BoxRec

overhand_right wrote:Holmes was a great fighter with skill & big heart BUT the old 'he followed Ali' cliche is tired. The reason people didn't warm to him is because like Lennox Lewis he had zero charisma, was arrogant, and also a shit talker.

And this is coming from me, a fan of Larry Holmes.

I think a lot of that came from Holme's basic dislike of the media. He always had a chip on his shoulder when dealing with them because he felt they whould disrespect him. Because of that he may have came off more arrogent and aloof that he actually was.

I've got loads of Holmes interviews etc and he is actually quite a gregarious guy with a good sense of humour, early in his career he was always polite and respectful but he seemed to change somewhat after the Cooney fight... I think he grew bitter at certain sections of the press who basically had cried out for a Cooney win, ...I think after that Larry gave up on ever gaining the 'love' and respect he wanted from many sections of the media and fans and became somewhat cynical...
Look at the way Holmes almost breaks down after the Mercer fight, its not just because he won but because during the fight the crowd was actually behind him... this is one of the main reasons why he came back as he was far more popular in the 90s...

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote: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.

Yep. Prime Holmes TKO9 over Tyson

Come on John, give Tyson a bit more respect. But I do agree that Prime Holmes beats Tyson but it would be on a decision or if it was a 15 round fight, probably a TKO in the 14th with Holmes over comming some rough patches. Dont forget Tyson may not have the heart to fight back like Holmes, but Mike had a granite chin which matched Holmes.

RazorKO wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote: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.

Yep. Prime Holmes TKO9 over Tyson

Come on John, give Tyson a bit more respect. But I do agree that Prime Holmes beats Tyson but it would be on a decision or if it was a 15 round fight, probably a TKO in the 14th with Holmes over comming some rough patches. Dont forget Tyson may not have the heart to fight back like Holmes, but Mike had a granite chin which matched Holmes.

Tyson had a good chin but every defeat he's had has been by stoppage or ko... I cant imagine him going 15 with Holmes.... by the 10th he'd be banged up and frustrated and would just fall to peices and be koed... Holmes had underrated power....

the Holmes who fought Holifield and Mccall was far better than the version which fought Tyson....

classic bullshit. i totally disagree. holmes was 4 years older ,slower, worse when he fought holy and mercer.



fact is a peak tyson was a devastating machine who did something no other fighter ever did to holmes, he destroyed larry!




i think tyson would always beat larry. larry was always suceptible to those right hands and tysons short quick right hand would find the mark. holmes also liked to start slugging when he was hurt which is a bad idea vs mike, this would allow mike to finish off larry. larry had a granite chin, but mikes one of the greatest all around punchers of all time. mike has the combination of speed and power needed to finish off holmes.

the Holmes who fought Holifield and Mccall was far better than the version which fought Tyson....

classic bullshit. i totally disagree. holmes was 4 years older ,slower, worse when he fought holy and mercer.



fact is a peak tyson was a devastating machine who did something no other fighter ever did to holmes, he destroyed larry!




i think tyson would always beat larry. larry was always suceptible to those right hands and tysons short quick right hand would find the mark. holmes also liked to start slugging when he was hurt which is a bad idea vs mike, this would allow mike to finish off larry. larry had a granite chin, but mikes one of the greatest all around punchers of all time. mike has the combination of speed and power needed to finish off holmes.

Tyson was ko'd by Buster Douglas and Holyfield when close to his prime. Holmes was never beaten in his prime.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Tyson was ko'd by Buster Douglas and Holyfield when close to his prime. Holmes was never beaten in his prime.

holmes didnt dominate his opposition like tyson did. tyson unified the title in 1 year, something holmes didnt do in 7 years. tyson dominated some of the best contenders of the 1980s(including guys holmes never fought) and defended his title vs all top 10 ranked contenders, while holmes defended his title vs plenty of ham and eggers.

holmes had close fights with some of his best title reign opponents witherspoon, norton, williams, weaver, all fighters who holmes never gave rematches too.


tyson completley cleaned out the division in 4 years.......while holmes failed to take on some very deserving challengers out there like thomas, tubbs, coetzee, dokes, page.

