Tell my why Larry Holmes should not be Top 5 HW

A lot of people think I am biased to Holmes but I did not agree with the split titles and the way the champs hid behind them.

I liked Larry Holmes I met him a few times and thought he was the best all-around of the era but I felt he did not fight the best of his era on too many occasions and never rematched a tough fight.

I see posters killing Jack Dempsey over Harry Wills, well Holmes avoided many more than one and let them fight each other. I think Larry had talent but can not see how anyone could rank him above 5 based on the large amount of top tier fighters he avoided in his own decade ( Coetzee,Page,Dokes,Tate,Thomas,Weaver, and lets face it never rematched a tough fight. Norton,Weaver,Witherspoon,Williams

I remember him getting KO'd by Nick Wells and DQ'd for holding after getting dropped by Bobick in the amateurs and although to his credit he was the best conditioned and better connected and well managed fighters of the era and he had the will to win.

Before everyone jumps on my back I don't hold Holmes responsible for all those avoidance's but there was a lot of navigation on the part of his managers and promoters.

As far as rematched all of the great ones rematched tough or controversial fights....Louis-Walcott-Godoy-Conn-Schmeling...Marciano-Walcott-Charles-Lastarza....Ali- Frazier-Liston-Norton-Cooper- Its just something that the great do

I still rate Larry in my top 10, but can not overlook a lot of the things these young guys do who did not live the era

 

I have him at 3, personally. If he's out of the top 5, he shouldnt be any lower than 6 or 7.

 

Yeah. Bummy Davis makes a lot of sense in what he says, but when all is said and done no HW except Louis and Ali has a clearly better record.

Marciano was undefeated and beat the best of his era, but lacks real depth and longevity. Johnson, Liston, Frazier and Dempsey had impressive roads to the title, but wilted once they got there (if we count FOTC as the true crowning of Frazier). Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson was at or near the top for a long time and beat a lot of contenders, but also have some damaging losses (to different degrees, though).

That's why I feel that Holmes has as good a claim to the third spot as anyone else and better than most.

 

Holmes is my number 5 behind #4Dempsey, #3Marciano, #2ali and #1joe louis.

People who knock holmes would like the rest of the world to believe that the best contenders were tied up to alternative belts and Holmes got away without fighting any of them but its not the truth.

Almost from the start of his run as a champion to the end of his title days the first real alternative champion and the last were both Kayoed by Holmes. The ones in the middle just kept losing.

The whole WBA merry go round was self explanitory. rather than each champion losing to a beter guy they just lost to the previous guys chalenger...until another TKO victim of Larry holmes won the belt...compared to Holmes they were pathetic beltholders.

exactly the same as what hapened when larry vacated the wbc title it was contested between holmes victims or those who lost to holmes victims. nobody over shadowed holmes.

 

I have him #3 but H2H he would beat everyone,i really dont see him being any lower than #6 but he really should be top 5 at all times..

 

The bolded part is something that bugs me about Lennox, too. Especially because Lewis himself benefited greatly from being able to avenge his losses.

 

Possibly top 5, but no lower than top 10 in my opinion. Truthfully the only reason Larry Holmes doesn't get his props is his reign was right after Ali, but right before Tyson. 2 of the most popular boxers of the sport and he was in the middle. Boxing wise and accomplishments he deserves his just due. People forget that he was so close to beating Marciano's record until he got jerked.

 

He OPENLY ducked Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas. Repeat, he made no bones about the fact that he did not want to fight them. "I'm not going to be fighting these young guys. They got to give me someone I can beat."

I would put Larry as top 5 in terms of "head to head" ability. But no, wins over Tim Witherspoon, Ken Norton, and a badly, adly deterioriorated and sick Muhammed Ali don't get you there in terms of comp.

 

It doesn't matter how i look at Holmes as a fighter or his career, he is a top 5 guy without doubt.
"Smooth jab by Larry Holmes"

 

no way over ali.......... Ali beat foreman and liston....enough said

 

I agree. Holmes simply did not fight too many of the "better" fighters who were around during his reign, specifically from 1983-1985.

Granted, a champion can't fight everybody, but Holmes fought none of the better guys around when they were on top or when they were mandatories.

Witherspoon and Williams were not viewed as legitimate threats AT THE TIME Holmes fought them; the fact that both guys nearly beat Holmes doesn't mean that going in they were regarded as dangerous, worthy contenders.

And even though guys like Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, and Michael Dokes were very erratic and often times unprepared in fights, they were still very good, dangerous fighters when in shape and properly prepared.

Holmes didn't fight any of them. Who cares if they were druggies who squandered their talent; if Holmes had fought them when he was supposed to, who knows what would have happened.

But Holmes fought soft touches for bigger money.

He can't be a top five guy, no way!

 

He's definitely up there but I personally have him outside the top 5 ( barely).

He didn't fight a lot of the best fighters of his era and he usually had major struggles when he did. Holmes is over rated head to head in my opinion. Ali, Louis, and Marciano all clearly rate above him imo and strong cases can be made for Lewis, Tyson, Johnson (depending on criteria), and even Foreman and Liston to be above him.

I think anywhere from about 5-8 is fair.

 

The question is then who deserves to be in front of him. Louis and Ali? Absolutely. But then the list becomes decidely thinner. Most have similar, if not bigger flaws in their records.

 

but thomas and page could not keep winning for long enough to mount a superfight anyway just like the rest of the crummy beltholders.

In real terms page and co were mere contenders and in each era contenders lose to one another just like that bunch, only they had belts. give a belt to rex layne, tommy jackson and roland lastarza or in listons day a belt each to machen and folley - its the same thing..they just lose to each other.

page lost to bey who fought holmes and was KO'D. Thomas? he won and lost his title to both guys Holmes beat.