Larry Holmes undefeated

I don't know if I agree with the statement that he well could have or should have retired undefeated. He was bound to get a loss somewhere down the line and in fact did as we all know. Had he beaten Spinks and left the game at 49-0, it might have helped his legacy some, but there would always be those who say " what about Page ", " what about Thomas ", etc..... Additionally, I think the temptation to surpass the already standing record of 49-0, or to even break Louis's streak of 25 title defenses would have kept him around longer, as would Holmes lust to make money.....

 

No, because if you stay undefeated fighting the best of your era it means something...If you fight the best of your era and lose some,it still means something (Evander H.) So if Larry beat Spinks and avoided fighting Page,Dokes,Coetzee,Weaver,Thomas,Tate...Witherspoon and Williams in rematches....It would have to be taken into consideration

 

I say, No, Holmes' legacy would not have been enhanced had he retired undefeated! Reason I say this, no matter what Larry Holmes had done he would not have received the credit or recognition his skills & achievements permitted!

Larry didn't have a healthy relationship with the media & some of boxing experts & that's putting it politely. Some guys had a hidden or personal agenda when it came to Holmes, there's no too ways about it. Larry Holmes was Larry Holmes. He was not going to be Muhammad Ali or try to live up to him. Holmes was his own man & did things his own way!

Bottom line is, Larry Holmes was a great fight, certainly one of the best HW's ever! Holmes should have received the recognition he has now got a long, long time ago!

 

As time passed ,just as with Marciano, his record of let's say 50-0 would have become more iconic/ significant.(Correct me if I am wrong ,but Marciano barely cracked The Ring's/Fleischer's top ten HW's back in the 70's?)

But Holmes would not have slept at night with Mike Tyson around & a potental payday with him would have bouught him out. He was too competetive to allow the "Tyson would kill Holmes" talk to go on & not come back to prove them wrong.

 

Holmes dd not need the '0' for his legacy. If he wanted to improve it, he needed Muhammad Ali to retire after the Rumble in the Jungle and for Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Leonard to of not fought each other, and thus let THE World Heavyweight Champion be the number one act in boxing.

 

Are you saying if Ali had retired in 1974, that Holmes would have been the dominated the Heavyweights? Wasn't he still pretty green around that time?

 

No, I am saying by the time Holmes matured (78/79), the Ali shadow would not of been so big, thus Holmes would of got more kudos earlier.

 

Holmes was very much about the money. He would not retire at 50-0 if a big pay day was out there. It would take a major career ending injury to force Holmes to retire, and even then he might give it a go anyway.

 

I also don't think that retiring whilst still undefeated would have enhanced his legacy. Holmes actually accomplished a lot after coming out of retirement and fought at a higher level of skill than pretty much anyone who fought into the same age that Holmes did.

Still wishes that he had that fight against George Foreman though. That would have been a great fight!

 

No, but he would still probably be seen as a top ten heavy of all-time.

 

Holmes' legacy would still have holes in it. I mean, he was a great fighter who accomplished a lot; that's undeniable. But the last few years of his reign were basically spent fighting inferior opponents, both in terms of experience and skill level. Picking up another win or two over outclassed/overmatched opponents I doubt would mean much in the overall scheme of things. If he fought his 50th fight against a Tony Tucker or a Michael Dokes or a Pinklon Thomas or one of the other rising up-and-comers, it would mean something.

 

He very much intended too. He picked Spinks as supposedly another very overmatched opponent, but got shocked by one of the most underrated performances ever.

 

It wouldn't *to me* but there certain kinds who would definitely have ranked him higher. I give him points for his longevity post-reign.

 

lets get over the unbeaten thing. If marciano lost the first lastarza fight and was 48-1 when he retired after the moore fight he would still be rated as highly since he cleaned out a division.

yes, holmes missed out on dokes, thomas, coetzee, page, tate but he would and should be considred above them anyway. he knocked out weaver who beat dokes and coetzee. holmes knocked out bey who beat page. holmes victims like berbick and weaver beat tate. berbick also beat thomas. So holmes was the best of his era, an era litered with belts and good fighters who could match each other whilst being inferior to Holmes. Larry was the consistant heavyweight of his time, he may not have cleaned out the division but he was the best.