Tyson's number 1 contender was Holyfield and Tyson failed to fight him while champion and when they finally did fight Tyson was thrashed. Tyson never fought Witherspoon, Dokes, Mercer, McCall, Moorer, etc. Clearly Tyson did not clean out the division. Overall, Holmes has a better resume than Tyson and he never lost in his prime.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Tyson was ko'd by Buster Douglas and Holyfield when close to his prime. Holmes was never beaten in his prime.

holmes didnt dominate his opposition like tyson did. tyson unified the title in 1 year, something holmes didnt do in 7 years. tyson dominated some of the best contenders of the 1980s(including guys holmes never fought) and defended his title vs all top 10 ranked contenders, while holmes defended his title vs plenty of ham and eggers.

holmes had close fights with some of his best title reign opponents witherspoon, norton, williams, weaver, all fighters who holmes never gave rematches too.


tyson completley cleaned out the division in 4 years.......while holmes failed to take on some very deserving challengers out there like thomas, tubbs, coetzee, dokes, page.

Very deserving?

Yes, Holmes didn't fight those "very deserving" :P blokes because they all lost at the point they were in a position to challenge him. Christ, they were a mediocre bunch too. Thomas lost to Bebick. Dokes lost to Coetzee. Coetzee lost to Page. Page lost to Big Bum Bey.

Also, By the time Tubbs came into consideration, Holmes was just about ready to retire.

The only one of the other names you keep repeating like a mantra that I'd like to have seen Holmes fight again was Witherspoon. But he also blew a chance by not taking Bonecrusher seriously in their rematch.

Sometimes when I hear you misrepresenting the 80's, I wonder if you are doing the same to the eras I have little interest in. Come on, Brocky, tell me straight, mate, are you making stories up about the 50's like you do the 80's?

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

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: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

BB, Holmes had no time to prefer for Tyson. Tyson still did a great job in blowing him away but 4 years later at least Holmes was prepared.

When you watch a fight you bring to it what you want to see. You noticed what you wanted to notice. There is nothing conclusive about an observation.

On the subject of domination why do you rate someone so much higher because they won by early KO rather than points? Holmes had a different style. He still won the fights. And Collins is right regarding the contenders you name, they all lost just prior to agreeing fights with Holmes.

Larry Holmes is an excellent HW, of that there is no doubt.

He has a problem with his personality.

He comes across as very bitter & that does not endear him to the masses.

He does not have that natural charm or with that M Ali had. Even Mike Tyson had a charisma that Holmes lacked.

Syntax Error wrote:Larry Holmes is an excellent HW, of that there is no doubt.

He has a problem with his personality.

He comes across as very bitter & that does not endear him to the masses.

He does not have that natural charm or with that M Ali had. Even Mike Tyson had a charisma that Holmes lacked.

The thing is Holmes says what he thinks, he doesnt 'play the game' for the media... having said that Holmes is a far more easy going guy than Tyson... also much is often made of Tysons background as an excuse for his behaviour but Holmes came from an even more impoverished background that makes Tysons unbringing almost middleclass in comparison...

silkov wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Larry Holmes is an excellent HW, of that there is no doubt.

He has a problem with his personality.

He comes across as very bitter & that does not endear him to the masses.

He does not have that natural charm or with that M Ali had. Even Mike Tyson had a charisma that Holmes lacked.

The thing is Holmes says what he thinks, he doesnt 'play the game' for the media... having said that Holmes is a far more easy going guy than Tyson... also much is often made of Tysons background as an excuse for his behaviour but Holmes came from an even more impoverished background that makes Tysons unbringing almost middleclass in comparison...

Fair point, i can see what you are saying.

silkov wrote:

RazorKO wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Yep. Prime Holmes TKO9 over Tyson

Come on John, give Tyson a bit more respect. But I do agree that Prime Holmes beats Tyson but it would be on a decision or if it was a 15 round fight, probably a TKO in the 14th with Holmes over comming some rough patches. Dont forget Tyson may not have the heart to fight back like Holmes, but Mike had a granite chin which matched Holmes.

Tyson had a good chin but every defeat he's had has been by stoppage or ko... I cant imagine him going 15 with Holmes.... by the 10th he'd be banged up and frustrated and would just fall to peices and be koed... Holmes had underrated power....

OK Razor, you're right. Now that I've read your post and silkov's reasoning, I agree with you that a prime Holmes probably couldn't stop Tyson as early as the 9th round.

Holmes TKO10 over Tyson

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i think tyson would always beat larry. larry was always suceptible to those right hands and tysons short quick right hand would find the mark. holmes also liked to start slugging when he was hurt which is a bad idea vs mike, this would allow mike to finish off larry. larry had a granite chin, but mikes one of the greatest all around punchers of all time. mike has the combination of speed and power needed to finish off holmes.

