BoxRec

I thought he was quite funny the way he spoke about some of the previous boxing legends.
For those who missed it, one of his comments about George Foreman in his hay day:

"He's not a nice guy....I'm a nice guy but George Foreman is not a nice guy!"
"He don't like me....I don't give a damn.....and I don't like him either!"

He also commented on Earnie Shavers being the man who hit him hardest in his career and slated Lewis for having no jab and acheived very little in his career. He also mentioned that Lewis refused to fight him at the age of 48 cuz he thought Holmes could beat him... !!

He also said that Tyson would have come mid top ten in the golden years of boxing (60's & 70's) and would not have beat the best of that era.

He also touched on the politics stopping him braking Marciano's record which he obviously feels quite strongly about.

I beleive he was one of the greats, probably top 5 of all time but still not quite as good as the Larry Holmes in his own mind...

i thought he came across pretty well!!!!!

basically only gave props to Louis and Ali...

arguably they are the only two better than him!!!!

He gave out about Lennox Lewis ducking him.

Lewis would have bounced his 48 year old ass of the canvas like a basketball.

Otherwise, good interview.


lol... he hates Foreman!

My tape ran out just as Rawling was asking what went wrong against Mike Tyson.

Apart from getting KTFO what did go wrong?

lirva33 wrote:He gave out about Lennox Lewis ducking him.

Lewis would have bounced his 48 year old ass of the canvas like a basketball.

Otherwise, good interview.


lol... he hates Foreman!

I don't remember much about him calling Lewis out at the time, but it's worth bearing in mind that Holmes managed to go the distance with McCall after he beat Lewis, which was more than Lewis managed. I am not saying Lewis woulnd't have won, but I don't think he would have kicked his ass.

Holmes also beat Mercer far easier than Lewis did in his 40's.

At first glance what Holmes says seems ridiculous, but the more you look at it, you wonder how he might have done against Lewis. Although by the age of 48 he was well past it, he wasn't getting beat up at all, in fact he only got beat up by Tyson after two years in retirement, I always fancied he would have done a lot better had he been active prior to that fight, though I doubt he could have won.


I don't understand why it is that he detests foreman so much, though I have heard other people say that he is two-faced. Certainly for a man of the cloth Foreman does seem to have a remarkable taste for high living and fancy cars.

lirva33 wrote:He gave out about Lennox Lewis ducking him.

Lewis would have bounced his 48 year old ass of the canvas like a basketball.

Otherwise, good interview.


lol... he hates Foreman!

I don't remember much about him calling Lewis out at the time, but it's worth bearing in mind that Holmes managed to go the distance with McCall after he beat Lewis, which was more than Lewis managed. I am not saying Lewis woulnd't have won, but I don't think he would have kicked his ass.

Holmes also beat Mercer far easier than Lewis did in his 40's.

At first glance what Holmes says seems ridiculous, but the more you look at it, you wonder how he might have done against Lewis. Although by the age of 48 he was well past it, he wasn't getting beat up at all, in fact he only got beat up by Tyson after two years in retirement, I always fancied he would have done a lot better had he been active prior to that fight, though I doubt he could have won.

I think that the reason Larry hates Foreman, is that when Foreman won the title back Larry never got a shot, and Foreman got all the recognition for his comeback, whilst Larry didn't. I wonder whether there is any form from both their first careers too.

His assertion that foreman couldn't fight is plain ridiculous, ask Frazier if he could fight.
I don't understand why it is that he detests foreman so much, though I have heard other people say that he is two-faced. Certainly for a man of the cloth Foreman does seem to have a remarkable taste for high living and fancy cars.

Kilburn wrote:My tape ran out just as Rawling was asking what went wrong against Mike Tyson.

Apart from getting KTFO what did go wrong?

my tape missed the end too....
but i saw that bit, he blamed it on being a bum for 2 years... just drinking budweiser and eating too much.... reckoned he would have beaten Tyson when he was 40.

