Give credit to Larry Holmes

[Jaclem]

..no disgrace to be knocked out by nick wells in the amateurs..wells was one of the hardest punchers ever.....no discipline...no stamina ..(even over three rounds)....he was much like bob satterfield, but, if anything, he might have even punched harder. i don't know anything about the holmes/wells fight.....my guess it was a fast one punch knockout in the first round. if there are more details out there i'd appreciate hearing them.

[Cojimar 1945]

It does seem sad that Holmes was taken out so early. Smith lasted 12 rounds so one might have thought that even an aging Holmes could have lasted the distance. I would think the Spinks fights would be nearly as depressing from the standpoint of a Holmes fan.

It would have been interesting to see Holmes fight Dokes, Tubbs and Page when he was yonger. I wish those fights had taken place.

[Flump]

It does seem sad that Holmes was taken out so early. Smith lasted 12 rounds so one might have thought that even an aging Holmes could have lasted the distance. I would think the Spinks fights would be nearly as depressing from the standpoint of a Holmes fan.

It would have been interesting to see Holmes fight Dokes, Tubbs and Page when he was yonger. I wish those fights had taken place.

Smith only lasted 12 because he held every time Tyson came near him, Holmes tried to win the fight, thats the difference.

[barry]

>>>It does seem sad that Holmes was taken out so early. Smith lasted 12 rounds so one might have thought that even an aging Holmes could have lasted the distance.<<<

He certainly did in his bouts with Holyfield and Ray Mercer!

[The Great John L]

>>>It does seem sad that Holmes was taken out so early. Smith lasted 12 rounds so one might have thought that even an aging Holmes could have lasted the distance.<<<

He certainly did in his bouts with Holyfield and Ray Mercer!

OK, and a prime Tyson was brutalized by under-achieving journeyman Buster Douglas. Pretty sad that he couldn’t at least last the distance with a guy that Holyfield would dismantle in his next fight…

[Aldo Pravisani]

How much credit does Holmes need? What does he have to buy? Will an AMEX gold card do?

[Ambling Alp]

Just wanted to mention something about Holmes not unifying the title. He didn't because there really was no need to. Virtually everyone knew that Holmes was better than whover the WBA champion was at the moment. At the time that Holmes was champion, people weren't screaming for a unification match.
At the time, I disliked Holmes a lot, but knew like everyone else that he was the best.

[Ambling Alp]

ok well i watched holmes vs mercer and holyfield and i noticed no difference between that holmes and the holmes of the tyson fight, except the holmes of the tyson fight looked slightly faster

I can't believe anyone could come to this conclusion after watching these fights. In the Tyson fight, Holmes was only a shadow of what he was. He was very rusty.

In the other two fights, Holmes was a completely different fighter. It was obvious that he was shaper from having more training and having the tuneup fights. He showed flashes of what he was in his prime. In the Mercer fight in particular, it was an amazing performance for a man his age. He was much better in these fights than he was against Tyson. Had he fought like this against Tyson, he would have given Tyson a much tougher time.

[Ambling Alp]

Do you remember saying Brockton how at 34 Jimmy Ellis was shot when he was knocked out by Shavers and at 28 Quarry was shot when he was knocked out by Norton?

all fighters prime differently.


wilredo benitez was washed up at age 26, but archie moore was in his prime at 35 years old. or was suddenly wilfredo benitez in his prime at age 26?


get the point? all fighters age differently. ellis was pretty much washed up when he fought shavers in 73.


quarry was very battle worn, overweight, late sub and clearly past his prime when he fought norton at age 29. quarry was a early bloomer....he primed when he was young therefore his prime ended when he was younger.

If Benitez wouldn't have drug problems and had been willing to train hard he would have been a top fighter for several more years.
Fighters that are willing to train, usually don't start to decline until they are at least 30. (Assuming that they haven't been in to many "ring wars".)
Of course there are exceptions like Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott who don't decline until much later.

[The Great John L]

ok well i watched holmes vs mercer and holyfield and i noticed no difference between that holmes and the holmes of the tyson fight, except the holmes of the tyson fight looked slightly faster

I can't believe anyone could come to this conclusion after watching these fights. In the Tyson fight, Holmes was only a shadow of what he was. He was very rusty.

In the other two fights, Holmes was a completely different fighter. It was obvious that he was shaper from having more training and having the tuneup fights. He showed flashes of what he was in his prime. In the Mercer fight in particular, it was an amazing performance for a man his age. He was much better in these fights than he was against Tyson. Had he fought like this against Tyson, he would have given Tyson a much tougher time.

