Was there any decade when a prime Larry Holmes wouldn`t have been champ?

Maybe not for an entire decade but he’d have a hard time winning the crown during Joe Louis’s long reign. He might have beaten an older Louis

 

During the Ali era. 1964-1974. He isn't beating prime Ali or prime Frazier

 

The 1920s

 

I'm not sure about Zaire Ali, nor 68-70 Frazier. Or Foreman for that matter. In fact, I'd lay bets Holmes stops Foreman in 10 at the outside, and UDs pre-FOTC Frazier.

FOTC Frazier is something else entirely, and Holmes would have had trouble with early comeback Ali for sure.

 

I think Holmes could have won a title in any decade. Holmes certainly would have beaten at least one of the 1890s guys. He would have had no problem with Marvin Hart in the 1900s. Jess Willard would not have beaten Holmes in the 1910s. Holmes may have struggled in the 1920s vs. Dempsey and Tunney but I think he would have beaten and end-of-his-reign Dempsey.

He would top a lot of guys in the 1930s. An aging Lewis would have lost to him in the 1940s. Floyd Paterson would have gone down in both the 1950s and 1960s. He would have beaten a 1979 Ali. Buster Douglas in the 1990s and John Ruiz in the 2000s would have lost to him. Finally, Bermane Stiverne would have lost in the 2010s

This is not to say he could not have beaten other guys as well. These, to me, were the sure things.

 

All I know is he’d never be as good as the generation before him no matter what era he conquered. Lol

 

It's a quadruple edged sword.

I'm looking at the 60's but it's blurred by Ali's exile, multiple titles and the ability to cherry pick an exact point over ten years. Floyd was champ for the first two years so a top shelf version of Holmes would be heavily favored there and then we have exile.

The 90's tho immensely strong overall were all over the place at times.

Louis reigned for the entire 40's but was a declined version after the war. I mean if you punch Holmes and Louis thru the same timeline together there's a reasonable chance Holmes never beats him. Put a peak version of Holmes against the post war Louis however and Holmes should be a solid favorite win.

So many unknown variables in the question. It would be hard to keep him from winning a title any decade tho.

 

Problem is that he has good longevity. He remains capable of holding a championship at least from 78 to 86. So you need to lock him out for almost a full decade.

Frazier beat Ellis for the undisputed title in 1970. Put Holmes from the second Spinks fight against peaking Frazier, and Frazier likely wins. Subtract 8 years of Holmes's best years from 1970, and his chances begin in 1962. But boxing politics will block him.

You have an interregnum moving backward from 1970 to 1967 (where Holmes cannot become THE champion by definition, so that's 3 years gone). Then it's prime Ali from 1967 back to 1964. Most would favor that version of Ali over Holmes.

That gives Holmes only 1962, 1963, and 1964. Liston is fighting Patterson twice in 1962 and 1963. Holmes likely would not be the #1 contender in this period; Liston has earned his shot by this point, and has been kept waiting due to Floyd-Ingo. In 1964, Liston is fighting Ali. Here again, Holmes presumably would have to beat Ali in an eliminator, which runs into the same problem.

 

Or situate Holmes's prime to begin around 2004, after Lennox's retirement. The battle for control over the heavyweight division between the Klitschkos and Don King would probably ensure that neither Holmes nor Wlad would ever get a unified title.

 

I actually think Holmes would be a nightmare for Louis. Holmes with his movement, jab and toughness would be like a bigger/better Billy Conn. I think Louis shakes at times but I could totally see Holmes winning a decision over Louis. Would be an excellent matchup.

 

1870s.

 

Correct, at times when gloves where small and bouts were 45 rounds.

Maybe today when fellows got too tall, but Holmes was superb, he could do it.

 

Yes that could happen too