How many of Larry Holmes losses did you think were robberies ?

The McCall fight was surprisingly an easy fight to score in favor of Holmes by the score of 7 to 5. I know by nature a 7 to 5 fight is debatable but the rounds each fighter one were easy to differentiate.

Nielsen was involved in numerous dubious fights so it wouldn't surprise me if Holmes deserved the nod. I haven't seen it.

I think at least one of the Spinks fights deserved to be a draw.

 

True. For me Spinks I was a clear loss by 2,3 rounds. I scored the Spinks 2 fight as a draw or 1 round win for Larry. And i am no big firend of holmes. Although I think that one or the other close round could be taken away from Holmes due to his unsympathetic and unsportsmanlike manner and minor fouls like pushing and wrestling. I haven't watched Nielsen and McCall yet. But i will soon

 

Depends how you define robbery. Spinks and Mccall fights were competitive

 

I watched Holmes vs Nielsen this year, i thought that was a clear win for Holmes in the region of 116-112.

The McCall loss was a fair one, Holmes was infront at one point but tired down the stretch. And McCall won in region of 1 or 2 points.

As for both Spinks fights i thought 1st fight was a clear win for Spinks in region of 9-6, but the 2nd fight i thought it was a role reversal this time with Holmes winning in region of 9-6.

 

Holmes was robbed in the second Spinks fight and the Nielsen.

Others were very close, the first Spinks and McCall...I might be the biggest Holmes fan here, but even I had Larry barely losing those two.

 

I thought Larry lost the first Spinks fight and won the second — but I wouldn’t call it a robbery as it was a very close fight.

I saw the Nielsen fight some time ago and IMO Larry deserved it hands-down.

McCall was another close fight. I can see it for Larry but can’t argue it as a robbery.

 

Then that is an interesting what if.

If Holmes get's the title back, then what does he do with it?

 

I hate to say this, but he'd probably do two or three kind of lame defenses before getting stopped by Mike (though, if he did stay active, it's possible it goes on into the 7th round at most).

 

Swapping the title with Spinks would not exactly have emboldened him.

However mandatories, and money, would have impacted his decision making.

I guess that he would have ended up with the IBF, and Tucker would have ended up as his mandatory.

 

You know...I mean, forgive me if you're a fan (I have huge respect for you), but I don't think Tucker would be guaranteed to win even against a 38 year old Holmes.

 

Tucker is overrated i keep saying this he's claim to fame is going the distance vs Tyson, Lewis, in wide decision losses. Actually look at his wins and performances nothing to write home about, a come from behind win over a Douglas who wasn't highly thought of at the time. A very disputed win over Orlin Norris that many thought he lost, and another razor thin SD over Oliver McCall.

Not one standout convincing win on his resume against any elite Heavyweight.

 

I couldnt watch till the end Nielsen fight it was just terrible, all fights i seen with Nielsen are unwatchable…

Holmes lost first Spinks fight
Second fight could have gone either way i had it 8-7 for Spinks

McCall fight i dont remember exact score but Holmes Lost that one too maybe 7-5 rounds in favor of McCall who finished strong.

I believe Larry clearly lost to Carl Williams if i remember correctly i had 9-6 in favor of Williams.

Also Witherspoon was debatable felt Tim won that but dont remember how i scored it.

I think in the end it all evens out.

P.s. Wining title after loosing it should not be held higher then defending it.

Witherspoon being 2 time champion and Larry being one time champion is not right.

In that case we sould just asume title is just vacant pirior to fight and who ever wins becomes champion or multiple champ.

So in Holmes case he was 19 time hw champion of the world! (I dont count Frazier as title defance)

 

Holmes had some very close fights.

At first, I thought the second Spinks fight was a robbery. I had Larry by 143-142. But then, Joe Cortez said something that made sense to me on Ring Magazine: he also had it 143-142 Holmes, but a fight that he scores by one point, he does not consider it a robbery. I was 14, that made sense to me, and I still apply that thought fully. I still think he was outclassed in fight one and barely won fight two, but I don't consider any of those robberies. The McCall fight was also an interesting case, but I agreed with the judges that Oliver just edged the legend.

On the other hand, the Norton bout could have gone either way, the Witherspoon bout probably should have been given to Timmy (I saw it live but at that time, age ten and a half I did not know how to score a fight, now I've seen it on You Tube plenty of times and I see it 115-113 Witherspoon) and the Williams fight was downright robbery/

 

To be fair to Tucker he only fought two prime ATG fighters in his career, yes lost to both on points, but he was resilient enough to withstand some punishment and still see the final bell, especially against Lewis when he(Tucker) was past his best and Lewis was a young and hungry champion.

Those were his only two defeats in his first 14 years as a pro…that’s 50 fights…before age and deterioration finally caught up with him.
Yes there were some sloppy performances against b level fighters…but he still won them all. He was resilient and tough, very difficult to pin down, something the great Mike Tyson found out.
Tucker had the tools to achieve more than he did though…good chin, fast hands, good mobility, not a KO specialist but he could bang a bit.
Against an aging and slower Larry, a prime and durable Tucker would definitely pose some problems for the great man. I could realistically see Tucker winning a close decision if they met around 86/87.