I hate to say it, but Larry Holmes=overrated???

[Rory McCloskey]

I was looking at his record over here. im confused. i know he lost to both tyson and evander. his most impressive victories as far as known fighters he fought, were in the late 70's. it seems to me that larry holmes came at the perfect time. he was able to fight alot of the 70's fighters, most of whom were past there prime. I.E MUHAMMAD ALI.

i mean... he lost to tyson.holyfield.spinks twice.

before his victory against leon spinks, he beat
an over the hill- ali, norton and shavers.
after leon he beat.. ray mercer...... bonecrusher smith...

i am probly angering the boxing gods but for the love of god why do we, including myself, often rank larry holmes in the top 5???? he never really beat any prime champions. champions as in HOF caliber.

and we knock marciano for his competition?

[cultus]

I was looking at his record over here. im confused. i know he lost to both tyson and evander. his most impressive victories as far as known fighters he fought, were in the late 70's. it seems to me that larry holmes came at the perfect time. he was able to fight alot of the 70's fighters, most of whom were past there prime. I.E MUHAMMAD ALI.

i mean... he lost to tyson.holyfield.spinks twice.

before his victory against leon spinks, he beat
an over the hill- ali, norton and shavers.
after leon he beat.. ray mercer...... bonecrusher smith...

i am probly angering the boxing gods but for the love of god why do we, including myself, often rank larry holmes in the top 5???? he never really beat any prime champions. champions as in HOF caliber.

and we knock marciano for his competition?

Larry had over 20 defences.. and Marciano had 6 being bashed any way possible by old men, that's why. Larry was old when fighting Tyson but beat everybody in his prime. You can't flame the guy for not having good competition. Spinks got him at old age ns stuf.. but looking his record you know that. In my humble oppinon.. :P 70werent that special. Larry would have probably beaten ALI!!. ... or maybe not.. anyways.. Ali never met that techinaly sound fighter just slow stationery(not including frazier) people with a punch or the other way around. and he had a decent run at 40-45 or somethin .. peace

[Rory McCloskey]

but his most impressive defences came against aging fighters from the 70's with big names. i dont mean to call larry a bum, i still think he is top 10, but i had him at 3rd now i would put him at 9-10

[cultus]

but his most impressive defences came against aging fighters from the 70's with big names. i dont mean to call larry a bum, i still think he is top 10, but i had him at 3rd now i would put him at 9-10

yeah but where would you put Marciano then. He had less defences and fought lesser oponents. that gloryfied record doesn't work as the proof of the greatness some tape around his career.

[cultus]

Larry had that style that would have suited for most of the fighters ever step into the ring. .. Ali had it also .. and ofcourse the competition was better.

[Cojimar 1945]

Holmes was 38 years old when he fought Tyson and 42 when he fought Holyfield. How are these "losses" at all relevant considering Holmes age and when he was at his best?

[silkov]

Yeah Rory :x , Holmes is overrated and Braddock should be in the all time top 10 right????. ... no wonder you're confused.. 8) .
I think you've read too many of the Braddock biographies.. ....

Holmes is the most underrated heavyweight champion next to Ezzard Charles and belongs in the all time top 3 in my opinion.

[silkov]

Holmes was 38 years old when he fought Tyson and 42 when he fought Holyfield. How are these "losses" at all relevant considering Holmes age and when he was at his best?

The Tyson fight hardly serves as a gauge as to how good Holmes was and I thought you'd know that Rory. Holmes took the Tyson fight with 5 weeks notice and this after 3 years out 'drinking beer'.
A better gauge of Holmes is how he could still mix it with the best in the 90s when he was in his 40s. Holmes gave Holifield and Mccall all they could handle and beat Mercer.
As fighting ability goes Larry is in a different league altogether from Marciano and it really is foolish to compare the two...

[silkov]

I was looking at his record over here. im confused. i know he lost to both tyson and evander. his most impressive victories as far as known fighters he fought, were in the late 70's. it seems to me that larry holmes came at the perfect time. he was able to fight alot of the 70's fighters, most of whom were past there prime. I.E MUHAMMAD ALI.

i mean... he lost to tyson.holyfield.spinks twice.

before his victory against leon spinks, he beat
an over the hill- ali, norton and shavers.
after leon he beat.. ray mercer...... bonecrusher smith...

i am probly angering the boxing gods but for the love of god why do we, including myself, often rank larry holmes in the top 5???? he never really beat any prime champions. champions as in HOF caliber.

and we knock marciano for his competition?