Holmes was WAY past his prime against Mercer, Holyfield and Tyson. While I think he was better prepared against Holyfield and Mercer, the fact remains that he was nothing more than a shell of his former self in all three of these fights. He performed well against Mercer because Mercer was as slow as a glacier. Tyson KO’d him because Holmes reflexes were a fraction of what they were 5 years earlier due to age and inactivity. Does anyone (and I mean Brocky and barry) really believe that the Spinks fights were any indication of how a prime Holmes would have done against Spinks? Then why would Tyson fighting a nearly 2 year older Holmes, who had been inactive for almost 2 years show anything about how Tyson would have faired against a prime Holmes?

[Ezzard]

ok well i watched holmes vs mercer and holyfield and i noticed no difference between that holmes and the holmes of the tyson fight, except the holmes of the tyson fight looked slightly faster

I can't believe anyone could come to this conclusion after watching these fights. In the Tyson fight, Holmes was only a shadow of what he was. He was very rusty.

In the other two fights, Holmes was a completely different fighter. It was obvious that he was shaper from having more training and having the tuneup fights. He showed flashes of what he was in his prime. In the Mercer fight in particular, it was an amazing performance for a man his age. He was much better in these fights than he was against Tyson. Had he fought like this against Tyson, he would have given Tyson a much tougher time.

Holmes was WAY past his prime against Mercer, Holyfield and Tyson. While I think he was better prepared against Holyfield and Mercer, the fact remains that he was nothing more than a shell of his former self in all three of these fights. He performed well against Mercer because Mercer was as slow as a glacier. Tyson KO’d him because Holmes reflexes were a fraction of what they were 5 years earlier due to age and inactivity. Does anyone (and I mean Brocky and barry) really believe that the Spinks fights were any indication of how a prime Holmes would have done against Spinks? Then why would Tyson fighting a nearly 2 year older Holmes, who had been inactive for almost 2 years show anything about how Tyson would have faired against a prime Holmes?

Well said

[Robinson]

People just do not like Holmes....

Ill tell you why...because realistically he would beat nearly every
other champion prime for prime.
And I am sure even now at 58...
if some one would pay to watch him he would fight with todays
top guys...

[Goodnight, Irene]

Holmes' flaws --- both as a fighter, & in terms of his accomplishments --- are unduly overlooked, almost as much as his talents were during his reign.

Several challengers during his long championship tenure have shockingly-light records upon challenging. Between stopping Shavers in '79 & getting a gift (you heard right) against Williams, seven of his seventeen adversaries had fewer than twenty pro fights, against a champion who began his career in the early 70's. Of those men, just one had more than fifteen pro bouts to his name.

Then there are the names. Not only are some of them bordering on putrid, but as highlighted above, many were green, & never amounted to anything, anyway. Frazier, Spinks (ironically, over-the-hill), Snipes, Zanon, Rodriguez, Frank, Bey? Give me a break.

Holmes defeated almost all-comers, &, with a few (barely) forgivable exceptions, was close to perfect for an extended period of time, doing only what could be asked of a great man in a weak era. Make no mistake, however --- Holmes' opposition was indeed weak &, in many instances, not even at the peak of their humble powers.

When your career highlight is Gerry Cooney, greatness is difficult to attain, & all of Holmes' churlish bleating will never change that. I have Holmes in my top five-to-eight, all-time --- he was that good. His long reign, however, is not properly criticised for the glaring flaws (when compared with other great champions) it clearly has. Holmes is one of those fighters whose abilities exceed their resumes (Ricardo Lopez, Roy Jones) --- such fighters will always struggle to procure their precise place in history

[Goodnight, Irene]

ultimately i believe that Holmes awkward style detracts from his achievemnts..... he was certainly not as pretty to watch as the accepted greats......didnt really have a one punch Ko capability.....wasnt as silky with his combos...and used to nullify opps with an unplayable ramrod jab...

and yet altho ascetically unpleasing so many of his fights were thrillers...

and Larry is right up there with Joe Louis the way he took a full Snipes thunder bolt....a full Shavers sledghammer AND GOT UP!!!

look at those two fights ....he didnt just get up and maul and grab desperatly like a klitchko would ..NO he got up and he carried on fighting when about 90% of most boxers in history would have still been flat on their backs

LARRY HOLMES LEGEND

"Snipes thunderbolt!?"

