What if Larry Holmes had started boxing earlier (e.g. 5 years)?

I don't know but if you think he would have primed earlier and added more title defenses no reason you wouldn't rate Holmes higher than the one who existed in real life.

 

He becomes a mid-late 70s fighter and likely puts the remainder of the "Golden Era" to rest like Tyson did with the 80s. Larry getting fights with a shot Frazier, 70s Ali and Foreman all of which he'd beat pretty clearly when it could happen. in 76 for example he'd batter Foreman like a fish, pop, pop and Foreman would see Jesus again and they might rematch in the 90s with more public interest - Frazier was done by 76, Holmes was a lot better then GF, Lyle, Shavers, Young etc so we can safely assume what happens.

 

He would still be good . But a possible drawback is he might have gotten burned out early with the stiff competition he’d be facing sooner. It’s doubtful that the long reign of the 80’s would have still happened

 

If we assume he'd have been quicker and lighter on his feet, and if we assume he'd enter his boxing prime coinciding with his physical prime, you may be right. Rough gauntlet to run, but he might have actually managed to do it. Beat Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Lyle, Young, Shavers, Quarry, etc. Given his real life longevity for boxing was pretty damn long, he might have then continued on with his 80s reign, and have everything pretty much play out like it did. Except maybe he'd have just stayed retired after Tyson? He had run that mid 70's gauntlet on through his actual career, what would have been left to prove?

 

Except we know how his career played out. He was always a pro. Wasn't overly injury prone, wasn't prone to CTE, avoided trouble, always showed up fit and ready to fight (even when showing up 20lbs past his best as an older fighter, he was still a 12 round fighter), always stayed mentally stable. He might not have burned out.

Chances are he'd have dropped a loss or two in the mid 70's to Ali or Norton, especially if he had to fight both of them multiple times... but it's still an interesting thought.

Edit: a thought. If we had this timeline, he doesn't come up as a sparring partner to guys like Ali, Frazier, and Shavers. Maybe that hurts his development? Sparring hundreds of rounds with mid 70's Ali, and taking it as the learning opportunity that he took it, might well have taught him more than any trainer could have?

 

Impossible to say.

One thing that we can be sure of, is that he would have aged sooner.

An athlete has a finite physical prime, and a finite mental prime, and both come down to miles on the clock.

 

In this case being a late bloomer was very helpful. He was able to avoid Foreman, Frazier, Jimmy Young and Lyle and got to fight easier and much easier versions of Norton and Ali. He waited for the wars of the 70s to end then swooped in and ruled the rubble. This IMO is the biggest problem with Holmes legacy, not who he fought in the 80s. If Holmes wasn't a late bloomer his whole 48-0 6 year 20 title defense thing doesn't happen. Holmes is the same age as Foreman and Bugner and is 1 year younger than Jimmy Young. Holmes did not fight a single HW notable until Shavers in 1978 when he was 26-0. If Holmes was born in 1955 this would be fine can't choose what era you fight in. But Holmes sorta did choose.

If Holmes could have dominated the 70s he could have fought Foreman when Foreman returned or even Bugner. Heck Lyles ghost was flying around. If Holmes had knocked out Foreman even in like 1998 that would have gone a long way to proving he was Alis peer. But he didn't. During his comeback Holmes could have fought Foreman, Bugner, Witherspoon, Tucker, Pinklon Thomas, 2nd career Buster Douglas or Greg Page. All of these fights would have tied up loose ends from earlier in his career. He could have had his cake and ate it too. 48-0, 20 title defenses and fighting his toughest opponents when he'd lost the belt and had nothing to lose. He could have even used his age as an excuse for losing. Instead he rematched Weaver and James Smith at the very end of his career.

Because of this I am not inclined to view moving Holmes career up favorably. If Holmes could have dominated the 70s he had multiple chances to prove it or support that argument. He clearly cares about that argument. So that says it all for me.

 

Holmes did sign to fight Foreman in '99. The money fell through somehow and the fight was canceled, but they DID sign. I don't understand how there was a problem promoting that one. I'm sorry, if you can't sell two old legends and former champs capping off their careers by fighting each other, you don't deserve to be a promoter. Especially when you have Foreman, who was a great self promoter back then.

Side note: Weaver was a loose end. Weaver damn near beat him the first time. The second time, Larry demolished him.

 

Maybe we'd have the seen the mythical version of him that dispatches top ten ATGs with ease, instead of the one in the real world who struggled with the rather mediocre opposition he did face.

 

It took Holmes until 1978 until he started to reach his prime and beat notable opposition so that was 5 years into his professional career.

So realistically Holmes wouldn't be fighting notable opposition until 1973 if you are having Holmes turn professional in 1968 in a fantasy scenario.

Alot would depend when Holmes fought certain opposition for example.....

Ali was still very good between 1970-1974 and he would be the biggest threat to Holmes. But after the Foreman fight Ali started to decline and i don't believe he ever got in great shape again like he was vs Foreman. So i could see Holmes/Ali splitting fights anytime between 1973-1974 but anytime after that i'd favour Holmes.

Frazier had a short peak in the 70s and he would already be past his prime in 1973 when Holmes would be starting to be a major force. It's a tough one because i believe a peak Frazier would beat Holmes, but i don't think the Frazier after the Foreman loss would be able to beat a prime Holmes.

Foreman was at his best between 1970-1974 if Holmes fought Foreman between 1973-1974 this would be a very dangerous fight for Holmes due to Foreman's excellent finishing abilities. Holmes did get in bad trouble quite a few times in his career and whilst Holmes to his credit was able to whether the storm due to his great chin and excellent recuperative powers. But still Holmes never fought a finisher quite on the level of a prime Foreman so that would bring another level of danger.

Although saying that i do think a prime Holmes has a style that has troubled Foreman before he's an excellent outboxer with great stamina. So i do think Holmes could beat a prime Foreman based on styles.

Holmes fought a Norton who was still good but a bit past his prime and their actual fight was a classic and a very close one. I could see a younger fresher Norton splitting fights with Holmes with Holmes winning a trilogy 2-1.

The rest of the contenders of that era like Lyle, Bugner, Young, Quarry, etc i don't see Holmes losing to.

So overall i could see Holmes picking up 2 or 3 extra losses with Ali, Norton, for me being the toughest stylistic match ups for Holmes and with possibly Foreman maybe being able to stop Holmes although i would favour Holmes over Foreman 60/40.

 

Lots more wear and tear than those title defenses against the likes of Ledoux and Jones and Rodriguez and so on.