How can you knock Holmes for losing to Holifield when he was 43????.
What do you actually know about Holmes opponents?... many of his challengers were very good fighters... Norton and Shavers were not over the hill when they fought Holmes.
Have you actually seen these men fight and seen Holmes title defences???

[wlvrne]

I was looking at his record over here. im confused. i know he lost to both tyson and evander. his most impressive victories as far as known fighters he fought, were in the late 70's. it seems to me that larry holmes came at the perfect time. he was able to fight alot of the 70's fighters, most of whom were past there prime. I.E MUHAMMAD ALI.

i mean... he lost to tyson.holyfield.spinks twice.

before his victory against leon spinks, he beat
an over the hill- ali, norton and shavers.
after leon he beat.. ray mercer...... bonecrusher smith...

i am probly angering the boxing gods but for the love of god why do we, including myself, often rank larry holmes in the top 5???? he never really beat any prime champions. champions as in HOF caliber.

and we knock marciano for his competition?

This has always been one of my contentions, Rory. Holmes was blessed with a pretty mediocre crowd at heavy weight. And his defenders will tell you that he never unified the belts because of politics.
Bullshit. If you claim to be the undisputed champnion of any given belt, you back it up, and take on all comers.

[silkov]

See what you've done Rory! :x :x :x :x :x ... you've reawoken wlvrne's pathological dislike of Holmes again now! :x :x :x :x ...
I'm sorry Rory, but you'll have to talk to him as I'm bored silly with him now.. yawn!.....

[Tantum]

When I think of a heavyweight champ who would be best suited against all other heavyweight champs in history... Holmes is the man who comes to mind.

He had every tool a heavyweight champ could dream of having.

[silkov]

When I think of a heavyweight champ who would be best suited against all other heavyweight champs in history... Holmes is the man who comes to mind.

He had every tool a heavyweight champ could dream of having.

Yes. Good to hear from someone who understands boxing. I rate Holmes about 3rd all time after Ali and Jack Johnson... and thats not to say I wouldn't give him a chance to beat Johnson. In fact as I'm thinking about it Holmes should perhaps be above Johnson.
The only other two heavyweights who made as many defences and fought such deep opposition as Holmes are Ali and Louis... but Holmes opposition is probably second only to Ali's.

[Rory McCloskey]

Yeah Rory :x , Holmes is overrated and Braddock should be in the all time top 10 right????. ... no wonder you're confused.. 8) .
I think you've read too many of the Braddock biographies.. ....

Holmes is the most underrated heavyweight champion next to Ezzard Charles and belongs in the all time top 3 in my opinion.

well i think just because i like braddock doesnt mean i have him anywhere near the top 10. again i think somewhere in the 40's does him justice.

[silkov]

Yeah Rory :x , Holmes is overrated and Braddock should be in the all time top 10 right????. ... no wonder you're confused.. 8) .
I think you've read too many of the Braddock biographies.. ....

Holmes is the most underrated heavyweight champion next to Ezzard Charles and belongs in the all time top 3 in my opinion.

well i think just because i like braddock doesnt mean i have him anywhere near the top 10. again i think somewhere in the 40's does him justice.

I wouldn't rate Braddock in the top 40 myself. There are many heavies who didn't win the title that would have beaten Braddock. The truth is that the heavyweight division was very thin on talent in the 30s, there were good fighters about but nowhere near the depth of talent of Ali's or Holmes era.

[Rory McCloskey]

1930's


Braddock
Baer
Louis
Sharkey
Schmelling
Rosenbloom
Walker
loughran
JH Lewis


thats 9 HOF heavyweights of the 1930's off the top of my head. the 1930's were filled with great boxers....

[kick asner]

I think one thing a thread like this brings out is that the heavyweight division has never been a totally strong weight class. So in defense of Holmes he fought the best fighters of his era minus a few. You couldn't even have this debate over the featherweights of the seventies and eighties becuase talent wise they were vastly supperior to the heavyweights.

