Larry Holmes's all time placement?

11 on a good day.

 

1)(Tie) Dempsey, Ali, Holmes
4) Louis
5) Frazier

Always subject to revision, but I maintain the same top three pretty consistently.

 

Dempsey beat nobody??????????,god why do people bother posting,dude its all about personal choice,to say that about dempsey is rather thick,he beat the best about then,and i know he would not fight the black fighters,or at least some of them,but i dont know 100% for sure,if they could have beat him so its kind of pointless slaging him.
All the old day writers said he was the best,and seeing this beast of a fighter on old crappy film shows me they may have been right.

 

I tend to go back and forth on my rating of Holmes. On one hand, he was unbeaten in his first 48 pro fights and had 20 defenses. On the otherhand, he never unified the crown and at times fought men who were less deserving than some whom he arguably ducked. Of course, I've always felt that part of his troubles with unification matches and failure to defend against #1 contenders came from politics more than anything else.

Today, I think Holmes should be ranked around #5. He almost tied Marciano's record of 49-0, and came close to Louis's record of 25 defenses. He never regained the title upon losing it, but made a good effort at 40+ in beating Ray Mercer and going the distance with a prime Holyfield. Throughout his career, he beat at least 10 undefeated fighters, and fought a lot of young prospects coming off of big wins, plus many big punchers. Holmes might be rated higher had he faced and beaten Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, and won his matches with Spinks.

 

God are you a bit thick then?,or dont you agree with every writer from the time who saw him fight,did they all make that **** up then i bet in your mind

 

Go on big bollocks,name me 9 better HWs in history?,seriously your talking bollocks:hi:
Id much rather believe someone like mike tyson who said the guy was a ****ing animal,and who copied his style,over someone on the net,who has weird issues.

 

Ali,louis and marciano yes,the rest not in this life mate:good

 

I really like these numbers. I did a paper in college over 10 years ago on this subject. I was disappointed at then editor of Ring Magazine, Steve Farhood, not having Holmes in his top 5 all time at heavyweight. I called Farhood for a quote in my paper. I don't have my paper in front of me, so I won't be quoting anyone here.

I told him my opinion of Holmes' placement, and he shared with me his. After a bit of arguing, he then told me he felt that Holmes should rank 4th all time. At the time, I had him 3rd. He felt that Jack Johnson had #3 locked up. I now agree with him there.

4th- Holmes

 

The more I think about it, the lower Holmes seems to be.
He never relly clean out the divison the way Ali, Louis, and Marciano did.
Holmes also had way to many EASY title defenses against 13-0, 12-0 type of foes. I know many make a big deal out of the 20 title fights thing, but relly, Would 5 or 6 title defenses against the best, or monsters outweight beating 20 rookies, never was??? I have a hard time with why people PUT Holmes number 3. Holmes did nothing in his rein that pales in comparsion to what Louis, Ali, Marciano, Jim Jeff, Ezzard Charles, Joe Frazier, George Foreman on the first run.

I mean people, (And I do also) get on to Patterson on defeated no bodys, and rookies during his title defense, and most people dont have Patterson in the top ten?? Than why, and I mean why do we give Holmes a pass than?? And on top of that why the top 3????

 

4.

 

You gotta be kidding. He is at least top 10, most think top 5.

 

Well, for starters, most of these so called "no bodies" went on to win belts and prove to be very good fighters. Look at Witherspoon, he proved to be a very good fighter, and with the HOF lowering its standards every year, possibly a HOFer. Bonecrusher Smith went on to show he was a very good fighter. He fought 7 guys that had less than 20 fights, 3 of which (Leon Spinks, Tim Witherspoon, and Bonecrusher Smith) all proved to be very good fighters. Leon beat Ali, Witherspoon and Smith went on to win belts shortly after, and even Marvis Frazier wasn't that bad, just got totally beat down and out classed by Holmes and Tyson. Ocasio wasn't the best but still not bad, of course he wasn't good either, more average. Larry fought very good fighters and prospects, Cooney, Snipes, Jones, Berbick (again proved to be a very good fighter), Shavers, Weaver, and Cobb (not the best, but still could fight).

 

People are giving too much credit for Leon.
And sure Witherspoon show his skills LATER, but he was still green when he fought Holmes.

Had Marciano beating a 13-0 Sonny Liston, and than retire unbeating. Than Liston goes on and becomes this great fighter, would that make Marciano rank higher or lower?

And its not that hard to win a belt in the ABC days. So that means little to me.