How good was Larry Holmes really??

Larry Holmes staged dual comebacks in 1988 and 1991, the first a result of a big money offer to come straight out of retirement and match Mike Tyson, the second a surprisingly meandering stroll through the peaks and valleys of the 1990s heavyweight scene—in fact Holmes boxed all the way into the 2000s, stopping an equally creaky Mike Weaver in 2002 in the sixth round. Larry’s decision to box on did not seem born of financial insecurity or an unquenchable ego but because of an unerring desire to dominate. You can see it for every moment Larry Holmes is in the ring, whether you are watching the young man go to war with Ken Norton or the old man chasing the twenty years younger Anthony Willis.

The tools he brought to bear in this oldest of ambitions were formidable. Holmes argues the best jab, the best right hand and the best footwork in the history of the heavyweight division. You may have a personal preference for Sonny Liston or Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali in each of these areas respectively but it is beyond question that Holmes belongs in those debates. Add a granite chin, superb accuracy, some dig, technical accomplishment unequaled in heavyweight history and that natural proclivity for domination and you have a fully-fledged 215 lb. war machine.

This birthed the most celebrated reign in WBC championship history— until it came to make more financial sense to adopt the IBF trinket, at which point Holmes happily changed allegiances, defending the new bauble until he was shockingly separated from it by a brilliant Michael Spinks in September of ’85. Holmes was already slipping by this point and it is arguably the case that he went through his entire prime unbeaten. The reason he is in the top 80 rather than the top 70? Well, he arguably did not.

Holmes had a desperately close call in the match in which he lifted the title against Ken Norton in a fight I thought he lost (the judges awarded him a split decision). No rematch was forthcoming; a criticism that would be leveled against Holmes again when he was arguably beaten by a novice Tim Witherspoon in their 1983 confrontation which I scored a draw (the judges, again, handed it to Holmes on a split). He also seemed adverse to unification fights and his reign is littered with alternative heavyweight strapholders. His failure to meet a surging Greg Page instead of opting for the limited Marvis Frazier (whom he dispatched in a single round) was also a concern. Holmes, like Jack Dempsey, arguably missed out on some of the most important fights of his career and many of his defenses were soft.

Unlike Dempsey, he was an enormously busy champion who busted up a huge raft of top-class contenders over a seven-year period that included twenty successful title fights and a stretch of 48-0. He won his first meaningful fight in 1978 and his last in 1992. Like Lennox Lewis he was more feared than loved—but, when he was in the ring at least, that suited Holmes just fine.

http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_three_80_71.html

 

Nonsense.

And even if it wasn't, my answer would be what a bunch of dummies. If that whole era viewed Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes, Berbick and Witherspoon as "poor or very poor" they just didn't know boxing is all.