Interesting observations, because you could also say that Buster Douglas showed that someone with a good one-two and some foot movement could pretty much toy with the one dimensional Tyson. And I think Holmes jad a pretty good jab-straight right, and moved pretty well also. Wouldn't you say that Holmes was just a little better than Douglas?? Maybe just a tiny bit?? Isn't it just POSSIBLE that Holmes could have done almost as well against Tyson as Douglas did and squeek out a win?

The Great John L wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i think tyson would always beat larry. larry was always suceptible to those right hands and tysons short quick right hand would find the mark. holmes also liked to start slugging when he was hurt which is a bad idea vs mike, this would allow mike to finish off larry. larry had a granite chin, but mikes one of the greatest all around punchers of all time. mike has the combination of speed and power needed to finish off holmes.

Interesting observations, because you could also say that Buster Douglas showed that someone with a good one-two and some foot movement could pretty much toy with the one dimensional Tyson. And I think Holmes jad a pretty good jab-straight right, and moved pretty well also. Wouldn't you say that Holmes was just a little better than Douglas?? Maybe just a tiny bit?? Isn't it just POSSIBLE that Holmes could have done almost as well against Tyson as Douglas did and squeek out a win?

I'm afraid theres no reasoning with some people... Tyson had trouble with jab and move boxers his whole career and Holmes was a master at this... like I said before, he'd outbox Mikey like he was his daddy... I also think he would get into Tysons head as well...

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i think tyson would always beat larry. larry was always suceptible to those right hands and tysons short quick right hand would find the mark. holmes also liked to start slugging when he was hurt which is a bad idea vs mike, this would allow mike to finish off larry. larry had a granite chin, but mikes one of the greatest all around punchers of all time. mike has the combination of speed and power needed to finish off holmes.

Interesting observations, because you could also say that Buster Douglas showed that someone with a good one-two and some foot movement could pretty much toy with the one dimensional Tyson. And I think Holmes jad a pretty good jab-straight right, and moved pretty well also. Wouldn't you say that Holmes was just a little better than Douglas?? Maybe just a tiny bit?? Isn't it just POSSIBLE that Holmes could have done almost as well against Tyson as Douglas did and squeek out a win?

I'm afraid theres no reasoning with some people... Tyson had trouble with jab and move boxers his whole career and Holmes was a master at this... like I said before, he'd outbox Mikey like he was his daddy... I also think he would get into Tysons head as well...

Well, I gotta keep trying, although I have to admit that Brocky has WAY more stamina for these “idsussions” than just about anyone else on the forum. Just like the Rock, he always keeps coming forward throwing bombs. And just like Rocky, many times he’s off-balance.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Interesting observations, because you could also say that Buster Douglas showed that someone with a good one-two and some foot movement could pretty much toy with the one dimensional Tyson. And I think Holmes jad a pretty good jab-straight right, and moved pretty well also. Wouldn't you say that Holmes was just a little better than Douglas?? Maybe just a tiny bit?? Isn't it just POSSIBLE that Holmes could have done almost as well against Tyson as Douglas did and squeek out a win?

I'm afraid theres no reasoning with some people... Tyson had trouble with jab and move boxers his whole career and Holmes was a master at this... like I said before, he'd outbox Mikey like he was his daddy... I also think he would get into Tysons head as well...

Well, I gotta keep trying, although I have to admit that Brocky has WAY more stamina for these “idsussions” than just about anyone else on the forum. Just like the Rock, he always keeps coming forward throwing bombs. And just like Rocky, many times he’s off-balance.

Yeh, and he dont mind throwing in a few low blows here and there :x and elbows as well! :x .... the ruffian!...

silkov wrote:Yeh, and he dont mind throwing in a few low blows here and there :x and elbows as well! :x .... the ruffian!...

Yeah, we never do that. 8)

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Yeh, and he dont mind throwing in a few low blows here and there :x and elbows as well! :x .... the ruffian!...

Yeah, we never do that. 8)

Nope, I'm a jab and move artist!... float like a bee and sting like a butterfly!....

silkov wrote:

RazorKO wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Yep. Prime Holmes TKO9 over Tyson

Come on John, give Tyson a bit more respect. But I do agree that Prime Holmes beats Tyson but it would be on a decision or if it was a 15 round fight, probably a TKO in the 14th with Holmes over comming some rough patches. Dont forget Tyson may not have the heart to fight back like Holmes, but Mike had a granite chin which matched Holmes.