Lennox i think was being polite by saying Holmes is too good to fight and Larry has taken him literally....

Kilburn wrote:My tape ran out just as Rawling was asking what went wrong against Mike Tyson.

Apart from getting KTFO what did go wrong?

Holmes said he didn't train properly for two years (obviously in retirement) he abused his body with alchohol and was generally over weight. Which you can see in the Holmes/Tyson fight.

If they had both fought at their peak I guess Holmes would have danced around MT and jabbed his head off but you wouldn't have ruled out another spectacular KO.

TO BE HONEST I TURNED THE VIDEO OFF AFTER 20 MINSOF LISTEIN G TO HIM.

that was more than enough.


I mean alright was a great boxer but do we have to listen to him bleat on about how noone gave him any recognition, how he coudl beaten such such and such if only.


Course you could have beaten tyson when you were 40 if only you had trained etc etc etc, well you had the chance mate, you chose not to, no one else to blmae take responsibilty for yourt own folly instead of harping on about it 10 years later.

Sorry I thought he came accross as a bitter twisted control freak who should learn to give some kudos to others in his old age and stop using his chance on national tv to berate everyone else and slag em off.


great boxer though.

A very good interview, and there was animosity shown about Foreman.
I myself refuse to believe any of it, George Foreman is a one of my favourites, I can `t recall him ever bad mouthing another person in an interview, I think there may well be jealousy to Larry Holmes opinions.

Lennox was being polite to an old man by refusing to fight him, nothing more.

Other than that though he came across very well, liked the part about Shavers, he hit him so hard the tremor shook him back awake..classic.
And also nice to here him pronounce the great Joe Louis name correctly, how often do we hear people mispronounce it Joe Louie…being petty I know, but it does piss me off.

Enjoyed most of the interview.

Personally I rate Holmes the best heavyweight in history, but didn't appreciate his disdain for Lennox Lewis. Wreaked of jealousy which wasn't pleasant to see. As high as I rate Larry talk of Lewis avoiding him is a load of crap in my opinion.

Larry may well of lost on points to McCall and outpointed Mercer, but they were very different fights to the ones Lennox was inlvolved with. McCall burst into to tears in the rematch, which is pitiful, and the fight against Mercer was a war, not a dull lesson in outfoxing someone on the ropes.

Other than that it made good TV.

tonyevs wrote:And also nice to here him pronounce the great Joe Louis name correctly, how often do we hear people mispronounce it Joe Louie…being petty I know, but it does piss me off.

I am of the understanding that the 'Joe Louie' pronunciation is a British habit, I can't recall the excact reason, but it is meant in a respectfull way.

Something tell me it has a military origin, something to do with a Captain Louie, but I don't have the relevent book with the answer to hand.

Yes, I read it originates from a commentator pronouncing it Louie in one of his fights, and from then on Louis was Louie.

I did not mean it was meant as derogatory, just that if it ends in `IS` not `IE`.
As said its just me being fussy.

All because when Holmes wanted to patent a lean, mean grilling machine a certain someone had already thought of it..........

Guest wrote:All because when Holmes wanted to patent a lean, mean grilling machine a certain someone had already thought of it..........

Maybe Larry should bring out his own deep fat fryer, as he always claims he could 'batter anyone'

J wrote:TO BE HONEST I TURNED THE VIDEO OFF AFTER 20 MINSOF LISTEIN G TO HIM.

that was more than enough.


I mean alright was a great boxer but do we have to listen to him bleat on about how noone gave him any recognition, how he coudl beaten such such and such if only.


Course you could have beaten tyson when you were 40 if only you had trained etc etc etc, well you had the chance mate, you chose not to, no one else to blmae take responsibilty for yourt own folly instead of harping on about it 10 years later.

Sorry I thought he came accross as a bitter twisted control freak who should learn to give some kudos to others in his old age and stop using his chance on national tv to berate everyone else and slag em off.


great boxer though.

