Larry Holmes vs. Rocky Marciano

I know. But that was Norton's last peak performance. That took A LOT out of him. It didn't take much out of Larry because he wasn't ring worn. Norton was never the same after that fight.

 

I've always been a big fan of Holmes, but after an entire year of going back and forth on these issues, I'm begining to agree with John Thomas and some of the other critics who point out, that Holmes fought inordinately weak competition for a man holding a lineal title. I'm not going to say that all his fights were against bums, but let's not sugar coat things anymore. Norton, was past his prime and gave Holmes fits. Some people even think the fight was a robbery. I don't of course, but I'll still say that it was close. Shavers was also past his prime, and not even a terrific fighter when he was, yet he nearly knocked Holmes to kingdom come. Ali had no business fighting anyone, let alone the heavyweight champion, yet he got a shot at Larry. Mike Weaver was a 19-8 journeyman, who managed to nearly upset Holmes. Renaldo Snipes had all but 11 KO's in 22 wins, and he dropped Holmes. Randall Tex Cobb was a bum as was Scott Ledoux, David Bey, L. Spinks, Ossie Ocasio, Lucien Rodriguez ,and Alfredo Evangelista. Marvis Frazier was talented and had beaten some decent fighters, but 10 pro bouts? Carl Williams had 16 fights, and his best win was decision over Tillis, who every guy and his brother had beaten, yet he lost a split decision, and gave Holmes one of the ugliest shiners I've ever seen on a reighning champ. Tim Witherspoon had 15 bouts, and his only good win was a close decision over Renaldo Snipes, yet Holmes couldn't beat Witherspoon with any reasonable degree of decisivness. Scott Frank and Leroy Jones had nice looking records, but no one beneath the numbers to really give their resumes any substance. Gerry Cooney is commonly listed as Holmes best title defense, yet he hadn't fought in 13 months, and had never beaten a world class fighter in his prime. The Norton and Lyle wins don't impress me much. Both of those men were way out of prime, and were suseptible to getting beaten by punchers even on their best days.

Some say Holmes should have fought the likes of Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Michael Dokes and perhaps Gerrie Coetzee. While I agree, I'm not even so sure that I would have given him much credit even if he had. Those guys in my opinion were'nt much better than the bums that Holmes actually faced. I suppose his later win over Ray Mercer was OK given Larry's advanced age, however Mercer was not a particularly talented fighter. he was nearly outpointed by Francesco Damiani and following the Holmes bout, was upset by Jesse Ferguson in a most disgraceful way, as Mercer was cought on camera trying to bribe Ferguson to lose.

I still like Holmes but if quality of competition determines the greatness of a champion, then I think Holmes falls drastically short when being compared to most of history's greatest fighters....

.....The End......

 

Bill, i sincerely doubt Norton still had a peak performance in him. You mean his last top performance, his peak was gone. As for never the same, he lost a gruelling title fight at the age of some 35 after a substancial career, it's understandable it was curtains for him. None the less a great effort, it would have been interesting if he was say 28.

 

I think Holmes is a vastly underrated champion, and although I disagree with what you just said, I think this was the most cogently and eloquently stated, nonpersonal critique of Holmes that I have read (mr. magoo's critique).

 

Jeez i can't believe you turned around so much. I guess we had some cold hard facts after all.

Somewhere out there Dr.Z. is crying!

 

After years and years of defending Holmes legacy, I finally realize that I must concede to the cold hard facts about his reign. His oposition was absolutely horrible in contrast to Ali, Tyson, Holyfield, Liston and Lewis. I mean seriously, can you imagine Gerry Cooney being listed as Muhammad Ali's best win? I can't either. Tyson's victories over Spinks, Thomas, Tucker and Ruddock were in all likelyhood better than anything Holmes did in the course of 20 title defenses. Even some of Tyson's post prison fights against Mcneeley, Mathis, Seldon, Bruno, Golata, Botha and Savarese weren't much different than some of the guys Holmes defended his title against. And did Holmes ever have rivalries with other great talented fighters the way Holyfield did with Bowe, Lewis, Moorer and Tyson? outside of fighting Shavers twice, I think not. Sonny liston crippled his division in a most dominant and violent fashion between 1958 and 1961, before getting a title shot. Holmes on the otherhand, was the benificiary of being in the right place at the right time, with his great big win over Roy Williams.

I used to rank Holmes in the top 3, but I seriously have to drop him down significantly. Based on his reevaluated credentials, I'm not so sure that I can have him ranked very high anymore.

