Holmes: overrated or underrated?

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:25

I was reading the Holmes/Foreman posts and I admit I was surprised so many people thought that Foreman would win. Holmes always lived behind Ali's shadow, was the heavyweight champ for 7 years! Why doesn't he gets his due?

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:44

This topic has been mulled over several times. Here was a good thread on it: I hate to say it, but Larry Holmes=overrated???

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:49

Holmes was a terrific fighter. Tremendous jab , good power. moved real well, lotta heart, decent chin. I think he was definitely respected as a champion. He was not a flamboyant individual however and his personality had a little edge to it. He knew he was following in Alis shadow and I think he had a little resentment towards fans and media types who he felt werent giving him his due. The thing is , sometimes it seemed as if he wasnt really trying to restrain that resentment. He made it a little obvious. This might have hurt his popularity a bit.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:49

LARRY HOLMES IS THE MOST UNDER APPRECIATED CHAMPION OF ALL TIME.
SECOND LONGEST TITLE REIGN IN HEAVY HISTORY.
MOST CONSECUTIVE KO'S IN TITLE FIGHTS(HEAVYWEIGHT)
SECOND MOST TITLE DEFENSES

HOLMES WAS FAST,INTELLIGENT AND NO NONSENSE.
HE WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONS IN HISTORY.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:56

evndrbsn wrote:This topic has been mulled over several times. Here was a good thread on it: I hate to say it, but Larry Holmes=overrated???

Good read

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Mar 2006, 01:55

larry holmes is getting his due respect today.

i feel hes one of the greatest heavyweight champions of all time. on film he looks SPECACTULAR. good size 6'3 210lb, he has possibly best jab ever, great movement, great footwork, great all around boxing skill, good defense, fast handspeed, solid power for a boxer-mover, very strong, great chin, and probably the most underated attribute of him.......HE HAD A LOT OF HEART!

- in terms of accomplishments, he dominated and beat the best of his era, he had 20 title defenses( 2nd most in HW history), and beat many of the alpha champs.

I think hes right inside top 5 greatest. the only thing that keeps him from being higher, is his competition and lack of giving rematches in close/controversial fights. I think gerrie coetzee, tony tubb,s pinklon thomas, greg page, michael dokes, all should have got shots over some of the stiffs he defended his title against.

- one of the biggest things holmes has going for him is he never lost in his prime

- 48-0 before his first loss

- even far far past his prime, he beat ray mercer and gave a prime holyfield 12 close competive rounds. he argueably won the WBC title at age 47 from oliver mccall.

- I also think he beat spinx in the rematch so that makes him 2x champ

- holmes beat a wide variety of different fighters and beat a lot of big punchers during his career

- his pre title competion is solid with a shutout win over # 1 contender earnie shavers and a win over underated roy tiger williams

-KOKid- · Post by **-KOKid-** » 25 Mar 2006, 03:09

I'd say Holmes is both underrated and underappreciated.
Very few heavyweights in history would have beaten a prime Holmes.

What people dislike most about Holmes is that he acts like a bitter old man because he didn't get his dues when he was active. This applies to most great fighters throughout history, but no one ever bitched as much and as loud about it as Holmes does, and no one ever got paid as much as he did either.

He was a great fighter who is now, while still alive and well, beginning to get the respect he deserves.
He has a bank full of money and is not brain damaged.
What the hell is he complaining about?!

-KOKid-

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Mar 2006, 05:16

Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:even far far past his prime, he beat ray mercer and gave a prime holyfield 12 close competive rounds. he argueably won the WBC title at age 47 from oliver mccall.
Bull-shit. Holmes did NOTHING in that fight.

which fight are u talking about the mccall fight? mccall did nothing either

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 25 Mar 2006, 09:17

The one problem for Holmes had nothing to do with Larry himself. Whenever he fought a contender he usually fought the guy when he was at his peak. Then after Holmes would beat him he would go completly bust. Example, Carl ''The Truth" Williams. So if you look back at his title defenses you could say he fought some shoddy competition but at the time they were in top form. Unfortunatly this unfairly detracts from his overall record.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Mar 2006, 11:44

heres a passage from ted kluck who interviewed with pinklon thomas

TK - Were there any fighters, over the course of your career, that you wish you would have had a chance to fight, but didn't?

pinklon- I would fight Larry Holmes tomorrow. (Smiling) For nothing.

TK - Weren't you supposed to fight him in 1982 after your win over James "Quick" Tillis?

pinklon- I was a fill-in for the Tillis fight and I was working with Lou Duva at the time. It was a Don King promotion that took place in Cleveland. The winner of the fight was supposed to get a shot at Holmes. I stopped Tillis in the 8th and expected to get the fight with Holmes. Instead, Holmes got on his bike and rode it far away from me.

whats everyones thoughts?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 25 Mar 2006, 15:47

generic screen name wrote:I was reading the Holmes/Foreman posts and I admit I was surprised so many people thought that Foreman would win. Holmes always lived behind Ali's shadow, was the heavyweight champ for 7 years! Why doesn't he gets his due?

