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

[wlvrne]

Holmes' toughest opponents were: Shavers, Weaver, Evangelista, Norton, and Berbick. I'm not counting Ali of 1980 as he was out of the game by then.
That's why I contend that Holmes was blessed with a mediocre division.

[kick asner]

Holmes' toughest opponents were: Shavers, Weaver, Evangelista, Norton, and Berbick. I'm not counting Ali of 1980 as he was out of the game by then.
That's why I contend that Holmes was blessed with a mediocre division.

Tim Witherspoon?

[wlvrne]

Holmes' toughest opponents were: Shavers, Weaver, Evangelista, Norton, and Berbick. I'm not counting Ali of 1980 as he was out of the game by then.
That's why I contend that Holmes was blessed with a mediocre division.

Tim Witherspoon?

I'll grant that Tim was tough back then, but still a one-dimensional fighter - slow left jab followed by a looping over-hand right. Not really too hard to figure out that puzzle.

[kick asner]

A pattern you see a lot among elite heavyweights is them beating great competition before they win the title, and in their early years, but then doing little during their championship reign. Holmes, Johnson and Louis all did their best work early on.

Jack Demsey would be another one.

[kick asner]

I guess I was refering to his inactivity after he won the title.

[Rory McCloskey]

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.

joe louis became a wrestler... guess he musta sucked to right decagon?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i feel holmes is top 5 IMO,

for ranking heavyweights u look at things like record, competion, hwo he did in his prime, longetivity, consistency, all around skill, dominance, etc and u use certain categories on different champions.

like with marciano, i dont count longetivity as a big facter because he was a slugger/swarmer and his kind of fighting style fighters never lasted as long. guys like dempsey,frazier, marciano didnt last as long because they demaned more of there body than other types of fighters. so i count consitency more.


cultus, there is no need to bash marciano, its a myth that he beat past there prime men IMO, and if u want to debate me then ill make another thread.



as for larry holmes, i count longetivty, competetion, record, all around skill when i assess him.


larry holmes was very consistent and reached 48-0 before he lost when past his prime. so holmes never losing in his prime is a big deal.

as for holmes competition, he may have never beat a top 15 heavyweight or all time great(cause he never had the chance), but he beat perhaps greater depth than any heavy in history besides ali. the best man he beat was top 20/25 great heavy norton. but look at the depth after that, holmes beat many heavies that are top 30/40 heavies of all time that other greats like marciano, dempsey, louis, foreman, etc did not beat. holmes beat a lot of alpha champs who were very good heavyweights. he defended it 20 times, and when u defend it that much, u have to be consitent and really have an offf night and thats what makes holmes great cause he was able to stay consistent and beat all those very good heavies, and even continued to retain his title when he was past his prime.

i also look what holmes did past his prime, holmes at 44 gave holy lots of trouble and i can only imagine what a prime holmes would do to holy. a 47 year old holmes nearly beat oliver mcail. even 44 year old holmes beat top 50 heavy ray mercer. this shows me that a prime holmes is levels above these guys if he can give them loads of trouble when way past his prime.

holmes also looks good in head to head matchups because he showed the best jab, great boxing skills, very mobile, great chin, huge heart, good defense, decent power, fast hand and footspeed.


i could go on and on but u get why holmes is top 5 heavy


when i mean holmes beat great depth he beat all very good or great heavies such as trevor berbick, mike weaver, ken norton, earnie shavers(twice), gerry cooney, bonercrusher.

and holmes answered a lot of critics questions regarding overall ability

chin- holmes proved his chin against shavers, and throughout his whole career getting only knocked out once by huge puncher tyson when holmes was past his prime.

heart - holmes best asset IMO along with his jab was heart, though some may disagree. his heart helped him comeback and win some fights that most others would have lossed to, fights like snipes, shavers, bonecrusher, weaver, norton, etc holmes showed a big heart. it wasnt boxing skills that won the fight vs norton, it was the heart holmes showed in the 15th round when dead tired that enabled holmes to fire away and take the round and start his legacy.

boxing skills- holmes in his prime rarely had any of his fights close on points and that was because he was so hard to outbox or beat on points because he had a pistol left jab and good offense with speed.

power- he wasnt a KO artist but scored many knockouts by wearing guys down by attrition of punches and holmes knocked guys like cooney and weeaver down with one punch.



those are just 4 big areas that all true champions are looked upon, there are many more of course. but thats just an example

[wlvrne]

Brockton, if Holmes was as much as you and others purport to be, why then didn't he unify the belts? And don't give me that stale line about politics. Why wasn't he calling out people like Ali called fighters out?

