Holmes managed to make it through 48 pro fights and 19 title bouts through the age of 35 before suffering his first loss. That first loss came via close decision, and to a very talented young fighter. Lewis was in his 20's, a former two time olympian and thus far having a brilliant pro career when he was TKO'd by a man who was barely worthy of contender status. I realize that Lewis still had some polishing up to do and probably improved a bit afterward, but for all practical purposes, he should not have blown it against a man of McCall's status and at that stage. He was toughted as the best heavyweight in the division when the defeat occurred. a 44 year old Holmes faired better against the same version of McCall and looked better against a sharper version of Mercer than the one Lewis battled with... Taken together, these things are the deciding factor for me, even though I hold Lewis in very high regard.
I pretty confident that if both were in their primes they both go undefeated or just one loss for each of them. Lewis toughest fights would be Mercer who he'd take a similar decision against. Tyson who was prime, I think it's a 50-50 fight maybe slightly favour Tyson. Prime Holyfield I'd slightly favour Lewis to take a hard fought decision. Larrys toughest fights would be Vitali. I'd favour Holmes but Vitali definitely has a chance. I think Bruno and Ruddock could pose problems as well as a slightly past prime Holyfield and potentially a more experienced Mercer, although its likely it would end up the same.
I agree w/ this part...it is hard to get many rational responses in this thread because many are either fans or haters of one of them...and are unable to seperate that and give a fair and even shake to both guys. I think the difference is small and just wanted to see what it was that made people lean one way or the other.
I hate Lennox. He drinks tea with his pinky extended while pretending to be British. (Not using Plymouth Gin between rounds instead of water makes him a traitor to all Brits.) Larry gets plastered every Friday night, and barfed a clear tequila-vodka-rum-gin cocktail (it just looked like water, but do you really think that's what Holmes was having his corner give him to keep hydrated?) all over Holyfield immediately after the final bell, just like Sullivan puked cheap brandy on Kilrain when Jake asked John L. if he wanted to concede. (No, you sonovabitch!) Referee George Siler slipped through the ropes between rounds to take sips of whiskey under the blistering hot movie lights of the Jeffries-Sharkey II marathon, and Tunney drank brandy with orange juice to keep him going during his bloodbath defeat against Greb. Water and tea should be banned in the corners during matches.
I don't think either fought a man like the other prime for prime. Holmes showed the better stamina but Lewis the better offense. Can Larry hold Lennox off with the Jab ? Can Larry stay on his toes and avoid the Lennox right hand ? Larry was not exceptionally fast and Lennox was not slow, Larry may have had a faster jab than Lennox but Lennox countered with the right hand off the left pretty fast. I can see Lennox landing that right hand and Larry going down and Lennox was a good finisher. Can I see Larry fighting the perfect fight as he did with Cooney, yes, but not sure if it would be enough because Lennox had the strength of that right hand and that was a punch that was effective against Larry, as far as resume Lennox did lose 2X vs McCall and Rahman but he re matched them and also re matched Holyfield but did not re match Vitali so Lennox has the slight edge in rematches. This is a tough call because you do not know how they would step up with fighters in this class. Holmes had a weak career build up to the title, a tough fight with Norton and fought challengers with 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 fights was dropped by Snipes and Shavers but Lennox never got off the floor to win and never stopped anyone after 8 Lennox by KO before 8, Holmes by decision or tko 12-15
Hard to say. Ken Norton was bigger and more experianced in 1978. He was probably right at the tail end of his prime. That mightve been the last really great fight he had left in him against Larry Holmes. There was also talk that Larry Holmes had an injury to his arm going into that fight but he kept it under wraps because he didnt wnat to lose the chance. Im not sure how that affected him. Truthfully I think Ken Norton would always give a "boxer" hell. He just had that awkward style and tight defense it would always be nip and tuck with a match like that.
I'm comparing how they'd do against each others resumes and mentioned Lewis Vs prime Holyfield in ny post atsch Step your game up Hook
Personally for me they're interchangeable for the 3 and 4 spots, i always had Larry 3rd behind Ali and Louis while Lewis was still active, but since Lewis has retired i toil with him and Holmes for 3rd now. Holmes consistency was great (like Lewis') and his 20 defences are a great thing too, but he did have some iffy decisions go his way and Lewis fought the better men (yes he did). Some are saying 'old' Larry's run puts him further ahead but Lewis retired at the top and stayed retired, which for me is a greater thing than carrying on and getting some decent wins and valiant losses as an old fighter. H2H i think Lewis does Larry because of his size, power and the fact Lewis could always turn a fight his way, which he would end up doing with Holmes if he were struggling. Holmes had the better jab but he didn't have Lewis' pop so that balances out. I have no problems with people having Holmes above Lewis, many will. Like Ali and Louis for the 1+2 spots, it's not wrong to talk about Holmes and Lewis in the same breath for the 3+4 spots. Both Great and not much between them imo.
The biggest blots against Lewis are his two KO losses to McCall and Rahman. The McCall loss was, as has already been pointed out, somewhat unfair to Lewis, given that he was up on his feet and seemingly fit to continue after the bout was waved off. Against Rahman he got caught with a great shot from a huge puncher and wasn't able to recover. It happens to the best of us. The fact that Lewis was able to win the rematches in emphatic fashion should mitigate those losses to a large degree, as should his generally spotless record outside of those two defeats. In fact, take out those two losses and there's no contest with Holmes; he blows Holmes out the water. But it is what it is, I guess. I just think too many people make too big a deal about those losses. They reflect badly on Lewis as a fighter who took nights off, IMO, not necessarily as a fighter who was always vulnerable to getting KOed by journeymen. Holmes's reputation comes from his longevity of title reign, though the opponents he defended against and the manner in which he defended against them leaves something to be desired. Even taking into account Lennox's losses, his resume of wins was far more impressive than Holmes's and he destroyed a number of very good fighters that were on paper tipped to either beat him or give him a hard fought contest. He can also not really be accused of ducking anyone that mattered during his time, unless you think he ducked Byrd and Ruiz, iffy at best. Holmes, on the other hand, quite clearly ducked Pinklon Thomas, and can be said to have avoided Page, Dokes and Coetzee, whilst taking on a number of very poor or inexperienced opponents, and occasionally struggling against them. On the issue of rematches, both fighters could have given them when they didn't, but again Holmes was the more egregious of the two. He could have given rematches to Weaver, Norton and the Spoon, whereas the only clear case for Lennox was against Vitali, maybe Mercer as well. At any rate, Holmes cut it finer than Lennox did on a number of occasions and that needs to be taken into account. H2H I think a well-prepped Lennox beats Holmes for a decision. Holmes always had problems with good jabbers, and Lennox had the power, speed and length to really make things uncomfotable for him (and vice versa to a degree).