Larry Holmes - Overrated or Underrated?

I'm the wrong person to ask, as he's my favorite fighter, but just watch him against Shavers (first fight)...only 60s Ali looked better as a boxer against a puncher, and that's saying a lot. Norton, Leon Spinks. His masterful dominance of Berbick and Cooney, his heart against Witherspoon and Weaver.

#3 is far from out of the question. To me the people he didn't fight were far from anything to write home about. Page, Thomas, Dokes, Coetzee all lost to people they REALLY shouldn't have and had overall not much for careers, really. But that's just my opinion.

No need to unify the title. He knocked Weaver cross-eyed and the other people who held the title after him (listed above) overall were kind of lame. We all knew in the late seventies to mid 80s who the Champ was.

 

I have him #3, and feel very comfortable with it. Can't see an argument that makes much sense to the contrary.

 

I think #3 and #4 would need to be decided by a trilogy between Lewis and Holmes.

 

I'm an admirer of Lewis. The problem I have with him rated so high are the two knockouts at the hands of B listers...something that never happened to Holmes.

That said, I have Lewis at #6, only below Ali, Louis, Holmes, Holyfield, and Foreman.

 

I have him and Lewis at 3 and 4, I think they have comparable resumes. The problem when you start nitpicking his resume is you would need to do it to any fighter you put above him. Except for Ali, they usually are either lacking depth, or a signature win.

 

What I like about Larry is that while he has the style to have close fights with guys who lesser heavyweights might run through, he also matches up well with any heavyweight in history imo. I could picture him getting wins against a variety of different styles, Lewis, Ali, Foreman etc.

 

My thoughts, and I have many, as I am a big fan.

1. Whatever he's rated, it would be higher if it weren't for Ali. Two ATG's who rely on the same strengths and are the same kind of fighters, where the one without the big personality was the sparring partner and arguable mentee of the one with the big personality, means he is just not going to quite get his due.

2. He's certainly more appreciated these days than he used to be. Coming between the two biggest personalities in boxing since anybody at the moment has been alive = difficult shoes to fill. Jack Johnson was a huge personality, but he's too far outside the current era.

3. Most of the negative things people say about him are that he dodged certain fighters. That isn't technically true. Larry would have fought anyone -- IF the money was right given the risk. Larry (in his first career) fought only for money, and sought to take the least risk for the max cash. This is no secret. He freely admits it in his books.

4. Obviously, great fighter. Yeah, he struggled sometimes -- and always pulled it off anyway. Kind of like this other guy I remember. Fast feet and hands, rhymed/rapped a lot, big smack talker? What was his name? Think he was an african american gentleman from the south somewhere? I think he had a daughter who ended up curb stomping the entire women's HW division?

5. His second career was interesting and inspiring. Usually, when old fighters come out of retirement, it's because they're broke. Larry was/is smart with money, and was already set for life. He came back because he realized that, after all those years of seeking money, there actually WAS something inside of him that just wanted to fight. He proved just how good he was here -- he was a technical fighter who relied on his speed, yet earned multiple title shots in his 40s, and pulled off that Mercer fight. Even his very last fight, at age 52 against Butterbean, was to prove something. Larry specifically mentioned in his book what a talentless joke he thought Butterbean was. Pretty sure he took that last fight, for not much money, just to prove his point -- and, he DID prove his point. Age 52, and he dominated the entire fight from start to finish. Also, ****, watch the fight, then compare to Jones vs Tyson. Despite LOOKING out of shape, the Larry of his last fight moved and fought like he'd have easily beaten the Jones or Tyson of that fight. He moved and fought like he'd still have been capable of demolishing a line of journeymen 30 years younger than he was.

6. Best jab. Shavers, in his book, described it as a ramrod that was so fast he couldn't see it coming, and said it hit as hard as a right. Ali had a great jab, but I don't recall guys saying it was damaging. Any comments I can find by guys who fought Larry said his jab hurt like hell.

7. Wish Old Holmes had fought Old Foreman. I understand they had actually signed for it, and the promoter couldn't come up with the money. Shame. What a fight that would have been on multiple levels. Two ATG relics from a former era, who were both still dangerous. Would have gone down in history as the greatest old man match ever. They really could have leaned into the age thing for fun too. (hey, I'm older, so I can poke fun).

 

For the most part I think he’s fine. Sometimes however his die hard fans go to great lengths to defend the indefensible.

 

He showed some skills as an old dude that demonstrated how good he always really was. Maybe I'm not remembering right, but did he ever shot those infighting skills before Mercer? Turns out, he was excellent at it, and had a way of being able to smash a right uppercut right through an opponent's guard.

 

Some pundits do use a so called “struggle” fight to improperly downgrade a fighter. even when the “struggle” still resulted in a clear win.

Ali was dropped hard by Cooper and really, at least imo, he never dominated Henry the way he dominated others at his peak - Cooper of course being stopped on cuts on both occasions. Interesting that Cooper said Ali never really hurt him (I think the vision supports this) therefore Henry marvelled at how Ali could still manage to roll guys who were so much bigger.

Of course, however it went with Henry, it didn’t stop Ali destroying other fighters, including his titanic KO of Foreman. I think Henry’s secret was that he was that much lighter and therefore more mobile - making him difficult to hit cleanly.

Ali’s unique prime mobility generally removed the potential “struggles” we might’ve seen otherwise but still ultimately saw in his second career when he no longer had the legs to stay out of harm’s way - some fighters never had those legs in the first place.

Similar to Liston, Larry also came to the title relatively late - 28 yo which, on average, can be reasoned to be the final year of a boxer’s absolute prime.

Winning the title at such later ages can see a fighter finally lifted to the spotlight only for the broader public to then also begin seeing a down turn in their abilities which is deceiving in so far the fighters true, absolute prime having already passed (unseen) for the most part.

Finally, Larry was underrated and being bookended by Ali and Tyson obviously didn’t help. I think Larry was later slung shot in to being a bit overrated but now has settled into realistic rating.

Aside from his overall skills, fight winning jab in its own right and the devastating right uppercut ripped out every now and then (tried same on Tyson in the 11th hour but his arm got caught in the ropes) Larry was also a very physically strong fighter.

 

Hes underrated and doesnt get near the amount of credit he deserves. Hes the only heavyweight to have 20 title wins (whatever it was), be undefeated at 35 and come back and be a legitimate heavyweight contender into his 40s. He should be in the conversation as the greatest heavyweight ever along with Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali.

 

Notable wins are...

Norton- a semi-great, and the fight was either way
Witherspoon- not quite great, and the fight was either way
Mercer- good fighter but not great. Maybe his best fight under the circumstances
Shavers- a very deeply flawed fighter, life and death the second time
Cooney- Very deeply flawed
Leon Spinks- undersized and deep character flaws, oft beaten
Smith- deeply flawed
Berbick- deeply flawed
Weaver- oft beaten
Ali- a travesty of a fight against a walking ghost

And a lot of other fringe and average contenders, some of which, like Snipes and Willaims, gave him a lot of trouble.

He lost to a LHW.

I just don't see there what it is that justifies people putting him in the top three or top five. When you add context it gets worse, since not only did he not try to unify belts, but he actually screwed boxing by giving the IBF credibility when he accepted their belt rather than fight Page.

Holmes, to me, is bottom end of the top ten AT BEST, and maybe not even that.

 

Doesn’t deserve the three spot.