beat Marvin. It hurt the legacy Larry a little, but it showed more how great Michael Spinks was. At that point people think well in history if Michael Spinks and Ray Leonard can beat those guys when they were smaller and inactive as Ray was, then that lowers them in head to head fights against other possible greats. It didn't take their greatness away, but it diminished it a little.
Very good post. What you are saying is so true, these greats, Larry Holmes and Marvelous Marvin did have their respective legacies tarnished because of those losses, people have said, if they were that great they should have not left it up to the fight judges and kayoed those opponents. And because of their losses, they could not measure up to the greats that they compared them to, for Larry Holmes, it was undefeated Rocky Marciano, and for Hagler, it was Carlos Monzon, who retired with the belt after 14 title defenses. People would say that Rocky could have beaten Michael, Carlos would have beaten Ray.
In the U.K. Holmes fights were aired by ITV. Reg Gutterige called Larry one of the great heavyweights who along with Ali had the greatest recuperative powers he had seen in a heavyweight. So Larry was presented over here with a lot more respect than he probably got in America going by the American commentary of the same fights on YouTube. With no other outlet other than magazines I was raised under this theme..and went along with it.
I was more impressed by Larry has time went along. He held on to his title whilst everyone else lost their s after a defense or two, if they were lucky. You could see that Holmes had that something about him, same as Hagler. No big fuss, just got to it. I thought he was ripped off in Spinks 2.
yes I agree, and I think both Marvin and Larry took Ray and Michael for granted a little. I was surprised when Michael took the rematch. I knew Ray would never fight Marvin again. Marvin would have been a different guy in the rematch, especially had he fought him soon after.
It is amazing how that works. What about Tyson retiring after Spinks? He would be rated higher than he is now. Which is not fair, but he would look so dominant with that as his last fight. Most greats have one spot where they could have retired and looked great and usually they didn't. They fought on. Ray fighting on was inevitable. He wanted to win fighter of the decade even though he didnt fight in 3 of those 1980s years 1983, 1985 and 1986. Which is surprising to think that it was only those years he didn't fight, but he only fought once in 1982, once in 1984 and once in 1987 and 1988, yet without the Kevin Howard fight he does not fight for 5 years until Hagler if we look at the Finch fight. Although I am not sure if Ray would have been the top fighter he became had he not beaten Duran in the rematch. That win elevated him beyond what he was before the first Duran fight. Had he had a loss and then had to win the title against someone else and not beaten Duran the way he did in the rematch? He probably would have won the title again but his career would not be as great without that. The Duran win in the rematch reversed that loss in the first fight, and elevated him to a real superstar because of the style difference and how it ended. The story of the fight was historic. Then he beat Kalule for another title and beats Hearns another great. And since Hearns kept on fighting for years and years and winning titles, that helped Ray's legacy since everytime Hearns won even when Ray was retired, Ray came out looking more legit. How many guys could retire with that greatness after only 2 1/2 years of holding the title? Ray had a few breaks and some luck. But a great fighter no doubt.
Very true and Duran is elevated even higher. If Ray beats Hagler, keeps retired and his mouth shut, then Leonard looks great and Hagler is just a sore loser. But Ray didn't and his and MMH's image was reversed. Not Spinks everything was utterly decimated by Tyson. Oddly enough another great great fighter whose legacy never gets past a loss and the loss seems to be all anyone remembers is Alexis Arguello. For instance, look up pictures of Alexis Arguello and 9 out of 10 are from the Pryor fight. Same with articles. Spinks is forever the 90 second kid.
I found that with Lennox Lewis too. Slowly got more impressed as time went on. Never set the world alight. But retired having beat every man he Ever fought.
For legacy and resume Lewis is clearly top ten worthy...but Lennox was probably already long past his best around the time he finally realised universal acceptance after the Tyson fight. Either side of the Ruddock and the Tommy Morrison wins, which were his two most impressive wins, there was enough sloppy or difficult results (without even mentioning the catastrophic blunders in getting twice knocked out by underdogs) where Lewis remained too much of an enigma to bank on. After the Holyfield fights Lewis became kind a of a more reliable elder statesmen type champion with not quite enough prime in him to excite anyone. It’s only that Tyson was really at the same kind of stage in his career that the credit of that scalp registered as it did. Both guys were outside of their natural eras. And primes! And yet, in the absence of never before beating a guy regarded the best heavyweight in the world this Tyson win consolidated Lewis’s career as the final piece of a puzzle in becoming a all time top ten lock. By comparison Ali had established this beating Sonny Liston. Tyson had established this by beating Spinks. When Lewis was coming up Douglas had lost to Holyfield, Tyson had gone to prison and Riddick Bowe (who he had already beaten in an Olympic final) beat Holyfield two out of three times as he later did. Twice Lewis had to salvage his reputation after unexpected defeats... so Lennox has always missed out on beating a defining champion probably because he was the defining champion.