Spinks-Holmes

[TheOneIsHere2008]

How far away on a scale of 1 to 10 was Larry Holmes from his prime in those two fights with 10 being prime and 1 being shot...

[Robinson]

I think Spinks was in tremendous shape and was highly
motivated for the upset.

Holmes was more concerned with the media surrounding
the fight and his comparisons with Marciano at times to
really be in good mind to take the challenge. Holmes had
been showing signs of diminishing skill and zest leading up
to this fight, as far back as 1983.

I think this fight should have been a draw, and nothing can
be said about the awkward un-relenting attack of Spinks.

The rematch I had for Holmes.

I am no doubt biased as I am a Holmes fan. I shall admit this
from the get go.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I think Spinks was in tremendous shape and was highly
motivated for the upset.

Holmes was more concerned with the media surrounding
the fight and his comparisons with Marciano at times to
really be in good mind to take the challenge. Holmes had
been showing signs of diminishing skill and zest leading up
to this fight, as far back as 1983.

I think this fight should have been a draw, and nothing can
be said about the awkward un-relenting attack of Spinks.

The rematch I had for Holmes.

I am no doubt biased as I am a Holmes fan. I shall admit this
from the get go.

When an old boxer faces a young boxer or an old athlete faces a young athlete in any competition I am willing to give the old athlete the benefit of the doubt...If they fought in their respective primes I think the larger and equally skilled Holmes owns him...

[My2Sense]

How far away on a scale of 1 to 10 was Larry Holmes from his prime in those two fights with 10 being prime and 1 being shot...

After his career-defining win over Cooney, Holmes gradually became fat and lazy, similar to Joe Frazier after the first Ali fight. He was like a guy who felt he had climbed the biggest mountain he could find, and no other mountain could ever truly motivate him. Even as he came within sight of Marciano's record, he was still too lazy to get his fat ass in shape, so he tried to tomato pick his way to the record. As he got lazier (and fights sometimes got tougher) he picked increasingly lesser regarded quality of opposition. Finally, he bottomed out by picking a light-heavyweight who had never before fought above 175. I'm glad Holmes was foiled of making the record. He was always an Ali wannabe, but IMO, he "couldn't carry Ali's jock". ( ) Years earlier, he had also tried to hand pick his way to breaking the heavyweight record for most consecutive knockouts (first held by Tommy Burns), but was foiled there when Trevor Berbick (who had been KO'd in one by Bernardo Mercado just a few fights earlier) took him the distance.

Getting back to your question, I would rate Holmes around a 7-ish at the time he met Spinks. He was definitely not at his peak and had lost some of the fire and conditioning of his best years. But to claim he was any less than that would be revisionist history IMO. He was not at his absolute best, but he was not considered faded enough to excuse a loss to a blown up light-heavyweight.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

How far away on a scale of 1 to 10 was Larry Holmes from his prime in those two fights with 10 being prime and 1 being shot...

After his career-defining win over Cooney, Holmes gradually became fat and lazy, similar to Joe Frazier after the first Ali fight. He was like a guy who felt he had climbed the biggest mountain he could find, and no other mountain could ever truly motivate him. Even as he came within sight of Marciano's record, he was still too lazy to get his fat ass in shape, so he tried to tomato pick his way to the record. As he got lazier (and fights sometimes got tougher) he picked increasingly lesser regarded quality of opposition. Finally, he bottomed out by picking a light-heavyweight who had never before fought above 175. I'm glad Holmes was foiled of making the record. He was always an Ali wannabe, but IMO, he "couldn't carry Ali's jock". ( ) Years earlier, he had also tried to hand pick his way to breaking the heavyweight record for most consecutive knockouts (first held by Tommy Burns), but was foiled there when Trevor Berbick (who had been KO'd in one by Bernardo Mercado just a few fights earlier) took him the distance.

Getting back to your question, I would rate Holmes around a 7-ish at the time he met Spinks. He was definitely not at his peak and had lost some of the fire and conditioning of his best years. But to claim he was any less than that would be revisionist history IMO. He was not at his absolute best, but he was not considered faded enough to excuse a loss to a blown up light-heavyweight.

I was reading "Only In America" on the net...Much of it is availble on google...

