"Larry Holmes was the GOAT"

Thanks Swag. Yeah as i said earlier Foreman would move up and Holyfield down in the most glaring changes, tho still minor as i'd keep the same names i think. I rate Lewis #2 H2H. I'm not really factoring much if any H2H in tho which is why Marciano is high.

 

You don't factor H2H? Makes sense. I was wondering where Williams was.

 

He'd be one spot below Liston if so, just in front of Foreman, Holmes and Tyson.

 

Yeah that's a fair ranking for post shooting Williams. He was a shell of himself.

 

Exactly. Ali knew where it was at.

 

If Larry, before losing to Michael Spinks had won: Greg Page, John Tate, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes, ... MAYBE. Also Larry Holmes was never the undisputed champion which IMO negates the title of GOAT by default.

 

Clearly, you have never encountered Barney !

 

The quality of the scalps is, IMO, very important...more important than the quantity, otherwise SRL wouldn't rank very highly among the p4p ATGs.

Ali has three of my top ten Heavyweights and two of the next ten on his resume.

Holmes has no one from the top ten, save for the (by-then Parkinsonian) ghost of Ali, and only one from the next ten.



Ali has no obvious ducks, Larry has a few.

Ali lost what were probably his three best years due to politics
Given how he performed in the three preceding years, it's a pretty safe bet the exile robbed him of a lot more important wins.

And finally, the (subjective) eye test.

Ali just looked better against better competition than did Holmes.

You could make a case that Holmes was greater, and you have.

But I am not persuaded, nor would the majority of observers IMO.

And since there is no absolute answer here, I think we could go with the near consensus pick, using a number of criteria.

 

To be clear I don't consider Larry the GOAT but if he had fought and beaten Dokes, Tubbs, Page, Thomas and Tucker, fans wouldn't rate him any higher now, they would just say he beat a bunch of fat lazy coke addicts who managed 2 successful defences between them (one of which was a draw). He beat Witherspoon who was pretty much the best of that bunch (pretty clearly IMO). He also deserved at least 1 win against Spinks, with both the Spinks and Tyson losses when past his peak (even though of course he did have something left in the tank).

Not sure exactly what a "second tier great" is? Talk about a back handed compliment! A great is a great.

 

Progression of the sport is a funny thing. There isn’t one fighter as fundamentally sound as Joe Louis in all HW history and when did he fight? You’d rather a fighter box like say Gene Tunney then anyone in the 60s-70s.

 

Slightly off topic but fans bring up the knock downs to Snipes and Shavers to diminish Larry but I think they enhance his legacy. Those punches would have KO'd plenty of other fighters but he got up and won, unlike Lennox Lewis who was KO'd twice let is not forget by hardly ATGs.

I also feel some posters look at resume as the be all and end all for a fighter's standing. IMO dedication, discipline and consistency are big factors for me when I rate a fighter. Larry had those in spades and we have no clearer example of the difference between a great fighter and a good fighter than comparing Holmes to everyone else who claimed a portion of the title during his reign.

Also just watch the guy, he was a wonderful fighting machine at his peak and if you can't trust your eyes I can't help you. So not the GOAT, I simply don't think that we can make that claim for anyone when we have such a rich history to draw on but certainly well up there.

 

Well, boxing 'technique' is different to physical 'conditioning' and, to be fair, I am not entirely sold on the 'modern boxing training is improved' perspective, anyway.

That said, whichever way one wants to look comparatively at training methods across eras, I would still suggest that psychological states underpin the effectiveness of training in general and, in turn, perhaps play the bigger part in one's competitive performance. More broadly it can impact career decisions, which will to an extent influence how one is viewed in historical terms. Moreover, I would say this mental aspect of decision-making, preparation and performance somewhat transcends eras.

I think it is an aspect of Holmes that is not so much overlooked but perhaps treated variably when rating him, i.e., he is given a fair bit of leeway when it comes to explaining some of his opponent selections, his attitude and focus on money, during the latter stages of his Championship tenure. In essence, one might argue that Holmes became a victim of his own sub-optimal state of mind - and at a time when he was 'close' to Louis' and Marciano's records.

 

Lewis is better. Holmes didnt avenge his losses.

 

Witherspoon at the time when he fought Holmes wasn't the best of the bunch though, he was a novice who had recently got a gift vs Renaldo Snipes.

I think beating a Pinklon Thomas who was undefeated for 7 years, who beat Witherspoon handily by the way. Would've been one of Holmes's best wins in the 80s easily.

The criticism for Holmes comes after Cooney fight where he elected to choose softer opposition, and avoided some of the more dangerous challengers who stylistically posed a real threat to him.

I think had Holmes beat Thomas, rematched Weaver when he was champion, and fought either Page, Dokes, or Coetzee. I guarantee Holmes's reign would've looked significantly better and be more appreciated.

Holmes was a great fighter but he does deserve some stick especially between 83-85 for some of his title defences. I mean Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank ? Come on.