BoxRec

Jaywheel wrote:Larry Holmes
Prince Hamed
Evander Holyfield
SRL
Terry Norris (mainly by Elton John)
Pernell Whittaker (sorry G,I)

Who overrates Holmes?

I rarely hear him get any credit for anything.

Sugar Ray Leonard overrated ??? More like overhated.

I first saw Leonard fight when he was an 18 yr old amateur, and even then I knew I was watching a guy who was destined to be an alltime great. As the cliche goes, he was in a class by himself.

Grimm wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:Larry Holmes
Prince Hamed
Evander Holyfield
SRL
Terry Norris (mainly by Elton John)
Pernell Whittaker (sorry G,I)

Who overrates Holmes?

I rarely hear him get any credit for anything.

He's in pretty much everyone's top ten all time heavies, mostly based on the number of defenses he did, which I find is and are overrated.

Jaywheel wrote:

Grimm wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:Larry Holmes
Prince Hamed
Evander Holyfield
SRL
Terry Norris (mainly by Elton John)
Pernell Whittaker (sorry G,I)

Who overrates Holmes?

I rarely hear him get any credit for anything.

He's in pretty much everyone's top ten all time heavies, mostly based on the number of defenses he did, which I find is and are overrated.

You don't have him top 10, Jay?

I rank Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, Lewis and Johnson above him. You have 9 there. I put him maybe 10-15 alongside Liston, Tyson, Patterson, depending on the day, but I've never been a big fan of Holmes.

Sometimes I see him at #3-4 on some lists and that I find is overrated. Just an opinion.

Jaywheel wrote:I rank Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, Lewis and Johnson above him. You have 9 there. I put him maybe 10-15 alongside Liston, Tyson, Patterson, depending on the day, but I've never been a big fan of Holmes.

Sometimes I see him at #3-4 on some lists and that I find is overrated. Just an opinion.

I couldn't put Marciano above him. Holmes beat a better list of fighters and IMO would beat him in a contest. The rest of them I think you can make a case for. I think he's right up there... I have Holmes top 5 so I'm one of your over-raters...

Ezzard wrote:... I have Holmes top 5 so I'm one of your over-raters...

Me too. I could see a few people saying that Holmes is over-rated.

Jaywheel wrote:I rank Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, Lewis and Johnson above him. You have 9 there. I put him maybe 10-15 alongside Liston, Tyson, Patterson, depending on the day, but I've never been a big fan of Holmes.

Sometimes I see him at #3-4 on some lists and that I find is overrated. Just an opinion.

Whoa whoa you rate Charles above him?

Grimm wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:I rank Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, Lewis and Johnson above him. You have 9 there. I put him maybe 10-15 alongside Liston, Tyson, Patterson, depending on the day, but I've never been a big fan of Holmes.

Sometimes I see him at #3-4 on some lists and that I find is overrated. Just an opinion.

Whoa whoa you rate Charles above him?

Whoa whoa yes it's written in the post you quoted.

Jaywheel wrote:I rank Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, Lewis and Johnson above him. You have 9 there. I put him maybe 10-15 alongside Liston, Tyson, Patterson, depending on the day, but I've never been a big fan of Holmes.

Sometimes I see him at #3-4 on some lists and that I find is overrated. Just an opinion.

I think prime Holmes beats Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, and Johnson. He puts up a great fight against peak Ali and Louis, but I'd say he loses those two. Holmes-Lewis is a toss up for me. Two underrated heavies.

But come on, Holmes was a pure class over Ezzard Charles at heavyweight. He was just too big and skilled. Pound for pound Charles is better, but definitely not at heavyweight. I don't think you'll get many people agreeing with you.

Jaywheel wrote:

Grimm wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:I rank Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, Lewis and Johnson above him. You have 9 there. I put him maybe 10-15 alongside Liston, Tyson, Patterson, depending on the day, but I've never been a big fan of Holmes.

Sometimes I see him at #3-4 on some lists and that I find is overrated. Just an opinion.

Whoa whoa you rate Charles above him?

Whoa whoa yes it's written in the post you quoted.

Ezzard Charles is on the same level as Michael Dokes at heavyweight.

I am going to make a bold statement and say that Charles was a better heavyweight than Dokes but not as good as Holmes.

The argument about Holmes beating fighters from earlier eras head to head seems irrelevant. Fighters are ranked on accomplishments. Holmes was never the undisputed champion like Marcaino was and he failed to face many of his best contemporaries such as Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee and Pinklon Thomas. This definitely hurts him in comparisons with fighters who faced the best contenders of their era.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:The argument about Holmes beating fighters from earlier eras head to head seems irrelevant. Fighters are ranked on accomplishments. Holmes was never the undisputed champion like Marcaino was and he failed to face many of his best contemporaries such as Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee and Pinklon Thomas. This definitely hurts him in comparisons with fighters who faced the best contenders of their era.

