How Good Was Larry Holmes?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hHSTSh-ypcw

Read the comments and please comment urself...This guy is really annoying me with his all things considered equal bull****

 

Norton...lol

 

He was one of the very best in the boxing department as well as that of recuperative powers. He outboxed, outclassed and outsurvived the better part of a large generation of young prime fighters, and veterans who were still respectable at the time. Addtionally, he proved to be competitive well into old age, and had the second best winning streak of any heavyweight champion.

The negatives are that he did not unify the titles during a time when his smaller counterparts were acheiving undesputed status in other divisions. Marvin Hagler, Michael Spinks and Donald Curry were all unified champs during the same period that Holmes was a mere fragment holder. What's more, he was stripped of his WBC strap for failure to defend against #1 contender Greg Page and was also accused of avoiding various other talents during the latter part of his title reign, ie Michael Dokes, Pinklon Thomas, etc. Lastly, he suffered from an image problem that he more or less created himself.

Overall, I typically rate Holmes somewhere between #4 to #7 all time, depending on how I'm feeling on a given day. I have heard some very good arguments both in support and in opposition of his rather long and controversial career.

 

He was excellent. He almost beat Holyfield '92 in Holy's prime and owned a tough Ray Mercer '92 at his best. Yes, he lost to a prime Tyson but that was to be expected. His prime years were probably 78 (The Norton win) to 82 (The Cooney win) He slowly slipped after that but was good enough to bag another 8 title defenses until his loss to Michael Spinks.
At his best he was a master boxer with an educated jab, a good straight right hand, a lot of heart and incredible ring intelligence. :smoke:smoke

 

1. Michael Spinks was not a "bad" lightheavyweight. He is a concencus top 5 all time great in that division. In addition, Holmes was well past it when he lost to Spinks and was clearly robbed in the rematch.

2. Shavers was not a fringe contender. He and Holmes fought for the first time as part of the WBC's title eliminator, meaning that he had to have been a top rated challenger. In their rematch, Shavers was coming off of 5 strait Ko's in just 18 months, including a first round knockout of Norton. Again, he was no fringe contender. Another small detail that should be noted, is that Earnie Shavers is commonly listed as the single hardest puncher of all time. I think the fact that Holmes survived his power to win TWICE, ads a bit of value to the feat.

3. Cooney had plenty of short commings, but clumsiness was not among them. He was actually a very good boxer with a stellar jab, right cross, left to the body, and **** loads of punching power. My only problem with Cooney as that I think he was rushed into the Holmes fight without sufficient seasoning and was also returning from a layoff prior to the match...

 

A bad lhw?

wtf

 

Ya, regarding Cooney I was speaking to Holmes outclassing him, and making him look in such a manner due to the gap in experience.
Yes, Spinks was a good lhw champ, but Holmes shouldnt ever have lost to him at hw..

No arguments about Ali i guess

 

Earnie Shavers hardest one puncher in boxing history... don`t give me some crap about Foreman, Tyson or Louis. NOBODY hit like the `Acorn. Only Ali would have gotten off the deck from the bomb that Shavers hit Holmes with. By the time he fought Spinks(who is an all time great at light -heavy) he was over the hill. He beat a prime Mercer, and went the distance with a prime Holyfield, all on ring savvy. Dokes, Page Coetzee would have all been completely outclassed by Holmes. Holmes was a phenominal ring technician, outstanding jab, sharp right hand, with a great uppercut(ask Hercules Weaver!) good chin, and a HUGE heart. He also could display class. I am referring to when he fought Ali( who was soo done by then) Holmes took him apart in a respectful manner. No showboating, purely professional. Even looking at the ref to stop it so he didn`t have to hurt Muhammed.

 

5 or 6 Alltime at HW.

 

Interesting.

You really think so? :think

 

Not near as good as he is made out to be...he had the Kiddy parade, @ 10-0, 11-0, 14-0, 16-0 ....and one guy with 22-0 (Snipes?) - and another 15-0.....and previously a lot of fights with Whom's and a couple Euro's that Ali had already beaten.

He jumped to the brand new IBF because they let him continue to beat up on prospects, where the belt he had wanted him to fight grown men finally. With the IBF he could continue on fighting kids.
Then came Spinks.
Belonging to King, he never unified nor did he try....so there were a few fights he could have had with some body's, and did not have, in they were Champions of the other belt and didn't belong to King.

 

could be called best heavyweight ever and i wouldnt disagree 2 much
though i put joe louis & muhammed ali ahead

 

Based on what BOBO OLSEN said above, Holmes was a fraud....

 

Second best head 2 head ever, and 4th greatest heavyweight ever. The man is seriously underrated.