You're having a laugh. That's a massive detraction of Holmes, what happened that night, not a positive D

[Robinson]

In all of his defences...how does his opponents quality compare to
Joe Louis' 'bums', Burns international bouts (mostly against aussies),
Johnson' noble defences or Dempsey's long run at the top...

Holmes had his faults. That is not in denial. BUT...in comparison...

[Goodnight, Irene]

Well, no one in their right mind is going to class Burns in Holmes' league, so let's move past that.

Dempsey, no arguments from me, has an inferior title reign to Holmes. Dempsey competition during his tenure was better, but activity is so heavily-weighted in Holmes' favour, he gets the nod from me.

Louis' title competition had its fair share of no-hopers, but two points...

1) Boxing was infinitely more popular then, & while the talent pool of the 30's & 40's wasn't better by a mile compared to the 80's, you had to climb an appreciably higher mountain to reach the sport's summit. Louis' competition was, across the board, more experienced & flat-out better than Holmes', & his reign almost twice as long, to boot.

2) It seems fewer & fewer people realise this nowadays, but the phrase, "Bum Of The Month" wasn't at the time a reference to weak opposition --- it was, in fact, an in-context comment on how Louis made his foes look. Food for thought, perhaps? To be fair, Holmes did much the same thing, but, as I said, his competition was weaker, less experienced, & his title reign barely half the length of Louis'.

You know that I, like you, am less impressed with Johnson than most. We're in agreement on the man being an over-rated fighter. Personally, while I don't have to go far to catch heat for this, I think Dempsey --- with his whirlwind assault & under-estimated skill-set --- would have slayed him, had they shared a ring (or an era, for that matter).

I rank Holmes above Johnson, Burns, &, in terms of accomplishments at least, Dempsey. The only man you mentioned I would clearly drop him under is the Bomber, & in a head-to-head match-up, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Assassin won.

[Robinson]

I think Louis certainly had a greater and more classical reign than Holmes
or anyone.

In the Louis era, a fighter never had to navigate ABC gangs, sanctioning
fee's or those petty politics..off course Louis had his share of obstacles
WW2, potential racial biases and organized crimes involvement in the
game...

BUT...for the Holmes era these sanctioning bodies really robbed us fans
and the fighters off the purity in the sport.

One can argue that the 'great' Jack Johnson's reign was damaged by
the persecution he went through and you have no argument here from
me...but that does not change the fact of his opposition...who was his
best title defence....a very rusty and well retired James J Jeffries or
a game MW Ketchel.?

[Collins2000]

The REAL thing that is overlooked by those who weren't following boxing at the time is that many of those supposed bums that Holmes defended against usually had a win over a highly ranked contender just prior to meeting him.

Ossie Ocasio had just won two 10 round decisions over Jimmy Young

Earnie Shavers had just KO'd Ken Norton

Trevor Berbick had KO'd John Tate the year before he met Holmes

Renaldo Snipes had just outpointed Gerrie Coetzee (bad decision or not)

Gerry Cooney had just wiped out Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle and Ken Norton (old guys but that's boxing)

Randall Cobb had recently outpointed Bernardo Mercado (a man who still gets rave reviews in here)

Tim Witherspoon had just outpointed Renaldo Snipes

James Smith had just KO'd Frank Bruno

David Bey had just outpointed Gred Page (the man Holmes is supposed to have been afraid to fight according to one gimp in here)

Carl Williams had just outpointed James Tillis

Michael Spinks was an undefeated, undisputed 175 champ ( and I thought he beat Larry clearly)

[Robinson]

Hey Collins

I mentioned something similar in the thread re: Holmes title challengers...
Cooney gets bagged alot these days...but one thing for certain is that
in 1982...he was a very real and dangerous foe.

I had Holmes-Spinks 1 as a draw and the rematch a win for Holmes :P

[Collins2000]

Hey Collins

I mentioned something similar in the thread re: Holmes title challengers...
Cooney gets bagged alot these days...but one thing for certain is that
in 1982...he was a very real and dangerous foe.

I had Holmes-Spinks 1 as a draw and the rematch a win for Holmes :P

Hi Kym; hope all is going well.

Perhaps I am biased having been a Holmes fan since I watched his epic with Norton, but reading some of the comments in here over the years suggests to me people are putting him in the same class as some of the in and out fighters who have held portions of the title over the last few years. It's always "Yeah, he was good but he ducked everyone blah blah blah."

I watched his first fight with Spinks 'live' on TV and thought Michael won clearly. Larry looked old and Spinks fought a great fight. I was hoping Larry would get his 2nd wind and rally down the stretch but it didn't happen. IMO anyway.