It's more of a case of Foreman being overrated now than Holmes being underrated. There is new stock in Foreman based on his comeback, which was beloved by many. If you read some of those posts, 70s-era Foreman is now being imbued with traits he never had. Now he is a "clever boxer" with "good stamina", all of which is hogwash. He was given trouble or beaten by any fighter he faced who fought back and had a modicum of boxing ability(Peralta, Ali, Lyle, Young).

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2006, 15:55

I think he is generally underated and likely always will be.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 25 Mar 2006, 16:42

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:heres a passage from ted kluck who interviewed with pinklon thomas

TK - Were there any fighters, over the course of your career, that you wish you would have had a chance to fight, but didn't?

pinklon- I would fight Larry Holmes tomorrow. (Smiling) For nothing.

TK - Weren't you supposed to fight him in 1982 after your win over James "Quick" Tillis?

pinklon- I was a fill-in for the Tillis fight and I was working with Lou Duva at the time. It was a Don King promotion that took place in Cleveland. The winner of the fight was supposed to get a shot at Holmes. I stopped Tillis in the 8th and expected to get the fight with Holmes. Instead, Holmes got on his bike and rode it far away from me.

whats everyones thoughts?

Right after that Thomas was fought to a draw by a very ordinary Gerri Coetzee, and beaten by the plodding Treavor Berbick. I would say the guy had a rather unspectacular career to go around bragging how Holmes should have been afraid of him.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 26 Mar 2006, 01:56

Nero3000 wrote:
generic screen name wrote:I was reading the Holmes/Foreman posts and I admit I was surprised so many people thought that Foreman would win. Holmes always lived behind Ali's shadow, was the heavyweight champ for 7 years! Why doesn't he gets his due?

It's more of a case of Foreman being overrated now than Holmes being underrated. There is new stock in Foreman based on his comeback, which was beloved by many. If you read some of those posts, 70s-era Foreman is now being imbued with traits he never had. Now he is a "clever boxer" with "good stamina", all of which is hogwash. He was given trouble or beaten by any fighter he faced who fought back and had a modicum of boxing ability(Peralta, Ali, Lyle, Young).

Earlier in his career he was a lil protected too, the Chuvalo fight was stopped too early.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 26 Mar 2006, 02:36

Larry Holmes, is one of the most under-rated fighters of all time, and like Lennox Lewis, I do not believe they would get the true credit they are due until years and years after they have retired.

Holmes is more appreciated now, than he ever was as an active fighter, let alone as the champion. Many now consider him to have possibly the best jab ever in Heavyweight history.

Holmes problem was, he was not flamboyant, he wasn't really marketable, and alot of the times, Holmes only did enough to win...he used mostly just skill to win, never really 'mixed' it up with anybody, except for those who pissed him off (Tex Cobb as example).

Holmes was arrogant and cocky (much like Lennox Lewis), and didn't suit well with the press. Plus, despite apologising to the Marciano family after he said "Marciano couldn't carry my jock strap!", it didn't at all make him popular.

Holmes wasn't at all a bad fighter. The only thing that really holds Larry Holmes back is the fact he fought in one of the most dryest era's in Heavyweight history, and had to follow Muhammad Ali, plus his attitude.

He wasn't entertaining to watch, for another thing, least not to me anyways, he was more about skills and being a boxer, rather than being a Heavyweight and going for knockouts and making it entertaining.

His arrogance would be his downfall at times, like Lennox Lewis, where he didn't take Michael Spinks seriously, and lost a decision, didn't take Tyson seriously enough and got knocked out. Holmes in many ways was his own enemy---it was his own self who made him unpopular.

But besides all that negative stuff, Holmes had the second longest title reign, and second most defenses of the Heavyweight crown---albiet over second rate competition, much like Joe Louis did, but I can say it be fair bet that Louis' "Bum of The Month" defenses could have beaten Holmes rag-tag group of misfits.

Holmes never fought any great fighters really, all except for Ken Norton to win the vacant WBC title, Earnie Shavers---who really if you could survive the first few rounds with Earnie you had one helluva chance of winning---and possibly Gerry Cooney.

Holmes in my opinion was a better fighter when he made his comeback in the late 80's and beat Ray Mercer and fought and lost decisions to Holyfield and McCall.

The way I see Holmes, all around as a fighter, not as a champion, or his defenses---but as a fighter---he has great longetivity---and his skills were so great that even in his 40's he was still fighting for titles---and he still off and on fights, his last fight was with Butterbean, but after the 10 round decision win he called out Juan Carlos Gomez---and Gomez never signed to fight Holmes.

20 defenses, was undefeated in first 48 pro fights, made very good comeback and had title shots when he was really old and has been only knocked out once in his entire career, a career spanning from the late 60's to the present day.

That is very hard to out do, and nobody besides a handful of fighters, such as Foreman, Jofre, Leonard, Duran, and Robinson have been able to do.

