Larry Holmes: Revisionist Historian

Larry Holmes is also lying when he says he never ducked anyone. In the years SINCE he was champion he's come to say such things to protect his "legacy", but if you go back and look at the newspapers and magazines and interviews of the time Holmes was quite open about ducking hard challengers, esp. later in his reign.
To be fair to Holmes, some of the "easy" challengers he chose actually turned out to be tough challengers (eg. Carl Williams) but his intention was to avoid tough ones. Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page were given resounding "no, thanks" from Holmes, and rematches with Weaver and Witherspoon were off his list of possibles (and I'm going from actual statements to that effect) and the price tag on rematching Cooney was something ridiculous like $50 million. In 1983 he said of Cooney "I dont want to fight him. that's why I'm asking $50 million because I know they wont give it to me."
He said he wont fight Page unless he gets $5 million.
In 1985 he said :
"I want a lot of money and no more of those big hitters like Witherspoon and Mike Weaver. I've paid my dues, and if they want me back, they've got to give me little people I can beat on without getting hurt."
And after that he fought Carl Williams.

There are dozens of similar quotes and insights from press conferences of almost every Holmes fight from 1982-'85.
He was unashamedly looking for easiest possible fights and avoid the dangerous challengers.
I'm not saying he's much different from all other champions, it's more or less standard procedure to duck the biggest threats UNLESS the money is too good to refuse. Ducking is the norm, I believe. Holmes was just far more honest about it than most.

 

Yes, Holmes has lied about it so many times that he probably believes himself.

In every documentary i see, he's claiming to have fought everyone of his era and ducked no one, which is a blatant lie.

Wait, now you're changing the subject from "he was not training for months" to "just because he was training for months doesn't mean he's in shape, see the Butterbean fight!" ? This is becoming pathetic, just admit that you're wrong and that Larry had several months to prepare and stated doing exactly that.

You say "I'm just here for the money" is no way to promote the fight, but look at the match itself: did Holmes not try and find a soft spot to lie down or did he give it his best shot? Of course the money was an important factor in taking the fight, but not be all end all.

The reverse is more likely to be true: after he got annihilated, he tried to erase the loss by saying he didn't try to win, trained for only one day, was just there for the money, etc.

 

When fighters refer to training, or I just take it this way, they mean training camp, not going to the gym. If going to the gym equals training, then Larry would still be in training to this day.

And no crap Holmes didn't just find a spot to lay on the canvas, he showed up wanting to win. No doubt about it, and he truly believed he could win. There isn't a bit of quit in Holmes, he has a lot of pride. But the "I'm going for legacy" part is BS. He was going for the money, he wanted to win and get the money, but the money was the real reason.

And just an FYI, I had no intentions of making any comments or arguing at all until you brought me up, which IMO is the real pathetic thing. It's not the first time you've done it either.

 

That's because i don't like the fan boy excuses. You're a good poster otherwise. :good

 

In Larry Holmes boxing forum he once stated that Butterbean hit harder than Tyson, It just shows how stupid that man is. For the most part he will always try to make excuses for himself but then turn around and put some other fighter down.

He seems proud that he fought a washed up Ali and stopped him, infact he brags about it.

Holmes also stated Butterbean punched harder than Foreman even though he never faced Foreman.

He also called pretty much every white fighter he faced a racist.

The man is a bitter old clown and lucky he never had to face a prime Norton, Ali, Foreman, or Frazier.

 

I still believe that Larry Holmes is the best heavyweight over the last 30 years,and obviously it can't be helped that he was n't around for a younger Ali,Frazier or Foreman. He did let himself down with his lame excuses for the Tyson debacle,though. As old as he was,he could have done a bit better if he'd had a tuneup bout.

 

Yes, that was respectul from Mike, but we have to remember, Tyson would have probably said about any other great HW if he had beaten them!

Tyson has always appreciated the great from the past. He studied them for years & years when he was a youngster!

Holmes trained hard for Tyson. I mean, the interview with Barry Tompkins took place just after Tyson stopped Biggs, which was Oct 1987, some three months before Tyson-Holmes. Larry knew when giving the interview he was going to face Tyson in January, so I figure if you know some three months prior, you start preparing yourself!

Holmes was faced with a 21 year old whom he pissed off by being disrespectful, trying to unsettle him. However, during his prime, Tyson did not get involved in all that type of stuff. He just wanted to fight!

Bottom line is, Tyson remains the only man to have TKO'd Holmes & that speaks volumes about how good Mike was, despite Larry being 38 years old at the time!

 

They're not fan boy excuses.

 

Right Mike Tyson knocked out a 38 year old Holmes, Yeah give him a cookie because a prime Shavers, Bowe, Lewis, Foreman, Tua, ect ect ect wouldnt have iced a 38 year old Holmes. Only the great Mike Tyson could do that right?

 

Shavers would not have beating the Holmes from the Tyson fight imo.

 

I reckon that the 1978/79 Shavers of the two Holmes fights would have probably knocked out the ring rusty 38 yr old version who fought Tyson.

 

Ahhh, so now Holmes was OLD. But when the so called Tyson fans say anything about his losses its excuses and nothing more, for every Tyson loss he was at his absolute best. Well then the same guys should say the same the other way around. Holmes was still at his best at the time. :yep
Seriously Tyson humiliated Holmes and beat the crap out of him like nobody else ever did. Shavers had his chance and he failed, but then again he couldnt even win againts Tillis. :hey
And dont tell me Holmes was any better when he beat Mercer or went 12 with Holyfield. :deal

 

I used to visit that forum often, and I remember him saying that. I laughed too, what a delusional tool

I liked Holmes as a fighter, but as a man he's full of contradictions, he's a really strange character.

I also read somewhere that Tyson ****ing HATED Holmes and was ready to stick it to the guy in the post fight interview too before someone reminded him to be respectful to his opponent, and then he came out with the remark about how if Holmes had been in his prime he 'couldn't have stood a chance, he was a great fighter' (I think those were his words) and then on the way out of the ring the same person told Tyson off for being too respectful

 

Tyson wouold have KO'd Holmes at his best, just a matter of styles...Tyson was a good right hand Puncher...Holmes was not prime but no matter results would have been the same IMO

 

tyson isn't stupid v 1980 holmes - he knew that would be a hard fight, not the slow moving version he faced.