Who rates higher as a all time heavyweight Larry Holmes or Lennox Lewis?

Lennox. Lennox would win H2H and I think his resume is better too when you put everything together. Lennox is only a few title wins(not defenses) short of Holmes I think and while Bowe, Moorer and Foremans absence is felt he really cleaned out the top 20 otherwise.

And Holmes non title SOS is unusually terrible for a champ of their stature. I'm the first to defend a contender not risking their 0 but Holmes kinda waited for his generation to kill each other and stepped into the rubble. He then proceeded to spend the next 40 years complaining about being in the shadow of people he either didn't fight or Mayweathered. Then after he lost his belt he really refused to fight anyone of note unless it was an eliminator or title fight.

 

Yeah, just behind me in the ATG list.

 

I shade to Lewis as well as in the H2H. It's close in both tho and either name is fine.

 

Holmes for me. And I'm not sure Lennie beats him prime for prime. Larry had a great chin but more importantly, incredible powers of recuperation. I dont buy the 'Lewis had a bad chin' narrative. He was stopped by two big punchers but he also ate a lot of bombs from big punchers. It's the heavyweights man, **** happens. I think Holmes is too mobile, too skilled and hits hard enough to outpoint Lewis. But my main reason is perhaps a strange one and it isn't really Len's fault. Sure Lennox beat his two main rivals. But he didnt fight the best versions of them. Holmes lost to the same two fighters but he fought better versions of them both, and when he was well past his incredible prime. In my head, choosing to fight Tyson and Holyfield when they were at, or near their best; and for me, beating Larry is one of Mike's best performances, and losing, is better than fighting them both wjen they were well past their prime and winning.

Larry for me, no questions...

 

Holmes is third on my list, so I'm rocking with Larry Legend. A huge reign and a ton of title defences.

 

I watched the development of both guys. Went to some early Holmes fights. It was--even then--when is Larry going to fight someone good?

I also think the refs wave off the Shavers and Snipes bouts in more modern times. What would 2 ko losses instead of comeback wins do to that resume?

With Lennox, it was not going to his early bouts but sending away for vhs tapes right after the bout. You could see his development.


Look closely at those Holmes selection of opponents in those title bouts. Go ahead and think of the opponents not highly susceptible to a jab.

And he never went into the lions den for a bout. Not a road warrior in any sense of the word. But Lewis was both of those.

Another interesting thing with Lennox is that he put on weight better than any other heavy. He put on 20 pounds and improved as a fighter. To me, weight gain almost always becomes a minus and not a plus. Not Lewis.

I also think Larry gets too much adulation for the Mercer win.

A nice win for sure but anyone watching that Damiani fight could picture Holmes giving Mercer problems. Big problems. Then add to it----who in their right mind thinks Mercer was going to train hard for a guy in his 40's? Just when did Mercer ever train hard hard? He was the opposite of Larry Holmes when it came to pre fight preperations. And once in the ring another big advantage to Larry in the ringsmarts department. So going in I thought Larry would finish the job that Damiani started and would not get hit with an uppercut. That was a very very difficult punch to land on Larry and sure did not envision Mercer landing his at any point. And Holmes in his 40's still had the much better legs of the 2.

But getting the brutal ko's over Morrison and Damiani got some folks thinking Mercer was a destroyer with concrete whiskers. But getting that kind of result over Larry Holmes was certainly not what I thought the result would be. At best, a comfortable decision if he was in top shape. But I knew he would not train hard and come in under prepared. And let Larry jab away and just follow him around the ring with those slow feet. A 1979 version of Larry would not lose more than 1 or 2 rounds to the guy and would do a paint job on him. That version would give a new meaning to turning a guy.

 

He did get cought clean, few times in the fight.

 

Larry Holmes has a better record. Larry Holmes has more title defenses. Larry Holmes has better individual victories. Larry Holmes has fought much better opponents. Larry Holmes has fought longer. Larry Holmes has never had such bad losses.

For me, it's not close, Larry definitely.

 

Some fascinating points in that lot. I agree Holmes would totally school Mercer in his prime. 1 or 2 rounds would certainly pull Mercer up, at best. It'd be a teeny bit reminiscent of Cobb, maybe not quite as bad as Mercer hit a bit harder and Holmes wouldn't quite take as many liberties.

 

My bewildered and surprised Gizmo GIF is what I WOULD HAVE responded with of SOMEONE hadn't have taken away our "PRIVILEGES" on the forum!

 

Sure would. Anyone with slow feet does not want to be fighting a 1979 Larry Holmes.

That is one of the things with the last 4 decades of heavyweights-----slow feet. Sure would have liked to have seen some guys with a lot more mobility & the proper conditioning it takes to have a good set of wheels.

 

Fantastic point Zad. Look at Usyk now, the small man in the ring with the better wheels than all these big guys and he's built up quite a nice little ledger. More skill too. Even a guy like Fury who moves extremely well for a giant and has fast hands for one as well couldn't get by him.

 

AS clean

 

I have Holmes #3 and Lewis #4, but only because I don't allow myself ties. I could easily see them the other way around.

Lewis has the better win resume, Holmes doesn't have the 2 x stoppage losses around his prime years.

Its close either way and a case of personal preference as to which ranks higher.