Larry Holmes's all time placement?

Point taken. But we must look at what they did, rather than what was possible. Holmes did get the nod in questionable decisions against Witherspoon and Williams. Probably the reason Louis never, he could punch with more authority. He took it out of the judges hands against the opponents he faced.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

Charles in that brief rein was pretty busy though. In 2 years about, he was able to get in 8 title defenses.

 

I agree with your premise tho Robbi. Holmes can't be that far behind Joe and it has some points. If he beat Page, Thomas and Witherspoon II say for e.g. he would have been pushing hard. Personally i scored Holmes oever both Witherspoon and Williams, with confidence. Close but definite IMO. Louis was lucky with Walcott many say. But yes, Joe's authority and ability to decimate as well as his choice of opposition see him above and beyond i think. Louis reigned a lot longer than Holmes too. An unbelievable reign really.

 

Other thing, is Louis had a close fight, he always gave rematchs.

 

A very pertinent point.

 

Sorry Bill. We have had the discussion before. I do not want to offend you, knowing your feelings about Holmes. In my personal opinion Holmes had a an excellent jab, possibly the best jab ever from a heavyweight. Other than that he was simply a product of his time period. I truthfully believe he is overrated at every turn. And yes he won the 2nd Spinks fight.

 

Five or six, depending on where I place Rocky.


1-4: Ali Louis Lewis Foreman

 

I rank Holmes v.high (#3), but am open to alternative position in the top10. Clearly, his opposition sometimes left a bit to be desired which makes H2H rankings against other ATGs challenging.

What I am certain of (for the moment!), is that he rates higher than Lewis.

I think there are many similarities between the two of them. Both had their best wins against has-beens with legendary names. Both had excellent techniques (although Holmes was quicker, tighter and had a higher punch output). Both have tremendous career win-loss records.

However, Holmes outperforms Lewis on most metrics that seem important to me. In his prime, he always found a way to win when smashed by a big punch, whereas Lewis didn't on two big occasions when it really mattered. Further, fossilised Holmes outperformed prime Lewis against a common opponent, Ray Mercer. Thirdly, Holmes's best performances (e.g Shavers I) are masterful displays of boxing sustained over many rounds, whereas Lewis could not sustain his mastery for long periods, due to laziness and poor concentration (e.g. McCall) / lack of condition (Rahman I) / and sometimes lack of ability i.e he simply was not better than his opponents (e.g Mercer, Bruno, Holyfield II, Klitchko).

I read the Lewis threads all the time on ESB and I still don't buy into a top3 placing, or indeed anywhere better than the lower end of the top10.

So, I proffer a challenge to the Lewis fans. Provide a compare and contrast argument versus Holmes and show me who deserves to rank higher!!!

 

I have him at #3 (just ahead of Lewis). :good

 

I think Holmes fought a slightly better collection of fighters in comparison to Louis, and struggled less in the ring. If Holmes was slapped around by the likes of Pastor, or Conn, the press would have a field day on him.

If we are talking legands here, its Louis by a mile. Head to head is a different type of discussion.

 

Bill. Since your a Holmes fan. Thought I'd ask what other heavyweights you like?.

 

Hi Nick. I will try to cook you a nice Lewis-argument.

First of all, Norton was less legendary than Holyfield in terms of wins over old legends. I don't know if you were thinking about Ali, but at any rate, he had as little left as any shot fighter ever has. Lewis' win over Tyson is much more significant because Tyson was actually given a good chance (7 to 5 underdog if i remember correct) and on a knockout winning streak over good to decent fighters like Golota, Botha, Nielsen and Savarese. His last loss was against Holyfield who was obviously very good. On the contrary, Ali lost to 6-0 Leon Spinks and did not impress that much in the rematch.

Holmes indeed was quicker and tighter and usually had a higher punch output, although it should be noted that Lewis was not as much asleep as is made out to be, either. He averaged 60 punches a round against Holyfield. Lewis also has a huge edge in power, something that would've bailed Holmes out of a close one against Norton for instance.

This is true to a certain extent, but i will make 2 remarks:

1. If you compare the stoppage of Lewis in his fight with McCall then you will notice that just about any fighter of his era was given a chance to go on under similar circumstances, especially in a title fight. Golota was on far unsteadier feet against Lewis yet allowed to continue, Holyfield was given 16 seconds to recover against Bowe (III) despite laying motionless like a corpse on the canvas for 4 seconds or so, and now the most important examples: Holmes against Shavers and Snipes was in at least as bad condition and walked around the ring like a zombie (crashed into the ring post) but he was given his chance, and rightfully so.
What happens if Holmes had the same Don King bought referee against his fights with Shavers and Snipes? Then it would go in the history books as Shavers TKO7 Holmes and Snipes TKO7 Holmes. Then he'd have knockout losses to a fighter who had almost zero ability except for his power and to one fighter not even known to be a big puncher. Think about that when you bash Lewis for losing to McCall.

2. You say "in his prime, he always found a way to win when smahed by a big punch". The Rahman loss came at age 35 against Lewis. Mind you, at age 35, Holmes was losing to a lightheavyweight with zero experience against heavyweights. Take that into account when you say "in his prime".

