Prime Holmes in the 90s

Yes, Tucker could have given him a test, and what about Holmes v Douglas? If Buster had got himself in shape and taken on Larry, perhaps a unexpected shock win.

 

Buster did look great against Mike...I just wonder how much of that win had to do with Mike not being completely on (wasn't he overweight at the time as well?), plus I might be wrong but he said later he grossly underestimated Douglas.

I never saw Douglas do anywhere near as well against anyone else, so I'd still have to give it to Larry by 9th round TKO. That said, the Tokyo Douglas would probably irritate the hell out of Larry for several rounds ala Ocasio.

Buster couldn't have taken that right hand for a whole fight imo.

Tony Tucker, Iron Mike...I think those two were the guys who mainly would give even prime Holmes a fight. Page would have been more than interesting if he'd been completely on, but all three of those guys lost fights they shouldn't have. Of course, Mike stood tall overall all of them, but please see my post about even prime Mike getting dominated UD by a Shavers I beating Holmes.

Michael Spinks would have fallen in 6, max imo. Stoppage after the second kd, with Michael getting pummeled all over the ring.

 

I agree. Holmes is a great fighter - an All-Time Great. I just think the odds of him replicating his '73-'82 feat of 41-0-0, during the decade of the '90s, are considerably less.

It is, of course, possible - just not likely.

 

Meh.. in “ theory” I’d pick him to beat the whole nineties crew. But in reality he’d lose to someone. That’s a horrible schedule...

 

I cant see it. Prime Holmes is a top 3 HW in my book. I dont see anyone from the 90's taking him.

 

I have him in my top 3-5. He was a great champion.. solid chin. Great stamina. Huge heart. Superb left jab and killer right upper cut.. yes Larry would have been tough for anyone to beat. Problem is the nineties were shark infested waters. You had at least three guys in that decade who are a lock for top 10 yet none of them survived the dawn of the era without losing.. Holmes for all his greatness didn’t always face the best of his own era and yet still got complacent and in trouble against some of the second raters whom he DID face... Still an all time great regardless but asking anyone to go from 1990-1996 facing everyone with a name and to still come out with that “0” is a very tall order... Not sure even Ali or Louis could do it either...

 

And this is it...

There were a good few fighters in the '90s, who had enough about them to create problems for Holmes; the same kind of trouble that Shavers or Snipes were able to. There were also a few, who could push Holmes the way Norton did.

On another night, maybe Holmes is facing a harder puncher, a better finisher; has judges who tip it for the other guy or has a 'safety of the boxer, above all things' Referee in the ring with him.

 

At the same time, few would define an entire decade's worth of heavyweight boxing on the basis of a couple of surprise results.

 

There's so much truth here. The thing is, when Holmes knew he had to step up (Ali, Shavers I, Cooney, Leon) he was devastatingly effective. He did get lackadaisical way too often (that, besides his tendency to drop his left, were his Achilles' heels). But when on he was a champion through and through.

It's hard for me to believe he wouldn't have been on for guys like Bowe and Lewis. I do believe he'd stop pre-Steward Lewis, even (and fight to tough decisions over the other two). But even I don't think he'd get through the 90s unscathed, I think Steward-era Lewis quite possibly would have taken a decision from him. And there is a possibility he gets lackadaisical when dealing with the likes of Ruddock, Golota, Tua...even perhaps Bruno (any of the those men could have knocked him down).

 

McCall would have been a Berbick-like decision for Holmes I think. McCall would have surprised him early but then got fed that vicious jab and been miserably dominated (like Berbick).

Post-prison Mike would have gotten stopped by a prime Holmes faster than by Holy imo.

I agree too, that the alphabet champs of the 90s were pretty bad. I put Weaver over guys like Seldon any day.

 

Yes ..at the very top of the list

 

I'm not defining the Heavyweight division of the entire 80's, based on this or any other of the observations made.

Holmes' and Foreman's results against, respectively, Mercer and Moorer are significant - mainly to them and their legacies; not reflective of the entire crop of ranked heavyweights of the 90s.

Good effort and it does mean something - but, again, it doesn't 'prove the 90s weren't all that'.

 

I think there's a good argument for this...except I just don't feel there was good enough competition to solidly beat him. Sure Thomas, Page, perhaps a Berbick rematch, and most certainly Tucker would have given him tough fights. But in the case of Thomas and Page...let's face it, they both ended up losing fights they had no business losing. Don't get me wrong, the last two mentioned fighters would have given Larry mucho problems...but in the end, they just weren't good enough to beat him (they would have had their best chance at the post-David Bey Holmes, even then it's up in the air imo. I thought Williams didn't do enough to win the championship and had him behind by two points).

Look at Smith...he knocked out Witherspoon later and took Tyson the distance...yet as a young and fresh man was pounded by Holmes into a stoppage. And the Holmes who fought Smith was without question well past his prime/into an obvious decline.

Completely dominate the 90s? No way. The Bowe and Holy who fought each other the first time might have decisioned him (the latter probably more due to Larry's bad habit of underestimation more than anything else), and Steward-era Lewis (more than perhaps the two mentioned above) could have pulled it off.

But I can see Holmes winning over them. It doesn't take a stretch. I'm thinking of the Holmes who beat Shavers the first time, the Holmes who knocked the crap out of Leon....