When was Larry Holmes at his best?

Shavers appeared to connect several times throughout the bout, but Holmes, continuously cautious, never looked in trouble during their first encounter.

 

I've probably mentioned this too many times, so pleas forgive me, but Holmes' performance against Earnie in that 1st fight is one of the most prime examples of boxing artistry ever. I don't care how pretentious that might sound. He was like this graceful matador...much of the second fight was like that, too, except Larry was more interested in getting flat-flooted due to his post-Norton honed ability to step into his right hand. Though he was never a power puncher (right uppercut possibly excepted), this stepping in made a big difference from the Evangelista fight on.

 

Agreed. I think this was a watershed moment for Larry.

 

Larry hit his peak in 1982 cooney bout

 

Did Ali even deserve that decision? Holmes won both of his bouts vs Shavers with no doubt.

 

Shavers.

 

Has this 'very good but not quite great' been done as a thread? It should be. A few thoughts. I've used traditional weight classes.

HW very goods: Bowe, Patterson, Norton.
LHW: Hill, Conteh, Pastrano
MW: Nunn, Joey G, Benn, Eubank
WW: Curry, Palomino, Norris. Meldrick, Simon Brown

There are a few others. Tzyu, Fenech, Barrera, Arbachakov all come to mind for me. Maybe Pintor, Esparragoza also fall a mite short.

 

I would disagree. He would have to be close to Ali or Louis in amount & quality of accomplishments for either to potentially push him over, & especially considering who he did not rematch, that he should have lost to WIlliams (but likely deserved the WItherspoon decision), he was not at that rarefied level.

Beating Foreman who fought Young would have been meaningful, although Foreman clearly was declined for psychological reasons-& not fighting the best gameplan-since & because of the loss to Ali.

If Holmes beat the Ali that arguably deserved his decision against Shavers, I do jot think it means that much.
By late 1977 Ali was clearly declined. The Shavers fight only worsened his symptoms of Parkinsons.
Beating Ali after Manilla meant a lot less.

 

I don't agree that Williams beat Holmes (Carl gave away too many late rounds, it was unquestionably very close), but this is a very thought-provoking post imo.

 

Thanks man.
I did not watch this since Ye Olde Ancienct Tymes, & do not consider myself a good scorer, but it seemed Williams beat Holmes at his pown game, being so athletic & long.

A poll about it & the fight with WItherspoon would be interesting...

 

I agree, believe me I wouldn't have been shocked had Williams edged that Holmes fight. I think some of it was just giving the champ the benefit of a doubt.

For me, if Witherspoon had not convinced himself he'd won the Holmes fight after the 9th round, he might have beat him. As it is you can see him being immature and clowning. He let Holmes get too much back into the fight. To me that 9th round was one of Larry's greatest moments He showed a Joe Frazier level of heart in that fight, great champion!

 

A fair while back i did a few posts with lists of names asking who made it to great. It would make a good thread.

 

Sorry, I take issue with both of these comments, or rather the line of thinking behind them.

This Thor Endgame “he’s never beat me twice” is such a modern construct. If you have a fighter in front of you, beat him. Don’t say ‘well give me another chance” — do it when you have that chance.

Is it supposed to mean that if two fighters split a pair of fights whoever wins the second one is the ‘true winner’ of the series? No, then they’d be even. And if they fight once, whoever wins is the winner. There is no moral obligation to say ‘well I beat you but I’ll give you another chance’ — if there’s a title on the line, EARN the second shot. Norton could have done so, but got bombed out by Shavers.

I could give you a list a mile long of guys of days gone by who only fought once and we don’t get the ‘well what about a rematch that never happened’ thinking on them.

As for the asterisk by Foreman’s loss to Young ... why don’t we have a “had good excuse” category for losses so a guy’s record could be 40-0-10 (had good excuses for 10 losses) and consider them undefeated? There’s no evidence to support that Foreman beats Young IF he fought a different game plan or IF he handled the Ali defeat differently or IF whatever. They fought. Young won. Case closed.

 

Nothing to forgive in that post. Good work, Rules.

 

Weaver was on the verge of winning when Holmes found that uppercut when he was desperation time.