I am of two minds about Holmes...Sometimes I like him and sometimes I don't...I would be lieing if I said the reason I don't like him is because he beat a faded Ali...But he had no choice... And he said after the fight he'd prefer to remember the young Ali that he sparred with and not the old Ali that he beat... Also, after the fight he went up to Ali's hotel room and told him he "loved" him and would do anything for him including giving him money if he needed...So it's hard for me to dislike him...

I guess some dislike him because he was a bit of a trash talker...

Oh, Don King screwed him over...

[overhand_right]

The term "shot is misused too often, a shot fighter would be Michael Dokes getting blown out in 2 rds by clubfighter Rocky Ray Phillips.

Larry Holmes at 35 losing a narrow decision to ATG light-heavy Michael Spinks underlines what we had been seeing in his recent defences against the new crop, i.e Bonecrusher, David Bey and Carl Williams et al, that he was just on the slide but obviously not washed up.

Considering how long he went on 1991 onwards and the guys he was able to school and beat up quite handily, he still had a lot left, even in the elite class Mercer, Holyfield and McCall.

[bennie]

It was a poor match so close to the Marciano record. I'm old enough to have lived through the period and as soon as I heard Holmes was fighting Spinks, my reaction was 'huh!' In many fights, particularly at heavyweight, you can actually FORSEE what is going to happen. Holmes-Spinks? No. I just didn't like this fight for Holmes. Spinks had talent, was unbeaten and AWKWARD. Why didn't Holmes fight Tangstad?

[overhand_right]

With the spectre of Marciano, Holmes would of caught too much flak choosing an 'obvious push over'.

Given light-heavies poor track at challenging for the heavyweight belt, i would think Spinks looked a safe name?

[revporl]

At the time I thought it was a dangerous fight for Holmes. In the event I think it should have been a draw. Holmes clearly won the rematch.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

At the time I thought it was a dangerous fight for Holmes. In the event I think it should have been a draw. Holmes clearly won the rematch.

That still would have precluded him from matching Rocky's record...

[Ambling Alp]

I'm not sure what number I would say holmes was 10 being prime, 1 being shot. Certainly he was well past his best. At his best Holmes would have beaten Spinks fairly easily. However, Holmes was still a good fighter. Spinks does deserve some credit for beating Holmes.
Btw, at the time there was virtually controversy regarding who deserved the decision in the first fight.

[observer1]

Larry Holmes was passed his best, but still a classy opponenet, and arguebally still one of the best fighters then. So take nothing away from Spinks.

[Robinson]

I suppose it was apt considering the Marciano connection that Holmes
should face the LHW king. After all Marciano himself fed himself almost
entirely on LHW's who had made their way into the HW division.

[overhand_right]

Larry Holmes was still def one the top fighters, dont know if he could of handled Pinklon Thomas or a rematch with Tim Witherspoon, but he was 48-0 and his wins over Bonecrusher and Bey and subsequent career show he was still very, very good, even if past his best.

Holmes had a freakishly long shelf life, just like Foreman. The crafty old fiends!

[histboxfan]

8

Holmes declined very slowly, in my opinion, and was a very capable fighter for years after this fight.

I believe Holmes was in good shape, and I have never thought of him as a lazy trainer. He has always been a consumate professional, and a credit to boxing.

Spinks fought a great fight, and Holmes probably underestimated him, which lead to some poor strategy on Holmes's part.

I feel Spinks won the first fight in a close decision, that should not have had any contriversy.

I felt that Holmes won the second fight, employing a much improved strategy, and that the actual decision was a poor one.

As for Holmes in his prime, the second fight makes it obvious he would have beaten Spinks, but I'm not sure he would have knocked him out.

[Collins2000]

Holmes looked a lot better in the rematch.

I think he took Michael a little lightly (to his obvious cost) while preparing for the first fight. Plus Michael was a great fighter in his own right.

My abiding memory of that first fight is a somewhat befuddled and slow Larry finding it really hard to get Michael into a position where he could pull the trigger. And all the time Spinks was piling up points.

I was a big Larry fan and kept hoping he'd come on but it was clear by the half way stage he was in with a lad with a good plan and who was going to stick to it. And if he did he was going to win. Clearly.