I would place Holmes in the top 10, but it would be almost a hard coin flip between him and Lennox Lewis for the #10 spot.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 26 Mar 2006, 02:52

Coin flip between him and Lennox? HUH? Letsee Holmes goes undefeated with the heavyweight championship reign for seven years at 36, and Lennox gets KO'd by McCall at age 29.... a guy who Holmes lost to by close decision at 45! Both had weak divisions but atleast Holmes dominated his...

I mean he beat a passed prime Mike Tyson and Holyfield...

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 26 Mar 2006, 03:21

Yes, but Lennox Lewis, kinda like Joe Louis, was hell in rematches. He blew away McCall and Rahman in rematches. With the exception of not facing Bowe at all and Tyson too late---Lewis DID dominate his division in his reign.

But like Holmes, Lewis was one to bullshit, like how he more or less gave up the WBA Heavyweight title cus Ruiz was beneath him...which I find odd cus Lewis defended his title against stiffs like Grant, Golota and was about to defend his title against over-blown beached whale Kirk Johnson.

And also sold his IBF Heavyweight title in the hopes that the winner of Byrd/Holyfield and Ruiz/Jones would face eachother and Lewis get to face the new "super champion"...which never happened.

Holmes did the same thing as Lewis. He never unified the titles, he wouldnt face Page cus of money issues. Wouldn't face Coetzee cus of location and he felt Coetzee was beneath him. So you can't say Holmes was truly DOMINATE.

Least Lewis' two losses were avenged. Holmes after losing to Tyson never asked for a rematch. Didn't do enough to beat Spinks in the rematch, even though myself it looked like it was going Holmes way. Couldn't beat McCall and it took him 12 rounds for a decision. Lewis did it in 2 rounds.

Holmes couldnt beat Holyfield, but Lewis got a controversial DRAW and also beat him in the rematch by decision.

Flip a coin, but least Lewis held the title three different times, unified the titles and with the exception of Bowe faced every top flight name in the division sooner or later.

Plus look at the guys Lewis faced, and look at who Holmes faced...Lewis obviously has the greater opposition.

Flip a coin it could go either way.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 26 Mar 2006, 12:35

all of his losses were PASSED HIS PRIME, unlike Lewis, Holmes didnt lose to ANY of those bums in the weak division, he lost to a PRIME Tyson (Top 15 heavyweight) with 5 weeks notice, a close decision to a prime holyfield, and he lost to one of the greatest light heavyweights ever Michael Spinks, the second fight was arguable. Lewis had a glass chin, Holmes pulled off a win against Shavers, not exactly a feather puncher....

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 26 Mar 2006, 12:36

don't tell me consistancy doesn't count either......

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Mar 2006, 18:17

i got a questions for boxrec..........

if a tim witherspoon who was just like the other alpha champs of the 80s can fight basically 12 even rounds with a prime larry holmes, what does this say about larry holmes?? why didnt spoon get a rematch?

would larrys suceptiblity to big right hands really hurt him if he had to fought great fighters with huge rights?

if non puncher renaldo snipes could floor and nearly stop larry with 1 punch, what does this say about how larry will deal with an all time puncher who also is a good finisher?

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 26 Mar 2006, 19:47

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i got a questions for boxrec..........

if a tim witherspoon who was just like the other alpha champs of the 80s can fight basically 12 even rounds with a prime larry holmes, what does this say about larry holmes?? why didnt spoon get a rematch?

would larrys suceptiblity to big right hands really hurt him if he had to fought great fighters with huge rights?

if non puncher renaldo snipes could floor and nearly stop larry with 1 punch, what does this say about how larry will deal with an all time puncher who also is a good finisher?

That is a valid question

Holmes had great survivel insticts but I dont know if that is enough against a good puncher/finisher. The Snipes fight was more less a repeat of the Shavers fight. Holmes totally dominating both fights, gets hit with a big right hand and gets back up with plenty of time left in the round.

I'm trying to think back but it seems like in both of those fights neither Snipes or Shavers were able to land another punch when it looked like one more solid punch could have ended the fight. Any determined fighter with a minimal abilty to finish should have been able to take him out. I remember in one of those fights he even fell back down after trying to get up. Terrible job of trying to finish in both fights.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Mar 2006, 19:51

you didnt answer the tim witherspoon question

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 26 Mar 2006, 19:53

Thing I remember about Witherspoon was his long running feud with Don King. Im speculating here but that might have hurt his chances of getting another shot at Holmes.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 26 Mar 2006, 23:34

Usually after a fighter loses to the champion he has to go out and beat a few people to get back in the picture, which he did do. Expug's fued theory sounds right to me, I remeber Witherspoon saying he got screwed on his purse in one of his fights, might have been more than one.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Mar 2006, 23:50

yes, but wut do u think about the fact a fighter like tim witherspoon gave a prime holmes basically an even fight? is this a bad mark on holmes record? i mean he also never rematched spooon to establish who the real winner is, nor did he fight pinklon thomas 82-85 who was undefeated and had beaten spoon.

Holmes: overrated or underrated?

Holmes: overrated or underrated?

Re: Holmes: overrated or underrated?

Re: Holmes: overrated or underrated?