What Was Larry Holmes Greatest Fight?

Yeah, nobody amounted to anything. Ali and Norton were first-ballot Hall of Famers.

Larry Holmes never "became" anything ... except become another first ballot Hall of Famer and make 20 defenses over the next seven years.

Spinks won the World title. Coetzee won the WBA title.

Just "pathetic."

Jesus Christ, you suck at this.

How many top 10 lists have five heavyweight champions, with the #1 guy of all time on the list and a champ with 20 title defenses on it, and is considered "pitiful?"

 

At most?

Again, it was the closest fight of Ali's career. No scorecard in his career was closer. And the champion awarded "the loser" the title shot.

It was the only fight of the series that wasn't a unanimous decision. The third fight that's most debated wasn't even a split decision.

Norton threw more and landed more. He landed more punches in seven of the 12 rounds.

 

“At most” is exactly right. You're still conflating “extremely close fight” with “most people thought Norton won.”

Yes, it was an exceptionally close decision. That doesn't establish that the majority thought Norton won. Two of the three judges actually scored it for Ali, and the majority of Ring's ringsiders also picked Ali. The NY Times described it as a fight where there “simply wasn't much to choose between the two.” That's evidence of a highly debatable fight, not evidence of a consensus for Norton.

And the fact that Foreman gave Norton the title shot doesn't change that. Foreman had a financial incentive to choose Norton because of the tax advantages involved. His choice of opponent isn't evidence of how the fight was generally viewed.

The fact that the third fight wasn't a split decision is irrelevant too. A fight doesn't have to be a split decision to be debated, and a split decision doesn't automatically mean the challenger was generally regarded as the winner.

So yes, there was substantial debate over the second fight. I never said otherwise. What I'm disputing is your much stronger claim that “most thought Norton should've been 42-2.” The evidence you've provided still doesn't demonstrate that.

 

Ali was beyond shot. Couldn't even complete D-Con Roach Killer without slurring it.

Norton would go 2-3-1 for the rest of his career.

Young would go 3-4 in his next 7.

Ron Lyle would claim a sliver victory over the great Scott Ledoux as his best moment after this ranking.

Bobick was the definition of the Great White Bust

Evangelista?

Knoetze?

You wanna die on this sad hill? No, my bro, you really suck at this.

 

We're talking about a fight in 1978. You can't quit talking about what happened AFTER that.

They weren't ranked based on what happened LATER. LATER hadn't happened yet.

They were ranked where they were based on what had occurred to that point. They were NOT ranked based on WHAT WOULD HAPPEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

It's a monthly rating.

Jesus. How do you not get this?

Is your current top 10 list based on what they've done to this point, or WHAT YOU THINK THEIR CAREERS WILL LOOK LIKE SEVEN FIGHTS FROM NOW?


This is the problem arguing with people who have no context of what was happening at the time.

 

Fine. HALF thought he should be 42-2. Jesus. I wrote thousands of words and you focus on the word "most" in one sentence.

The point was Norton wasn't always considered vulnerable, certainly not when Spinks ducked him and the WBC awarded Norton the belt. He'd beaten everyone he fought to that point except Foreman, and Foreman was retired.

 

No, I’m not conceding “half” either. Where are you getting that number from? You haven't provided any evidence that half of the people who watched the fight thought Norton won.

And the Foreman argument doesn't establish public opinion either. Look at Lyle–Jimmy Young. Young beat Lyle by a clear, one-sided decision, yet it was Lyle, not Young, who received the title shot afterward. Are we supposed to conclude from that that the public secretly believed Lyle deserved the decision? Obviously not. There are other considerations involved in choosing a challenger.

The same applies to Foreman choosing Norton. That decision doesn't tell us who people thought won the Ali fight, and Foreman had his own financial incentive to choose Norton, including the tax advantages involved.

As for your broader point, I don't disagree that Norton was highly regarded and wasn't always considered vulnerable. By that point he was a legitimate elite heavyweight. He'd beaten everyone he'd fought other than Foreman, and Foreman was retired, while the WBC recognizing Norton as champion after Spinks refused to fight him certainly shows how highly regarded he was.

 

Whether Ali was past it or not most felt Norton deserved the nod against Ali in their 3rd meeting.

And it's not like Norton didn't trouble good versions of Ali either. The 2nd fight they had Ali was probably at his most sharpest in the 1970s and Ali only just about won a decision.

Norton was in good form coming into the Holmes fight. He'd beaten Bobick in 1 round who stopped Holmes as an amateur, beat Quarry, beat Young who was in the form of his life beating Foreman.

I notice you conveniently say Norton went 2-3-1 in his last 6 fights but don't mention between 1974-1978 coming into the Holmes fight Norton only lost 2 fights. One to a prime Foreman and a highly disputed decision to Ali that alot felt Norton won.

Holmes was Norton's last great performance and the loss to Shavers is simply a Norton who was past his prime against an opponent who he has a stylistic disadvantage against.

As we all know Norton thrived against boxer types but was notably weak against punchers.