Who was Larry Holmes greatest opponent?

No he would of been knocked out by Ken Norton, Holmes just didn't have the stamina anymore to keep up the pace and movement he'd need to beat Norton. Remember it took a prime Larry Holmes everything he had in his arsenal to just about eek out a decision.

Also there's no way Larry Holmes's version of the rope a dope vs Ray Mercer would work against Ken Norton. Even Muhammad Ali himself knew not to do that against the dangerous Ken Norton.

 

One way to look at it - and by no means all conquering or without some plot holes - is to take Holmes from 1978 - more or less in his prime (28 yo) - when he went life and death with Norton - who did Larry fight thereafter that would give the 78 version as much hell as Norton did?

I think that version of Holmes could arguably take care of the rest in relatively easier fashion - Tyson included.

As to Kenny, some might say just a matter of styles but Norton’s resume was solid across the board - and in all fairness, he should’ve been awarded the title IN THE RING when he faced Ali in 1976.

To be referred to as a mere paper champ after the fact had to be more than insulting.

Norton’s so called stylistic advantage over the likes of Ali and Holmes (who just so happen to be in the top 3 ATGs for many) is perhaps a bit too dismissive - we all should have such a conveniently isolated style.

 

Well the flip side is to simply say he was woeful against punchers.

His resume was not solid across the board as he never proved himself against punchers to put it mildly.

Now to be fair to Ken - Foreman could well be the most dangerous puncher at heavyweight ever and is an ATG, he was past prime by the time he fought Shavers and basically shot against Cooney. His record however is blank when it comes to victories over class punchers. His performances against great boxers however are there for all to see.

 

Well as you said, the KO losses can be qualified as being against arguably the biggest punchers of all time - and Norton’s age has to be factored into the later KO defeats but that’s not to pretend his chin was granite - though he held up to some decent shots but came abruptly undone when taking punches around the 8+ mark on the Richter scale.

We know Lyle had a decent chin but somehow fell apart under a single right hand from Ali - Norton took a number of those solidly over 39 rds. Go figure.

When I say across the board - I’m accenting on the viability of his style - which wasn’t just applicable to beating fighters the ilk of Ali and Holmes.

Of course if his chin isn’t up to scratch when taking flush shots from elite punchers x, y and z, then his skill set is obviously mooted - but if he can’t be put out Norton’s skill set and power would give many more fighters in history hell than not.

I know, not so renowned puncher Garcia is lurking in the wings - LOL - at least Kenny avenged that loss.

PS - what’s your opinion of the 78 version of Holmes vs the other eligible candidates?

 

He could take good punches virtually all day but big punches not so much. I don't think it even boiled down to just chin - when pressured his footwork was a liability and there's a decent amount of weight behind the common talk that he froze somewhat vs aggressive punchers.

Ali dragged him pretty deep and punches harder than most give him credit for when he wants to. It leads back to perhaps not being completely about his chin. Norton also shook off Holmes best right hands and he has respectable power as well.

I'm trying to picture various styles. We know he wasn't overly suited to bigger punchers that put some pressure on. Light punching brawlers he'g go ok against i guess, someone like Berbick. Maybe a laid back puncher like Weaver but if Weaver got aggressive as he eventually did at times he might be in trouble, or not. The left hook was a great punch against Norton and it's something Ali and even more so Holmes didn't have much of.

Absolutely, anyone that can't get him out of there (in all likelihood early) will have a fight on their hands.

For others for sure but context will keep me away from him.

I'm not quite following this one?

 

[QUOTE="JohnThomas1, post: 21526606,
I'm not quite following this one?[/QUOTE]

All I meant was, precluding Norton, of all the prospective “best opponents” or the just the one “best opponent” if you’ve firmed up on same, how would they fare against the 78 Holmes - you can take them as they were when they actually fought Larry or at their peak if their own peak didn’t coincide with their fighting Holmes.

