Prime Holmes in the 90s

The division was stronger when he would hit prime than it was in 78. It got stronger in the early to mid 80s but then Larry got very careful with his opponent selection.

If he's forced in the mid to late 90s to face the best available competition, I doubt he'd dominate.

He likely wouldn't have dominated post 1983 Witherspoon if he hadn't gotten so selective.

 

Absolutely. He won the title in 78 just as the slalwarts were starting to slide, or in Foremans case, retire. Suddenly the top 10 got mediocre and he faced mediocrities like Ossie Ocasio, Leroy Jones, Scott LeDoux and a shot Ali.

He did face a still dangerous Shavers and a better than expected Mike Weaver, who both gave him very rocky moments.

If he'd hit prime in say 75-76 and faced the likes of Foreman, Lyle, Young, and even a much less faded Ali, and less faded Norton, the road would have been much tougher.

Just as it would have been tougher if he had faced the likes of Thomas, Page and Tubbs post Witherspoon.

There's always context and when somebody says "48-0, undefeated for 13 yrs." without providing an iota of context, they are not telling the whole story.

 

Lewis was born in England and lived in East London until he was 12.

 

Lewis fought far better in his rematch v McCall though.

 

Holy and Lewis were better than all of Larry`s opponents.

 

Lewis, Bowe, Ruddock, 1991 Tyson.

They all have the power to seriously hurt him.

If Renaldo Snipes can put Larry on ***** street, all these guys can.

Whether his tremendous heart and recuperative powers see him through against those guys, if hurt, would be very interesting to see.

 

There`s no way Holmes would have tried to stop a prime Tyson, he`d have to get on his bike and spoil, Tyson`s combo punching was awesome back then, Larry would find 90`s Tyson very easy to hit though.

 

Holmes used to get caught a lot though, by fighters that weren`t accurate punchers like Holy and Lewis.

 

Agreed.

Great achievement by Holmes, in his time, but to be able to replicate it, in even a slightly different timeframe, becomes a whole lot less likely.

And, whilst I think Holmes was capable of beating the top guys of the 90s (e.g. Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Post-Prison Tyson), I wouldn't be confident in suggesting that "There's no one [in the 90s] who can beat him." ( as has been suggested by @Unforgiven ). In fact, I wouldn't bet on any of those four Holmes match-ups.

 

Out of context, but every time I think of prime Holmes vs. prime Tyson I think of how Holmes fought Shavers the first time. Granted, Mike was a way better fighter than Earnie was (even at his best), to me the way Larry handled the latter in that first fight was one of the most expert exhibitions of boxing I've ever seen. Mike wouldn't be able to catch up to him long enough to land flush. A Holmes UD, all day money. As ferocious, as driven, as Mike was in his Day, Holmes was not especially far away from 60s Ali status in terms of foot, hand speed, and ring generalship when he beat Earnie (he would have stopped Norton if he hadn't been fighting with that torn bicep, imo).

For doubters, please watch that first Shavers fight again.

 

Holmes I believe would have been a great fighter in any time frame imo but he did have the fortune to come along when he did, I'll admit that. What would have been interesting, if there had only been one belt back then. And faced all or most of the alphabet boys. Such as Dokes, Coetzee, Thomas, Tubbs. Not saying he didn't face tough opp but may have seen some tougher fight s for Larry that way.

 

He goes undefeated

 

To me all of those fighters would have been stopped by the 77-82 Holmes. All of those fighters got stopped in the 80s, none of them had staying power as champs/contenders. Tony Tucker would have been more interesting than any of them imo, and Tony might have taken Larry the distance.