 

Tyson and Lewis's comp? Tyson fought some of the guys that Larry did, just they were older and not as good. Tyson didn't face good comp. Lewis fought all right comp, but he fought some guys that were way past it like Tyson and Holyfield. Larry's comp IMO is underrated. Witherspoon went on to win a title, same with Weaver. When Larry fought Weaver, he had the flu, which explains the lack of movement and unusal slowness and bad stamina. Cooney was still a very good fighter, he just couldn't beat great fighters like Holmes, Spinks, and Foreman. I'll admit that Holmes's comp wasn't the best, but its not his fault. You can't blame him for not fighting Coetzee, because he was going to. The fight got called off a month or 2 before fight night. Page, that subject is iffy. Instead of legacy, Larry took the buisness route, and you can't blame him for it. He said it him self, if there wasn't money in boxing, then he wouldn't do it, and he will always choose the fight that he will make more money with. He made more money fighting Frazier than he would have fighting Page. Tyson never had any rivalries, neither did Lewis. Larry proved that he could fight in the 90's, and that was Holyfield, Lewis, and Bowe's time. Larry proved that he could stay competive, and even beat Ray Mercer in a far more decisive and better fashion than Lewis. Why would Larry have fought Dokes??? Dokes was on drugs and all, and would prove nothing once he beat him. Larry was simply in the wrong era, much like Marciano, and for some reason or another, will be condemed for it, just because he didn't fight in an era like Ali's.

 

How many guys are we honestly talking about here Bill, and were they really better when they fought Holmes? Berbick was a little up there in age, but then Tyson was a 20 year old kid, and he dusted Berbick in only two rounds. Besides Trevor was coming off of his biggest win against Pinklon Thomas, therfore I wouldn't say that he was any worse then when he fought Holmes. Marvis Frazier had 10 pro fights against Holmes. He was far more seasoned against Tyson, and lost in even less time. Spinks upset an aging Holmes, then fought Tyson slightly past his prime, but come on. 90 seconds? Same story with Williams. How many fighters can you say that Holmes beat who were better than Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, or Tony Tucker? Or for that matter Lewis's best wins against Gary Mason, Razor Ruddock, Vitali Klitschko, Andrew Golata, Michael Grant and Olive Mccall? Holmes fought Gerry Cooney and an aging Shavers, who are commonly listed as his best opponents. These are terrible wins to have as your best performances in 20 title fights.

I'm not saying that Tyson or Lewis fought outstanding opposition, but it was noticeably better than Holmes'. Besides, would you rank even a past prime Holyfield lower than maybe 17 or 18 of the guys who Holmes beat?

What he did in hindsite doesn't justify Holmes giving him a shot with 15 bouts.

Whatever the reason for Holmes weak performance against Weaver is irrelevant. The fact that Weaver got a title shot with a journeyman's record is.

Yes, Cooney was good, but not exactly good enough to where you'd want to have him listed as your best win. Cooney was very inexperienced against Holmes. He had never been beyond 8 rounds in his career, and who in fact only boxed 2 rounds in the previous two years before fighting Holmes. That's to say nothing about his self confidence problem, drug/alcohol use and of course his crap for management.

I won't disagree that politics had a role in Holmes not facing some of the division's other talents, but the fact is that we can only rate him for who he actually did fight, and frankly Bill, I'd say Holmes' reign was a pretty big disapointment considering that he was supposed to be the protege of Muhammad Ali....

Yeah because Tyson kicked the **** out of nearly everyone he fought in his prime. Larry wouldn't even give rematches to fighters who practicly smoked his ass.

Yeah, but Holmes didn't beat any of those guys did he?

Ferguson beat Mercer more decisively than Lewis. So what?

Uh maybe because he was better than Scott Frank and Lucien Rodriguez? :huh

Fair enough, however he didn't exactly do everything he could to make the best of his era did he?

 

Michael Dokes and Larry wouldn't have had any buisness fighting each other, and even then, Larry would be critiqued for fight Dokes. They would say "Larry didn't fight a prime Dokes" or "Dokes was on drugs" stuff like that. I don't see what the big deal is with Larry not fighting 2-3 guys, when he would only get bashed for it anyway. Tyson didn't bash everyone into the ground. Greg Page gave Tyson a good fight. Holmes still fought some good fighters. Were they the best? No. Were they decent? Yes. People praise Michael Spinks for KOing Cooney, but Cooney was in even worse shape then when he fought Larry. The only reason Cooney didn't have very many rounds under his belt is because he knocked everyone out before it. Gerry only had 2 more fights after Larry, so I guess he wasn't very expeirence his whole career. The best guys Larry fought were Witherspoon, Cooney, Snipes Shavers (just 1 year past his prime), Norton, Spinks (both), and Weaver. Thats not that bad its a lot better than what it is now a days.

