If you have to ask such a question, you really need to watch some old footage and get clued up.. 20 succesful defences against men who more often than not became champ when he had retired...... 7 and a half years solid rule.. even then he was jinxed out of title by a very close verdict against Mike Spinks... he was a great heavyweight......
you really mean this seriously ? vitali nr. 3 h2h ? ali, foreman, frazier, tyson, liston, riddick bowe. you see them all loosing to vitali ? c'mon man stay off the dope before making a post.
Holmes was very good however he choose to cruise past Marcianio with boxers he thought he could beat. Also, he lost to a lightheavyweight. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think a lightheavy has defeated a heavyweight champion since Tunney beat Dempsey. The loss to M. Spinks contributes even more to his lack of respect because Tyson winds up destroying Spinks (like Holmes should have).
I aint shitting on Holmes but whether he had 20 defences or 40 defences dont mean nothing to me if your not undisputed champ IMO
For all intents and purposes, the vanquished Mike Weaver did this for him by upsetting Tate for the WBA Title, and Hercules was candid enough during his tenure as their standard bearer to openly admit that Holmes was the number one heavyweight. Larry's status as the best in the world and one true world heavyweight champion was not questioned after Weaver-Tate. After Holmes dominated Cooney (and it was domination, regardless of the scoring by two incompetent judges), the anchors on that evening's ESPN broadcast stated, "You can take the WBA Championship, and put it, 'over there.' Holmes is THE Champion, there's no one close, really, and he looks set to hold onto the crown for some time to come." Witherspoon was competitive, but I don't recall a single media source at the time scoring Spoon as the winner in that one. (Like most of the press, I also thought Snipes won the bout which qualified Witherspoon for his shot. Today, nobody bitches about Snipes not getting a second shot at Larry, but he may have deserved it after Witherspoon. Instead, he got stuck with Page on the Holmes-Witherspoon undercard.)
It's hard to argue with Larry's legacy (many other 'touted' champs have less of a resume). Some posters bring up his fights with Spinks? Tyson? PAST PRIME... Not to mention IMHO Eddie Gregory was a better fighter than Spinks but that's another thread... I think he's 'short list' of greats, maybe not top 5 but up there. Reasons? He got clocked several times by shots that would have put others out to lunch...got up...and won...often brutally... That jab!!! Ooooh, that jab!!! Whether he wins or not, NO HW champ of the past, or future, could have avoided that. Ali's was great, Liston's was a pile-driver, etc...but Larry's was THE dictate in All his fights. Styles make fights but many give him a shot against a prime Ali simply because of that jab. IMO Ali could have copped a UD against Larry (probably) but that's why I love Holmes' ranking with some...Ali would have had his hands full against a prime Holmes; certainly Muhammad didn't have the power to put Larry OUT...unless he lands a straight right early in a round and goes into overdrive (granted, a possibility). Bottom line? Larry could have held his own against any HW champ if for no other reason than: His champion chin... That jab! That jab!
I've seen the bout on youtube,but didn't scored it. My subjective impression was that it was a win for Witherspoon-or at the very least a draw.
Right, and don't forget Holmes had a very good uppercut, could combo to the head or body, and bend the rules if he had to. Holmes'schin vs big punchers is battle tested, and his ability to recuperate from a big shot was outstanding. IMO, Holmes had perhaps the least amount of flaws in his game of all the great champions.
That makes even less sense. How is it a "H2H list" if you rate a guy over someone he already lost to H2H?
How does that turn anything on it's head when Ali beat Frazier twice as well as KOing George?:huh Ali trumps George p4p,h2h or any other way you care to rank them. Face it you tried to be controversial with your list but it wasn't thought through and has just come off as silly.
a weakness he had was his only defense was his feet....no head movements....not a great blocker...thats why someone like tyson who could close the distance would have been hell for holmes even on his best day.
If Larry Holmes wasn't a great heavyweight no such creature exists. Duodendum's summary is bang on. I don't know what more one could realistically want in a heavyweight champion. H@H Larry would be a good bet to beat any heavyweight that ever stepped into the ring. I'm not saying that he was the greatest, but with his complete skill set he'd be a threat to beat any other heavyweight ever.