Styles make fights and that's why Holmes performed more convincingly against Mercer. Mercer put his jab to good use against Lewis, who was eager to take him out to impress for an upcoming Tyson fight. Both were bad news for Lewis considering going agressive against a nearly impossible to knockout Mercer was playing into Mercers hands. Holyfield didn't exactly have a shutout win against Mercer either, and he didn't have the growd going wild when Mercer throws a punch that misses and complete silence when he landed a 3 punch combination, as were the circumstances when Lewis fought him.

Fighting Mercer was a great performance by Holmes of course, no doubt. But what does it say about his roughly 25 title wins during his prime when this past his prime win when he had to fight someone good (to get a shot) may be his 3rd career best win?

Furthermore, Lewis did box impressively for long periods. Check out his fight with Tua, with Holyfield, with Mavrovic (not dropping a single round in that one). The McCall loss had nothing to do with lack of focus, it was a flaw (several, actually) in his style plus an early stoppage. The only lack of focus loss was the second Rahman fight at age 35. Holmes too had only one lack of focus loss, also at the age of 35.


I don't understand why you list Holyfield II, Bruno, Klitschko and Mercer as "lack of ability and not being better than his opponent". If he wasn't better than them, then why'd he beat all of them?
He outfoxed Holyfield in Evander's homecountry with zero support, fighting Holyfield's fight and still winning. Bruno gave him a lot of trouble with the jab early on but he sucked it up and knocked him out. The Mercer fight i already adressed. What about Holmes having dead even fights with a green Witherspoon and Williams?

I particularly don't understand your point about Klitschko. Klitschko in my opinion was better than any opponent Holmes ever fought with the sole exception of Tyson. Yet Lewis managed to beat him at age 37! Holmes got his head knocked off at the very same age against Tyson. Now i don't think that takes much away from his legacy considering his age, but do keep that in mind when discrediting Lewis for a controversial win over Vitali Klitschko.

Some other notes on Holmes compared to Lewis:

-Fought everyone around that he could. I say "that he could", because Bowe dropped his title belt to avoid him as did Tyson. Holyfield was past his best but still a formidable fighter holding 2 belts and Lewis dominated him once and comfortably beat him in the rematch.
Holmes never fought Dokes, Coetzee, Page (dropped the only meaningful belt around at that time to avoid that mandatory) and Thomas. Now i don't expect him to have fought every one of them, but at least 2 or more of them in my opinion he should have fought if you want to rank him as high as #3.

-Holmes refused to give rematches as a champion. Norton, Witherspoon and Williams were very close fights. I thought Holmes won the Norton won close but clearly (some think he didn't), but the Witherspoon and Williams fights were lotteries. Witherspoon went on to build on a nice winning streak but Holmes wanted no part of a rematch. Combine this with him avoiding 4 well deserving challengers and you have a champion with very un-championship behaviour. I don't think that merits a #3 spot.

-Lewis beat every opponent put in front of him. No one ever had his number stylistically, yet for instance, Holmes never beat an iron chin come forward fighter like Tyson.

-Lewis has more adaptability than Holmes, in fact, i think he has the best adaptability of all heavyweights in history including Ali. He could box skillfully against a strong, skilled boxer like Holyfield. He could fight off the backfoot for 12 rounds with no problem as he showed against Tua. He could dig deep to get the win in a tough fight, i.e. the Bruno, Mercer and Klitschko fights. He could come out agressive and bomb his opponent out, i.e. Ruddock, Golota, Grant, Botha, Rahman II. He would never be troubled by an opponent like Norton unlike Ali and Holmes. Because of his big punching power, it is not likely that he would have the trouble with a Frazier that Ali had and Holmes might have had. That is of course speculation, but it is well known that boxing types hate swarmer types.

-Lewis, despite having been knocked out 1 more time than Holmes, has beaten a much better array of punchers. Morrison, Bruno, Klitschko, Tyson (old but still hard & fast for 3 rounds), Ruddock, Mercer, Tucker, Mason, Rahman and McCall. This list is better than Cooney, Norton (was Norton really a better puncher than Holyfield, whom i did not even list for Lewis?), Shavers 2x, Mercer, Weaver, Cobb and Smith.

-Lewis faced better opposition all-round and actually went out there and challenged the best. He never fought some of the jokes that Holmes did, Evangelista, Leroy Jones, etc. If you list every opponent from 1992, when Lewis came into contention, you'll only find 3 weak opponents on his entire resume from there untill 11 years later into retirement. If you look at Holmes' opponents from 1977, you'll find many weak or 13 fight inexperienced ones. And contrary to Lewis, the biggest names of the mid 80's or NOT in between those weak names to make up for it.

 

A fantastic post. I'd also be inclined to answer Lewis' struggles vs the likes of Mercer and Bruno with Holmes vs Weaver, Snipes and Witherspoon. All three were very lowly thought of going into the Holmes bouts and this was indeed reflected via the odds for all. In anticipation of the expected look at what they did after i will mention their next fights. Snipes drew vs the most ordinary Scott Frank. Witherspoon went 10 with Cummings who hadn't won a fight in 4 outings prior while Weaver fought a couple of no names before being neatly outboxed by Big John for 14 rounds prior to a desperation left hook coming good.