BoxRec

?

Yes he is.

Yes.
I'd rate him top 2 or 3 of all time. And the most underrated fighter of all time.

Don't get BRR started again.....his opinion is bound to rain on your parade here. According to him, Larry just didn't face the best around, ran from the serious threats, and padded his own record. Just to get you to claim him as the one of three best of all time.

'course that's just my back woods interpretation of his opinion.

I don't rate Larry quite that high. But he seriously vyes for top 10 consideration IMHO.

Reluctantly, I'll say yes.

However, it's not a lock-position. He's absolutely top-ten, & probably --- though not automatically --- top-five material.

He's around #6 or #7 for me. A top 5 ranking wouldnt be absurd, although I simply don't think he has the resume to warrant a top 3 ranking.

He is for me, rock solid at #3.

BoxBuzz wrote:Don't get BRR started again.....his opinion is bound to rain on your parade here. According to him, Larry just didn't face the best around, ran from the serious threats, and padded his own record.

Which of the above statements are not true? They all ring true too me.
For the record, I rate him quite high probably just outside the top 10.

Well lets look at the factors that define a great:

Longevity (both before and after winning titles)

Dominance

Losses

chin

competition

all of which put Holmes way up there. he fought ex champs...future champs...unbeaten propsects....the lot !

his punch resistance was almost supernatural

Super-natural?

Pretty sure Snipes was a fairly light-puncher who somehow almost managed to knock him into next week. He lost that fight, in part, because he didn't have the power to follow through. Outside of that, where are the instances of his super-natural punch resistance? Before you list the knockdown against Shavers, that would come under the heading of recuperative ability, not chin. Th rest of the time, he wasn't hit all that often, & almost never consecutively for any stretch of time. I also think it's pretty random you list chin as a pre-requisite for greatness. Why just chin, & not punch, or defense, or ring generalship, or any of a hundred other physical & in-ring attributes?

I think Holmes had an above-average chin, & an above-average career (albeit, against decidedly-average competition, for the most part), but I don't know when he was in a position to show he could take a really bad, three-minutes-a-round-type beating & weather it.

yea hes in my top 5 easy

Is is a credential for a great to win back their belt? Larry doesn't fall into that category that's for sure.

Roars Like Me wrote:Is is a credential for a great to win back their belt? Larry doesn't fall into that category that's for sure.

Yes. Rocky Marciano can never be considered great because he never lost.

Not in my top five. Around 8 or 9. 6 months ago, I had him at 10. Never liked him, never will I guess.

Jaywheel wrote:Not in my top five. Around 8 or 9. 6 months ago, I had him at 10. Never liked him, never will I guess.

He is a royal pudendum.

gambler49 wrote:Yes.
I'd rate him top 2 or 3 of all time. And the most underrated fighter of all time.

I'd second that to a certain degree. I think he's defo in the top-five & I see that a case could be made for him to be in top three. Holmes was one of the greats. He was only really appreciated when he was long past his peak or when he retired.

Larry wasn't "meant" to be world champion. No one thought he would be, many did not want him to be & many were sad when he became champion. Holmes did it his way & the powers that be did not like it becasue Larry was his own man & spoke his mind!

Holmes was a great fighter, no doubt about that!

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Super-natural?

Pretty sure Snipes was a fairly light-puncher who somehow almost managed to knock him into next week. He lost that fight, in part, because he didn't have the power to follow through. Outside of that, where are the instances of his super-natural punch resistance? Before you list the knockdown against Shavers, that would come under the heading of recuperative ability, not chin. Th rest of the time, he wasn't hit all that often, & almost never consecutively for any stretch of time. I also think it's pretty random you list chin as a pre-requisite for greatness. Why just chin, & not punch, or defense, or ring generalship, or any of a hundred other physical & in-ring attributes?

I think Holmes had an above-average chin, & an above-average career (albeit, against decidedly-average competition, for the most part), but I don't know when he was in a position to show he could take a really bad, three-minutes-a-round-type beating & weather it.

snipes was a decent puncher not great...about the same as rahman and mcall.

i said Holmes was hit flush..... just like Lewis...dsnt really matter whether they were KO Kings or not...they were bona fide heavies....

larry recovered inside 10 seconds

lewis didnt

why the confusion ?

In my opinion, yes, he is.

i rate him higher than ali

danieljenkins wrote:i rate him higher than ali

I wouldn't be advertising that fact, though.

danieljenkins wrote:i rate him higher than ali

I have come to respect Larry Holmes but I can name five fighters that Ali beat that could beat everybody Larry Homes beat

-Sonny Liston

-Joe Frazier

-George Foreman

-Floyd Patterson

-Jerry Quarry

I am also not convinced Larry can beat Big George or Joe Frazier.

dempseyfire wrote:He's around #6 or #7 for me. A top 5 ranking wouldnt be absurd, although I simply don't think he has the resume to warrant a top 3 ranking.

I agree with you dempseyfire. He came at an era that was perfect for him ala Lennox Lewis.

Larry Holmes is top 5. Let's face the truth, that the best guys are all going to be strong boxers with some size and a great jab who can pile up rounds, the boxers who can nullify danger. Thats just how it is. Holmes is right there. Punchers are steered away from danger. Otherwise they pay the price, ala Frazier-Foreman. At the end of the day the question is can you win boxing matches? Not score a lucky KO

ben geoghegan wrote:Larry Holmes is top 5. Let's face the truth, that the best guys are all going to be strong boxers with some size and a great jab who can pile up rounds, the boxers who can nullify danger. Thats just how it is. Holmes is right there. Punchers are steered away from danger. Otherwise they pay the price, ala Frazier-Foreman. At the end of the day the question is can you win boxing matches? Not score a lucky KO

No, that isn't, "just the way it is." It never has been, in any divison, & never will be.

Greatness comes in all sizes, & all styles.