Tyson had a good chin but every defeat he's had has been by stoppage or ko... I cant imagine him going 15 with Holmes.... by the 10th he'd be banged up and frustrated and would just fall to peices and be koed... Holmes had underrated power....

Well I do agree that an in-shape Prime Holmes beats Tyson, but it wont be as early as the 10th as John suggests as you cant compare Tyson at his absolute worse (Douglas) to Holmes at his absolute best. Holmes would win a UD over 12 but Holmes had always been suspectable to right hands (Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon, Bonecrusher) and Tyson not only had the power but the speed which proves even more dangerous - Holmes would have to dig very deep to win this fight.

Larry Holmes will never be entirely accepted as one of the greatest of all times [by the general public anyways] because of a few reasons:

-He followed widely popular Muhammad Ali. He had the same misfortune as Ezzard Charles did when he was Joe Louis' successor.

-Holmes beat Ali. The beloved Ali was butchered by Holmes, thus making Holmes somewhat a villian in the eyes of Ali's fans and to the boxing world.

-Holmes was never charismatic. He wasn't flamboyant or particuarly interesting, and when he did talk up a fight it was done with an almost self-centered air, a 'stuck up' attitude.

-He never unified the titles. He won the vacant WBC strap from Ken Norton, then 'dropped' that belt and was given the IBF belt. Holmes never made the decision or the actions to face off with the WBA title holders, for one reason or another.

-His era was particuarly dry in talent. With such men as Scott Frank, Scott LeDeux, Marvis Frazier, fighting off for the title it was all but rather unconvincing that Holmes was a great fighter, due to a lack of competitive fights.

-Holmes only did as much as he thought to win. He had a lack of 'killer' attitude, so some of his fights were rather dull affairs.

-And, yes, the 'Marciano couldn't carry my jock strap' comment didn't help win him over with anyone in most boxing circles.


Had Holmes have fought the likes of Greg Page or Gerrie Coetzee he would probably have had higher props for his career, as he would have unified the titles. You can't blame Holmes for the lack of competitive opposition and you can't blame him for following Ali, let alone beating him.

His two best opponents [as champion] were Earnie Shavers and quite possibly Gerry Cooney. But with 20 successful title defenses and a seven year title reign, you can quite easily say, despite not unifying the titles, that Holmes was THE champion at HW.

And you can't really blame Larry Holmes for making the Marciano comment. The press already discredited Holmes and his abilities, he wasn't popular and all everyone could talk about [since Holmes was 48-0] was Marciano and if Holmes could match the 49-0. Everybody didn't ask Larry Holmes about Larry Holmes, they asked Holmes about Marciano constantly.

Besides Holmes had long since apologised to the Marciano family for his comments, as they were said out of anger and not truly out of seriousness.

With all that said in mind, I still rank Larry Holmes up there in the top 10-15 HW champions of all time. And the same conviction can be said of Lennox Lewis, as he was once quoted as saying: "History will judge me much more kindly than the critics."

This seems to be the case with Holmes, as well, as he is more appreciated now as he ever was when he was champion. Mind you, I am only judging Holmes when he was champion, and nothing else. His comebacks were just as good as Foreman's, though he never won the title again.

There are so many other minute things to point out in Larry Holmes career, but nonetheless, to truly judge a man is by his era and what he did. Holmes was THE man at HW in his era, unified titles or not.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Tyson was ko'd by Buster Douglas and Holyfield when close to his prime. Holmes was never beaten in his prime.

holmes didnt dominate his opposition like tyson did. tyson unified the title in 1 year, something holmes didnt do in 7 years. tyson dominated some of the best contenders of the 1980s(including guys holmes never fought) and defended his title vs all top 10 ranked contenders, while holmes defended his title vs plenty of ham and eggers.

holmes had close fights with some of his best title reign opponents witherspoon, norton, williams, weaver, all fighters who holmes never gave rematches too.


tyson completley cleaned out the division in 4 years.......while holmes failed to take on some very deserving challengers out there like thomas, tubbs, coetzee, dokes, page.

I agree with the point Ezzard made that Holmes had a different style from tyson where Larry would choose to settle in and box rather than go for the early knockout. Holmes had a high KO percentage they were just not early one punch knockouts.