[evndrbsn]

A lot of people forget that Larry Holmes lost both of the fights to Michael Spinks in hotly disputed decisions. According to Larry, he was near retirement before he fought Michael Spinks and given he got the nod in those two fights, it is very likely he would have retired at 50-0.

I know the track record of heavyweight champions retiring as champions yet coming back again, but I would have to think Holmes would have stayed retired with a mark of 50-0. Only the second heavyweight champion to retire undefeated and with one more victory that Rocky Marciano? Holmes might have tainted his legacy by coming back over and over again, but that is also because he kept trying to regain some of the stature that he lost in the two Spinks fights and the Tyson fight.

If Holmes had received the decisions over Spinks that a lot of people thought he deserved and then retired at 50-0, people would be talking about him in a completely different manner. Likewise, no one would think much of Marciano had he lost the first fight against LaStarza. He would have retired at 48-1 with only 6 title defenses against old, used up contenders and blown up light heavyweights, who mostly gave him difficult fights. Rocky Marciano is considered great because he retired undefeated, not because his talent level. And Larry Holmes felt the same way, going as far as muttering, "Rocky Marciano couldn't have carried my jockstrap." Was he wrong? Maybe a bit disrespectful to the legendary Marciano, but probably not too far off base.

[wlvrne]

Ever, so Rocky had 6 title defenses. Holmes had what, 20?...against what caliber of fighters? Holmes fought 5 or 6 really tough fights in his career, those opponents are listed above. Holmes was blessed with a mediocre division and didn't even seek to unify the belts.

[evndrbsn]

Ever, so Rocky had 6 title defenses. Holmes had what, 20?...against what caliber of fighters? Holmes fought 5 or 6 really tough fights in his career, those opponents are listed above. Holmes was blessed with a mediocre division and didn't even seek to unify the belts.

The fighters Holmes fought may not have been as highly regarded historically, but posed a greater threat than the over-the-hill challengers Marciano faced off against. These fighters were closer to their primes when they fought Holmes, which is something to take into account.

An entirely different way to look at it would be that almost any of Holmes' competition would crush Rocky, who in essense was a small, cut prone heavyweight with the reach of a ten year old girl. I respect Rocky Marciano historically, especially given his perfect record, but he was a limited fighter even in his day when he was defending his title against light heavyweights and the contenders of years prior.

Marciano had a great punch against other small heavyweights, but to think he could have competed against Holmes or any of Holmes' major competition is laughable. If you do not want to match them up since they are different eras, Holmes still had the better title run and fought the alive competition.

Marciano had a close fight with an old Joe Louis, a come from behind win in a losing war with Jersey Joe Walcott (who took five tries to win the title), two close bouts with a totally washed up Ezzard Charles, a couple grueling fights with Don Cockell and Roland LaStarza (who many believed beat Marciano in 1950), and a dance with 43-year old light heavyweight champ Archie Moore where he had to climb off the canvas. His only other title defense was his one round return bout with Walcott, who was petrified of getting in the ring again after getting KO'd cold by Marciano eight months before.

Holmes, on the other hand, went on to defeat four future world champions during his title reign and would go on at the advanced age of 40-plus to get the better of WBC champ Oliver McCall and Brian Nielson before getting jobbed by terrible judging from the officials. Don't discredit his victory over 18-0 Ray Mercer either, who was coming off a spectacular stoppage of Tommy Morrison and remained a top contender for years after his loss to Holmes.

Somehow I don't see Rocky Marciano proving just how great he really was during his prime by beating top contenders at the age of 40 and over like Holmes did.