[Rory McCloskey]

i wouldnt go as far as to say that this division has never been talented i think thats a little extreme

[Rory McCloskey]

i still have holmes in my top 10, and i think that he did have amazing talents, im just saying the level of his competition is overrated. Before i really sat down and looked at his record and looked at the opponents he fought, i had just ranked him 4th based on the his fight with bonecrusher smith that i watched on video.

[dalek]

When I think of a heavyweight champ who would be best suited against all other heavyweight champs in history... Holmes is the man who comes to mind.

He had every tool a heavyweight champ could dream of having.

Yes. Good to hear from someone who understands boxing. I rate Holmes about 3rd all time after Ali and Jack Johnson... and thats not to say I wouldn't give him a chance to beat Johnson. In fact as I'm thinking about it Holmes should perhaps be above Johnson.
The only other two heavyweights who made as many defences and fought such deep opposition as Holmes are Ali and Louis... but Holmes opposition is probably second only to Ali's.

are you saying holmes's opposition is only bettered by ali?or just outta the 3 fighters you mention.

[kick asner]

1930's


Braddock
Baer
Louis
Sharkey
Schmelling
Rosenbloom
Walker
loughran
JH Lewis


thats 9 HOF heavyweights of the 1930's off the top of my head. the 1930's were filled with great boxers....

Braddock, Schmelling, Rosenbloom, Walker, Loughran and Lewis are in the Hall of Fame, in part or in total, because of what they did below heavyweight. And let's not forget that Jack Sharkey jobbed his title to a professional wrestler, or that the only reason Braddock is in the Hall of Fame is that Baer had an off night.

Sharkey has always maintaned that his fight with Canerra was on the level and vehemitly denies taking a dive. But then again just because he denies it does not mean it didn't happen.

[Sherlock]

1930's


Braddock
Baer
Louis
Sharkey
Schmelling
Rosenbloom
Walker
loughran
JH Lewis


thats 9 HOF heavyweights of the 1930's off the top of my head. the 1930's were filled with great boxers....

Braddock, Schmelling, Rosenbloom, Walker, Loughran and Lewis are in the Hall of Fame, in part or in total, because of what they did below heavyweight. And let's not forget that Jack Sharkey jobbed his title to a professional wrestler, or that the only reason Braddock is in the Hall of Fame is that Baer had an off night.

Schmeling was never a great fighter at lightheavy in the world sense, only on the European level. And Carnera was a wrestler following his pro career, not before.

[silkov]

Just because they are in the hall of fame doesn't make them 'great heavyweights' perse. Sharkey and Schmeling were good but hardly great and they along with Baer and Louis were the pick of the crop in the 30s.
Louighan, Walker, Rosenbloom and Lewis were great fighters but not great heavyweights.
Its sounds to me Rory like you've only seen Holmes against Smith... how can you say his opposition was mediocre if you haven't watched them fight?. Most of them were bigger, faster and stronger than the heavyweights of the 30s.

[silkov]

When I think of a heavyweight champ who would be best suited against all other heavyweight champs in history... Holmes is the man who comes to mind.

He had every tool a heavyweight champ could dream of having.

Yes. Good to hear from someone who understands boxing. I rate Holmes about 3rd all time after Ali and Jack Johnson... and thats not to say I wouldn't give him a chance to beat Johnson. In fact as I'm thinking about it Holmes should perhaps be above Johnson.
The only other two heavyweights who made as many defences and fought such deep opposition as Holmes are Ali and Louis... but Holmes opposition is probably second only to Ali's.

are you saying holmes's opposition is only bettered by ali?or just outta the 3 fighters you mention.

Only bettered by Ali in my opinion.

Its true that through boxing history the lighter weights have always had the better skilled boxers pound for pound and the deeper pool of talent but this changed somewhat in the 60s to 80s when there was an immense flood of talent in the heavyweight division. This 'golden era' was probably at its peak in the 70s and lasted into the mid and late 80s where it died a death. Holmes and Ali fought in the most talented and competitive eras the heavyweight division has ever seen.

[Sherlock]

Oh, right. He was a CIRCUS STRONGMAN before his boxing career. I forgot to make the difference.

And why did it matter Carnera was a wrestler? A guys got to make a living.