 

I don't consider Page, Dokes, Coetzee or Thomas as great fighters either. The four of them at best, had maybe 3 quality wins a piece, and came from a generation of fighters, many of whom had drug abuse problems, poor training habits and were generally washed up by the time they were in their late 20's. The unfortunate fact of the matter is however, that they were rated among the top of the crop during the ill faded 80's. I agree with you that even if Holmes had beaten them he would still be subject to scrutiny for fighting in a weak era, and looking unimpressive against mediocre competition. Another problem that Holmes suffered from was a bad public image, which he helped create himself. Although I don't blame all of the critics attacks on Holmes', the fact still stands that we can only rate fighters based on who they fought and what they accomplished during their perspective eras.

Here are the biggest issues that I see with Holmes' title reign:

A. He fought in a weak era

B. Despite fighting in a weak era, he did not always fight the best men in it.

C. At times looked unimpressive against the men he did actually face.

D. Did not establish himself as the one dominant champ.

E. Did not give rematches to fighters who probably deserved them. ( although I often think that this criticism is blown a bit out of proportion by some of the haters ).

F. Established a rather poor public image, which left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths ( of course he wasn't the only one to do this, as we later saw with Tyson, and previously saw with Liston. )

That said, I still rank Holmes in my top ten, and hold him in high regard. I can no longer however, have him rated as a top 5 heavyweight champion, as I had previously done for so many years....

 

Agreed well said!!! Also Holmes was like watching paint dry!:happy

 

How so? He was always throwing punches, and he would usually get into a slug fest or another. If you are refering to his fight with Lucien Rodriguez, then that is not the real Larry. Larry said it him self...he knew that was a terrible fight, and he did his best to turn it into one.

 

Jeez Magoo, it's different seeing you shoot down pro Holmes boys lol. I moved him from 3 to 4 very recently but he's there to stay now i'd say. I actually have Lewis at 3. TBH i am ranking from Louis forward.

 

In all fairness, Cooney, Witherspoon, Norton and Shavers weren't bad. They were pretty good fighters, although Kenny and Earnie were getting a bit long in the tooth. On the otherhand, Lucien Rodiriguez, Lorenzo Zanon, Alfredo Evangelista, Ossie Ocasio, Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb, Scott Ledoux and David Bey were pretty goddamn **** poor fighters if I say so mysel. Frank, Marvis Frazier, James Smith, and Carl Williams were decent but in a lot of eras, probably wouldn't be top contenders. Leroy Jones was Ok I guess. For whatever it's worth, he was a large heavyweight by the standards of the day, and was unbeaten in 25 fights, with no great names in particular, but at least defeated some of the division's tougher journeyman and trial hoarses.

I also noticed that you said you were ranking from Louis forward. I don't know if you mean that you have him in front of Muhammad. Personally, I can't see Louis's reign being much different from Holmes in terms of competition quality. Although, in fairness Louis fought whatever guys were available. A fair argument can be made However, that Both Holmes and Louis had rather padded records, which may explain why they had the two longest reigns and most defenses. Think about it, together they had 44 defenses combined. Of these 44, though how many of them do you think were against ****? Of course the opposite could be said by combining the quality wins that each man had. Between Louis and Holmes you had victories over Schmeling, B. Baer, M. Baer, Norton, Conn, Shavers, Braddock, Cooney, Walcott, Witherspoon, Nova, Weaver, Carnera, and Mercer. Not a bad list if all these names belonged to just one champion. The problem is that it simply isn't the case. Louis fought a lot more guys who were like Jack Roper than Max Schmeling, while Holmes fought a lot more men like tex Cobb than than Ken Norton.

 

:good :good Good Post, People think I have a personal dislike for Larry but I liked Larry and enjoyed his fights but was fustrated that he did not unify, stayed clear of tough rematches, and avoided many of the tougher contenders,Don King was caught paying John Ort to raise Larry up in the rating and Raise his opponent,TOM PRATER, for the elimination. I think Larry may have beaten a lot of the guys he avoided but we will never know, I love a champ that fights the best even if he loses(Floyd fought Liston)(Vito A fought Hagler) Back in the days of one Champ in each division you had to fight the best and BE the real champ. I agree with everything you said :good