The only way to objectively measure "greatness" is through accomplishments.

evndrbsn wrote: I think prime Holmes beats Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, and Johnson. He puts up a great fight against peak Ali and Louis, but I'd say he loses those two. Holmes-Lewis is a toss up for me. Two underrated heavies.

But come on, Holmes was a pure class over Ezzard Charles at heavyweight. He was just too big and skilled. Pound for pound Charles is better, but definitely not at heavyweight. I don't think you'll get many people agreeing with you.

- Much easier said than what he accomplished. Never beat a single prime great, instead getting beat by prime greats.

If anything Charles is vastly underrated in comparison to Holmes who only held 33-50% of the belts. Beat a Joe Louis that beats any version of Holmes you can come up with, first two title wins over JJoe, same deal. He takes it to Satterfield straight up and gets him in two. It'd take Larry at least 8-10 rds to get to Satt from distance, and Lord help him if Satt catches him. Charles owned Moore and Bivens. Larry only got near Spinks in the rematch, he never even touched Spinks the first go round.

Only thing Holmes on Charles has is longevity at heavy, that's it.

":TU: The only way to objectively measure "greatness" is through accomplishments." - Ray

Disagree. Politics often deny fighters what would have been accomplishments. On accomplishment alone, you can't rank Charles as a greater Light-Heavy than Moore, because one had the most spectacular reign the division has ever seen, & the other didn't even hold the title (either did Gene Tunney, another great, great LHW). Is that fair?

Judging fighters on how they would have done against one another may appear more subjective --- & perhaps it is --- but it is unquestionable the fairer system.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

evndrbsn wrote: I think prime Holmes beats Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Charles, and Johnson. He puts up a great fight against peak Ali and Louis, but I'd say he loses those two. Holmes-Lewis is a toss up for me. Two underrated heavies.

But come on, Holmes was a pure class over Ezzard Charles at heavyweight. He was just too big and skilled. Pound for pound Charles is better, but definitely not at heavyweight. I don't think you'll get many people agreeing with you.

- Much easier said than what he accomplished. Never beat a single prime great, instead getting beat by prime greats.

If anything Charles is vastly underrated in comparison to Holmes who only held 33-50% of the belts. Beat a Joe Louis that beats any version of Holmes you can come up with, first two title wins over JJoe, same deal. He takes it to Satterfield straight up and gets him in two. It'd take Larry at least 8-10 rds to get to Satt from distance, and Lord help him if Satt catches him. Charles owned Moore and Bivens. Larry only got near Spinks in the rematch, he never even touched Spinks the first go round.

Only thing Holmes on Charles has is longevity at heavy, that's it.

Remind me again, terap. Was Harold a southpaw or a northpaw?

Or a Bear Claw?

I prefer this version of terap over the 2 previous incarnations. It seems like he's cut down on the drinking and had the chalfonts lanced. Plus he's stopped posting those same 3 pictures ad nauseum.

All we need now is a "Hi guys, I'm back" post by Bazza. (Don't pretend you didn't find that almost as funny as I did )

Collins2000 wrote: Was Harold a southpaw or a northpaw?

- My dear chap, I thought everyone knew that Harold of the Battle of Hastings was a pawpaw.

Now, how about you, who's yer paw, yer maw?

Judging accomplishments is more objective than head to head speculation. I don't mind people comparing fighters who were contemporaries in head to head scenarios but I don't see much sense in comparing fighters from different eras.

Lately, things have gotten fairly interesting due to all the cases of older fighters beating up younger fighters who at one point in time probably not have had to face them. However, I don't know if this tells us which era is better. Perhaps fighters are peaking at a later age then they used to and the younger fighters are not yet at their peaks. Does anyone feel that the version of Mosley that beat Margarito would have prevailed over the younger version of Mosley?

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Judging accomplishments is more objective than head to head speculation. I don't mind people comparing fighters who were contemporaries in head to head scenarios but I don't see much sense in comparing fighters from different eras.

Lately, things have gotten fairly interesting due to all the cases of older fighters beating up younger fighters who at one point in time probably not have had to face them. However, I don't know if this tells us which era is better. Perhaps fighters are peaking at a later age then they used to and the younger fighters are not yet at their peaks. Does anyone feel that the version of Mosley that beat Margarito would have prevailed over the younger version of Mosley?

Agree 100%!!

Goodnight, Irene wrote:":TU: The only way to objectively measure "greatness" is through accomplishments." - Ray

Disagree. Politics often deny fighters what would have been accomplishments. On accomplishment alone, you can't rank Charles as a greater Light-Heavy than Moore, because one had the most spectacular reign the division has ever seen, & the other didn't even hold the title (either did Gene Tunney, another great, great LHW). Is that fair?

Judging fighters on how they would have done against one another may appear more subjective --- & perhaps it is --- but it is unquestionable the fairer system.

Winning a title is not the only accomplishment that matters. By "accomplishments" I mean (1) how well did he do in his era, and (2) how strong was the competition in his era?

Ezzard Charles consistently defeated the top light-heavyweights, including Archie Moore. And the light-heavyweights of the 1940s was a particularly robust division.