The rematch was a different story.

The debacle against peak Tyson after Holmes had been living the good life was sad. But Larry said the money made up for the pain. And Larry did love the money, God bless him.

[Robinson]

It was the Holmes-Tyson fight taht I first saw as a youngin that made me
a Holmes fan. Even though it could be considered his worse fight.

Even as a 9 year old when I saw it on my grand fathers old beta tapes
that he taped live a year before (when we had boxing on TV!!!), I enjoyed
watching the HL's and how well he looked against Tyson..who was a
super human monster to me then.

The hate on Holmes by cyber experts and cigar smoking boxing 'historians'
is tedious at times. I can see criticisms, but some times reasoning is not
offered.

Another thing is that alot of Holmes is revisionist and looks past how
his opponents were viewed at the time, leading up to the fights etc.

RE- Spinks-Holmes 1....it makes you wish he took the easy fight and
defended against Kip Kane...

[Crssbones]

Larry Holmes is a top 10 all time heavyweight champion. Following Ali did not help him. He was an active champion on an annual basis. Fought the leading contender once per year and then fought other contenders 2 to 3 times per year. Later in his championship reign he was more intersted in the financial aspect of a $$ value per opponent and refused to be dictated to, often out pricing himself to fight a more dangerous prospect. Don't forget Larry Holmes was also a rich business man as well as the heavyweight champion. He wanted to hang around making solid paydays for lesser opponents and wait for another Gerry Cooney type opponent to bring serious money to the table. Fighters like Page and Coetzee brought nothing in the way of attracting people outside of the boxing public. That is where his motivation lied and where the SUPER MONEY comes from. It is not just a good fight it is when it is turned into a major event. HOLMES-COONEY attracted the outside public because of the great white hope factor. Holmes would be competitive against any all time great, however I think against extrordinary punchers who could hit him he might get knocked out late in the fight. Louis, Liston, Foreman, Marciano, Frazier.

[wvboxer]

You have to appreciate "boxing" and subtle nuances to fully appreciate Holmes. So often you hear of how boring the fights & fighters of the 80's were. I watched Holmes vs. Bonecrusher Smith the other day and completely enjoyed it! It wasn't a knockdown, drag out brawl but it was a nice match!

I haven't seen alot of Holmes but enough to recognize his skills as a boxer. His problem was that he was Miles Davis to Ali's Louis Armstrong. For those who don't know jazz, Armstrong was a pioneering trumpeter & brilliant soloist as well as a tremendous entertainer. As great as his playing was, he was willing to play to the crowd. (Given the time he played in, being a showman was necessary for a black perfomer.) Davis was also brilliant but was anything but a showman. He often turned his back to the audience when not playing. You appreciated him for his music or nothing. He wouldn't try to win you. My point : Ali was a showman because that's who he was. Holmes expected to be appreciated for what he did inside the ring not for how entertaining he was out of it.

I've babbled but that my opinion. Great Champion though.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Larry Holmes is a top 10 all time heavyweight champion. Following Ali did not help him. He was an active champion on an annual basis. Fought the leading contender once per year and then fought other contenders 2 to 3 times per year.

--- Sometimes boxing fans are a mystery. You could easily say that following Ali didn't help Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, and Tubbs either.

Surely you remember, "the other fighters" we dare not mention when addressing the career of Larry. Somehow following a hotly disputed split with Ken Norton nearing the end of his career, with the likes of Evangelista, Ocasio, and finally the unproven Weaver, 19-8, who had been KOed by Duane Bobick, surely you remember the number the undefeated Bobick did on Holmes in the Olympic trials, well, I wouldn't say such a start is a recipe for greatness.

Makes no never mind as Cooney made both their fortunes that Larry further secured in his lengthy "comeback," so he'll always be the greatest ever in his own mind.

[Rocky Balboa]

The only argument I've been slightly swayed by on the Holmes-Tyson match up is that Larry, when hurt, would fight back. This would be a bad idea against Mike. Larry would need to weather the storm and save himself for later on. If Larry got hurt and went toe-to-toe it would play into Tyson's hands.

If the old, unprepared Larry goes 4 rounds with Tyson then the prime Larry could go 6-7 and the momentum would have swung to Holmes by then.

I agree that a prime Holmes would beat Tyson, but Mike is still the only man to score a stoppage of Larry, so what does that say for Tyson?

Remember, Larry pushed Holyfield all the way some four years after the loss to Tyson!