Ah, unifying the belts. Interesting people always bring that up. Remember that Holmes was the WBC champ before he got stripped for not rematching against Tim Witherspoon. He was then awarded the newly created IBF title. Who was the WBA champion? Oh yeah, Mike Weaver, someone Holmes already defeated. Then the WBA title changed hands every couple months since none of the fighters were good enough to hold the championship.

So we have the WBC title that he didn't unify since he was stripped of it and the WBA. Again, to unify the WBA title, he either would have just faced Mike Weaver again (who he stopped in 12) or one of the other five fighters who held the title from 1982 to 1986.

He was considered THE champion; there was no reason to go face someone who basically received his stolen belt or to go face the other boxers who fought for a different championship since they weren't good enough to compete with Larry.

[dalek]

What about Jack Johnson's opposition:

-Sam McVey
-Sam Langford
-Jim Jeffries
-Marvin Hart
-Tommy Burns
-Jim Johnson
-Denver Ed Martin
-Sandy Ferguson
-Joe Jeanette
-Bob Fitzsimmons
-Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
-Stanley Ketchell
-Frank Moran

Or Joe Louis:

-Max Baer
-Jim Braddock
-Primo Carnera
-Jack Sharkey
-Max Schmelling
-Billy Conn
-Jersey Joe Walcott
-Jimmy Bivins
-Buddy Baer

Or Evander Holyfield:

-Dwight Qawi
-Buster Douglas
-George Foreman
-Bert Cooper
-Riddick Bowe
-Michael Moorer
-Ray Mercer
-Mike Tyson
-John Ruiz
-Hasim Rahman

Traditionally, heavyweight champions have fought only once or twice a year, even in the early days of boxing. That's because they could afford to. Welterweights like Kid Gavilan couldn't. I'm not a big fan of Holmes's opposition, though.

lennox lewis's is as good as holmes imo.however with johnson the fight with fitz was when bob was ancient.hart and moran were decent fighters,no great shakes.the coloured fighters i don't know much about.though i don't think jim johnson was any great shakes.o'brien like you said would be only a supermiddle.ketchel you said was no good,so jack can't have credit for beating him or drawing with o'brien.as for holy,beating qawi at cruiser was impressive.however to put cooper,moorer,ruiz and an ancient foreman as an impressive resume is stretching it.

[wlvrne]

E, just who were these "top contenders" that Holmes was beating at the age of 40? And if an old Holmes could beat these guys, then they weren't "top" fighters, now were they.
Mercer beat Morrison just like Ross Purrity almost had him - Tommy was way too wide open when he was throwing shots.
And I did give a list of 5 "top" fighters that Holmes fought in his era. Other than those guys, his opponents were really mediocre and Holmes fought selectively throughout his career.
And the question still remains: If Holmes was that great, why didn't he unify the belts?

[evndrbsn]

E, just who were these "top contenders" that Holmes was beating at the age of 40? And if an old Holmes could beat these guys, then they weren't "top" fighters, now were they.
Mercer beat Morrison just like Ross Purrity almost had him - Tommy was way too wide open when he was throwing shots.
And I did give a list of 5 "top" fighters that Holmes fought in his era. Other than those guys, his opponents were really mediocre and Holmes fought selectively throughout his career.
And the question still remains: If Holmes was that great, why didn't he unify the belts?

Read my above post again to read why he did not unify the belts.

Now, about the top contenders, I said this: "[Holmes went] on at the advanced age of 40-plus to get the better of WBC champ Oliver McCall and Brian Nielson before getting jobbed by terrible judging from the officials. Don't discredit his victory over 18-0 Ray Mercer either, who was coming off a spectacular stoppage of Tommy Morrison and remained a top contender for years after his loss to Holmes."

And you are wrong. Just because an old Holmes beats Mercer or McCall does not mean Mercer and McCall were not top fighters. It means that Holmes was a special talent. If justice would have prevailed, Holmes would have been a two-time heavyweight champion after fighting McCall. If you remember, McCall KO'd Lennox Lewis in two. In regards to Mercer, I recall the Ring and pretty much every other reputable boxing news source rating Mercer highly for a few years.