For example, take 88 Tyson who was in his prime anyway when he fought Holmes and pit him against 78 Larry - how might have he fared as compared to how Norton went - and IMO a draw was at the least arguable in the Norton- Holmes fight. An extremely close fight.

Opinions will differ but I personally think 78 virtual prime Larry beats prime 88 Mike by clear UD or later rd stoppage which at least in H2H terms would make the Norton that Larry faced a greater or, shall we say, more challenging opponent than Mike (across the board greatness is another thing again).

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

Ah ok.

Personally i think Tyson would stop him in 5 or 6.
Ali takes a 9-6 or 9-1-5 type decision.
I think Holyfield could take one in a trilogy.
I think he splits a trilogy with Norton, which way it goes is on a razor's edge. Norton was a full level better earleir but Holmes got a bit better too.
He beats the rest at his peak and i'd back him to stop Spinks at his best. There's no angle for Spinks to win.

 

Who were the guys Holmes faced to prepare him for Mercer? Eddie Gonazlez? Tim "Doc" Anderson? THESE guys would've prepared Holmes for a young dynamo hell bent on destruction in 1988? That's not how "preparation" works.

Holmes was fatter, more lethargic, 4 years older and looked far worse in 1992 than he did in 1988. And why would Holmes, a proud champion who wanted to make history, take a fight for a paycheck when "History" was the tagline for his bout with Tyson?

Holmes would never take a fight without preparing first. Now to put things in perspective, Holmes knew a fight with Tyson had been in the works since 1986. Tyson-Holmes came thisclose to happening.

Yes, Cayton and Jacobs brokered a deal with Holmes after their '86 bout got canned when HBO wanted Tyson for their Heavyweight Unification Tournament. Team Tyson assured Holmes he'd get first crack once Tyson unified all 3 belts. Biggs ended up getting the first shot for various reasons. This was October of 1987.

Post fight, Barry Tompkins interviewed Holmes with Holmes saying he's next in line and made a deal with Don King for a January '88 bout. That's 3 months to prepare for what Holmes knew was coming in the first place. Tompkins even says Holmes looked good after a 15 round exhibition.

So Holmes knew what he had to do to prepare himself. No way would he take a fight for money just to end up like canon fodder. He's too prideful to ever do that. And because he beats Mercer and does well against Holyfield 4 years later doesn't mean he would've done the same against Mike Tyson.

And last, Holmes had gone on record saying he'd never want to fight Tyson for the belts again. Holyfield, sure, but not Tyson.

 

If Larry had any hope of beating Mike it would have been the Larry that existed prior to around 1983

 

That’s simply untrue.

 

Funny, Holmes fought a sea of weakness but you're a stanch defender of the legitimacy of John L. Sullivan as heavyweight champion under M of Q rules based on in the ring accomplishment and level of opposition .. makes senses

 

I think the best fighter Holmes ever faced was Holyfield. The 2nd best was Tyson. Larry wasn't at his best in either fight, lost to both, but I'm of the opinion that he wouldn't have beat either of them, even at his best. His best chance would have been against Evander. (IMHO, of course.)

 

I find that a very relevant comparison!

A man who dominates in a weak era, has accomplished something significant.

Yes Sullivan fought in a weak era, in my opinion.

I can't prove it, but let's say that he did.

Holmes was dividing the titles, while Sullivan was pushing for unification.

Fortunately for Holmes, there were no rankings during Sullivan's era.

However, Sullivan seems to be trying to meet the most qualified challengers.

I don't think that we could say the same of Holmes.

If the Police Gazette said that X was the most qualified challenger, then he typically fought them.

Holmes as far as I can tell, never defended his title against the Ring Magazine #1!

Don't take this as me coming down unequivocally on Sullivan's side, but there are things that you need to consider.

 

Best that he faced...Tyson or Holyfield (both are intellectual arguable positions).

Best that he beat...Norton or Witherspoon.

 

What could Douglas do that a prime Holmes couldn't? I have to think a prime Holmes could have beat the Tyson who showed up that day in Tokyo.