Hopefully it is not Michael Spinks. Ali at least understood he was only as big as the "rivals" he built up and then defeated. Holmes didn't understand that marketing concept, and let numerous potential multi-fight series slip thru his fingers. That is one of the reasons that the Holmes' reign is "hollow".
I'd have to say Ali. Holmes was a great champion in his own right but he reigned in the shadow of the aura of Ali even after beating him in 1980 for the WBC title. Holmes was a vastly under-rated champion in my books.
Kenneth Norton. He was only slightly removed from his prime, in great shape, and he didn't like Larry. I think after Norton, Holmes mainly feasted on old men, green youngsters, or European champions. I think Larry is great, but I agree that the term "hollow" applies.
Nope. Thee answer to the thread question is crystal clear. Going strictly by Holmes' behaviour and (disgraceful and spiteful) words: Marciano.
Yep, you made me remember his saying that "Marciano couldn't carry my jock strap". That statement really turned me away from his accomplishments in the ring at the time. He was bitter over Spinks beating him to erase his "0"
He didn´t really have that one big defining rival. And I think his standing suffers a bit from that. If he would have had a Frazier, someone who would push him to his limits more than once and makes him really, really prove his greatness he would have a higher standing. Yeah, he had close fights with guys like Witherspoon and Norton and got up against Shavers but Witherspoon was inexperienced and Norton and Shavers were past it and neither of them really a special fighter either.
Well he might have had, if he'd rematched Norton or Witherspoon, two guys who arguably got the better of him.
Nobody Holmes didn't match or rematch was "champion" long enough (during Holmes' real, legitimate reign) or stood out enough for long enough for the public to force Holmes to fight them or rematch them. There were no men outstanding enough to MAKE themselves Holmes' rival. Holmes does suffer for not having one, but his reign was not hollow and for quite some time he was quite clearly the best and nobody could do anything about it for that time.
What is this obsesion with rematches? I dont get it. why would having a rematch make Holmes a beter champion against guys he already beat? he rematched shavers. weaver and witherspoon went off and did their own thing with other belts but couldnt keep winning long enough to mount a superfight anyway. when you look at the so called "rival champions" they were all unproven. each could wrack up unbeaten records against the usual suspects but were barley 50-50 in even matchups within their own level. Dont get me wrong they were good contenders but the fact that they couldnt actualy beat anyone or were just as likely to lose to any other conteder only proves they "might" give holmes a tough fight. when holmes was on the way up he passed beter tests beating roy williams and shavers. who did witherspoon beat on the way up? what happend after he beat page, he lost to thomas who lost to berbick who holmes already beat. page? Coetzee? Tate? dokes? they couldnt beat each other and were no beter than weaver who holmes knocked out. Holmes real rival was cooney who was the "next big thing" and had larry avoided cooney I can understand it. gerry was at least knocking out name fighters. Holmes beat cooney who earned too much money to ever mount enough desire to prove what he might have been but thats not larrys fault. Leon spinks beat mercardo and prety good form coming into their fight but holmes took care of business as he always did until he got a bit faded.
Other greats, notably Louis, rematched those opponents who left doubt. And yes, rematches with Norton and Witherspoon would have made him a better champion, assuming he won them. I scored Tim as a loss for Larry and Ken was too close to call. There was no need for a Shavers rematch. No. Larry gave up the recognized belt to try for a new belt, rather than make a WBC defence against Greg Page, who lost to Witherspoon for the belt Larry vacated I rank Holmes as 5 or 6 alltime, but he could have done more in his first g-round.
Ali... He was always fighting in his shadow. In the ring i'd go with Cooney. Simply because of the hype around it. Norton, Shavers, Spoon gave him tougher fights but none of those were as big as Cooney hype wise.