[Rory McCloskey]

i have a question. I know we are ranking holmes hear, not on his competition, but basically on his talent, what we saw he could do. Well... IMO if you go by this then you have to move baer up on every list. Baer's greatest downfall was his mind, but physically and talent wise i would go as far as to put him in my top 7. A 100% focused baer probly does beat braddock, and probly beats alot of heavyweights. he had a murderous punch. ask frankie campbell

[evndrbsn]

i have a question. I know we are ranking holmes hear, not on his competition, but basically on his talent, what we saw he could do. Well... IMO if you go by this then you have to move baer up on every list. Baer's greatest downfall was his mind, but physically and talent wise i would go as far as to put him in my top 7. A 100% focused baer probly does beat braddock, and probly beats alot of heavyweights. he had a murderous punch. ask frankie campbell

I agree that Baer had a murderous punch and was a gifted heavyweight, but like you said, his greatest downfall was his mind. He rarely came into fights 100% and that is something you have to take into account. On paper, Baer was a better fighter than Braddock. He should have beaten him. But he couldn't, because of himself. It's sad because that guy could have been something brutal in his day.

[kick asner]

Brockton, if Holmes was as much as you and others purport to be, why then didn't he unify the belts? And don't give me that stale line about politics. Why wasn't he calling out people like Ali called fighters out?

That is a valid point. It seems like he was strangly silent on the topic. I can't even remeber Holmes expressing a desire to unify the belt.

[evndrbsn]

Ah, unifying the belts. Interesting people always bring that up. Remember that Holmes was the WBC champ before he got stripped for not rematching against Tim Witherspoon. He was then awarded the newly created IBF title. Who was the WBA champion? Oh yeah, Mike Weaver, someone Holmes already defeated. Then the WBA title changed hands every couple months since none of the fighters were good enough to hold the championship.

So we have the WBC title that he didn't unify since he was stripped of it and the WBA. Again, to unify the WBA title, he either would have just faced Mike Weaver again (who he stopped in 12) or one of the other five fighters who held the title from 1982 to 1986.

He was considered THE champion; there was no reason to go face someone who basically received his stolen belt or to go face the other boxers who fought for a different championship since they weren't good enough to compete with Larry.

And also politics were the case! Didn't anyone watch "Don King: Only in America?" :P

[kick asner]

The reason you would fight any fighter who held the other half or third or however many titles are out their, because your in the fight game to fight. It's a matter of conjecture as to how worthy that opponent may be, but he must at least be a contender to be in the positionof holding a belt. The way to deal with the politics of the sport outside of the ring is to go and take back the title inside of the ring.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Ever, so Rocky had 6 title defenses. Holmes had what, 20?...against what caliber of fighters? Holmes fought 5 or 6 really tough fights in his career, those opponents are listed above. Holmes was blessed with a mediocre division and didn't even seek to unify the belts.

The fighters Holmes fought may not have been as highly regarded historically, but posed a greater threat than the over-the-hill challengers Marciano faced off against. These fighters were closer to their primes when they fought Holmes, which is something to take into account.

An entirely different way to look at it would be that almost any of Holmes' competition would crush Rocky, who in essense was a small, cut prone heavyweight with the reach of a ten year old girl. I respect Rocky Marciano historically, especially given his perfect record, but he was a limited fighter even in his day when he was defending his title against light heavyweights and the contenders of years prior.

Marciano had a great punch against other small heavyweights, but to think he could have competed against Holmes or any of Holmes' major competition is laughable. If you do not want to match them up since they are different eras, Holmes still had the better title run and fought the alive competition.

Marciano had a close fight with an old Joe Louis, a come from behind win in a losing war with Jersey Joe Walcott (who took five tries to win the title), two close bouts with a totally washed up Ezzard Charles, a couple grueling fights with Don Cockell and Roland LaStarza (who many believed beat Marciano in 1950), and a dance with 43-year old light heavyweight champ Archie Moore where he had to climb off the canvas. His only other title defense was his one round return bout with Walcott, who was petrified of getting in the ring again after getting KO'd cold by Marciano eight months before.

Holmes, on the other hand, went on to defeat four future world champions during his title reign and would go on at the advanced age of 40-plus to get the better of WBC champ Oliver McCall and Brian Nielson before getting jobbed by terrible judging from the officials. Don't discredit his victory over 18-0 Ray Mercer either, who was coming off a spectacular stoppage of Tommy Morrison and remained a top contender for years after his loss to Holmes.

Somehow I don't see Rocky Marciano proving just how great he really was during his prime by beating top contenders at the age of 40 and over like Holmes did.

Ah, unifying the belts. Interesting people always bring that up. Remember that Holmes was the WBC champ before he got stripped for not rematching against Tim Witherspoon. He was then awarded the newly created IBF title. Who was the WBA champion? Oh yeah, Mike Weaver, someone Holmes already defeated. Then the WBA title changed hands every couple months since none of the fighters were good enough to hold the championship.

So we have the WBC title that he didn't unify since he was stripped of it and the WBA. Again, to unify the WBA title, he either would have just faced Mike Weaver again (who he stopped in 12) or one of the other five fighters who held the title from 1982 to 1986.

He was considered THE champion; there was no reason to go face someone who basically received his stolen belt or to go face the other boxers who fought for a different championship since they weren't good enough to compete with Larry.

did u guys read that post??? he was completey innacurate in most of his evidence and he even went as far to say rocky wouldnt stand a chance against holmes competition.


am i the only one here that defends marciano when people make post like these??? i mean i know if someone did this to johnson, or holmes everyone would be all over this poster.

i am sick of defending him time and time again, some people like this poster will never comprehend what i say so why bother???

[Sherlock]

did u guys read that post??? he was completey innacurate in most of his evidence and he even went as far to say rocky wouldnt stand a chance against holmes competition.


am i the only one here that defends marciano when people make post like these??? i mean i know if someone did this to johnson, or holmes everyone would be all over this poster.

i am sick of defending him time and time again, some people like this poster will never comprehend what i say so why bother???

BB, you can't win. I've tried but to no avail either. Not that you aren't putting forth accurate and point worthy facts, but that they don't care. They have their mindset set that modern fighters will nearly always win, no matter how great that fighter is. Most of the old posters that you and I have respected and learned from have seemed to have come and gone, and the new crop are here in numbers.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i agree sherlock, im young but i learned to study the old timers and feel how truelly special they were and that boxing wasnt like track. fighters back then could defintely compete and beat modern fighters. i just feel disgraced when young boxing fans come on here and say guys like joe gans would get clobbered by shane mosely because they didnt have skill back then.

i think its ridiculous when a young poster says any top 10 heavy cant compete in a certain era. i was all over i forget who who said johnson was overated and couldnt compete in the later eras. thats utter bullshit, i rank johnson 4th all time, and maybe even higher in head to head.

thats why i hate it when people say holmes is overated, i rate holmes 5th and u can make a case for him being top 2 or 3. how was holmes overated??? what didnt he prove besides not unifying the titles which was not his fault, and he beat a lot of the alpha champs anyway. it wasnt like a thomas,dokes, page were better than a bonecrusher, berbick, witherspoon

[Rory McCloskey]

i have a question. I know we are ranking holmes hear, not on his competition, but basically on his talent, what we saw he could do. Well... IMO if you go by this then you have to move baer up on every list. Baer's greatest downfall was his mind, but physically and talent wise i would go as far as to put him in my top 7. A 100% focused baer probly does beat braddock, and probly beats alot of heavyweights. he had a murderous punch. ask frankie campbell

I agree that Baer had a murderous punch and was a gifted heavyweight, but like you said, his greatest downfall was his mind. He rarely came into fights 100% and that is something you have to take into account. On paper, Baer was a better fighter than Braddock. He should have beaten him. But he couldn't, because of himself. It's sad because that guy could have been something brutal in his day.

you 100% right here, but someone mentioned that we are basing holmes on talent. well then the same must hold true for baer. regardless of his mindframe, his talents were all there

[Rory McCloskey]

there is no fighter IMO that walks over the rock. period. he might not always win them but hes gonna stand toe to toe with you and hes gonna hurt you. youll hafta KO him to beat him.

[kikibalt]

Rory have you ever seen Joe Louis? my god Braddock #1? what are you thinking , or smoking