I know what you're saying and I was a little disapointed to see Holmes sound as bitter as he did at times but I have also got to agree with him that he was treated badly throughout most of his title reign and he has never been given the recognition he shouldve by many. For one thing people are always going on about how hard an unpbrining Tyson had etc but Holmes and indeed Shavers had it much harder and grew up in an enviroment where they were actually physically hungry much of the time.
I think also that the Holmes who beat Mercer would have had a good chance of beating tyson.

Maybe Larry should bring out his own deep fat fryer, as he always claims he could 'batter anyone'

I'd use it.

Holmes often comes across as quite bitter. Still, I agree that Lewis was probably trying to flatter Larry with his refusal for a fight rather than admit his inferiority or something. Saying that, if the fight had happened I wouldn't have been surprised if it were close on the cards, maybe even a SD for Lewis Perhaps Holmes would have won it.

I also rate Holmes' jab much more highly than Lewis' pawing one, and as such could understand his frustration with people calling Lewis' a great jab. What was interesting though was that I don't remember anyone comparing Lewis' as being better than Holmes' directly. I think the reason it bugs Larry, the reason a lot of things bug Larry, is because of the massive chip on his shoulder he has been carrying around since the 70's.

He's often said he wasn't in shape for the Tyson fight. To an extent, I do believe the fight would have been different had it happened earlier with a prime Holmes. I still think he would have been caught and floored by that first right hand in round 4 but I think his chances of recovering would have been much higher. How the fight would pan out, I'm not sure.

The Foreman talk smacks of part jealousy, part wanting another big fight. Fingers crossed it doesn't happen. Every boxing fan knows he was a great champion and I don't see why Holmes' isn't satisfied with that. He should remember his humble beginnings and think himself extremely lucky. The constant need to carry on fighting, carry on with the smalk-talk, trying to tarnish the history of others, constantly complaining about respect he never got leads me to believe the man is simply a malcontent.

Lewis would have hammered 48 year old holmes easily.

I think when you look how an old, way past his best Holmes befuddled Ray Mercer, and to some extent, Evander Holyfield (who, let's be honest, had an off night against Holmes and probably just didn't get 'up' for the fight), you have to look at what a peak Holmes could have done. (Then again, it's difficult to judge, because IMO, the Mercer who boxed Lewis, was in far better shape than the guy who plodded aimlessly through 12 rounds with Holmes).

Larry was just short of the size of guys like Lewis and Bowe, but he was very strong, had great hand speed, a wonderful jab and solid right hand, plus the chin to have withstood Bowe and Lewis' punches.

I just say watch Holmes v Norton. It's a superb bout, fought at a frenetic pace and the 15th round is incredidle. Then watch Holyfield v Bowe I and tell me that those guys back in the 1970s wouldn't have at least been competitive against the modern-day heavies – sorry, but you'll have to really come up with something to convince me otherwise.

Mike Tyson was only 5' 10" and 210 lbs in his prime, and he was more than competitive against modern heavyweights.

Lewis' best weight was around 235, about 10 lbs heavier than Foreman in his prime. Way too much is made of the advantage of weight, Lewis got too heavy later in his career, anything over 245 for Lewis I think wasn't good.

Holmes would have boxed Lewis' head off and stopped him in his prime, too fast, better technique, better jab, better chin and better boxing brain, no way does Lewis beat Larry.

Holmes really is a very bitter man, I've heard him slag people off on numerous interviews, including Ali, he cannot handle the fact that Lewis was such a big name, that Ali cast a shadow over his reign, that Foreman got a title shot second time around, and that Foreman wouldn't fight him.

Seriously, if Lewis had fought Holmes at 48, what did he have to gain, if he sparked him, he's beaten an ancient semi-retired former champ, if he wins a close one he gets slated, if he loses, his legacy is damaged forever.

He needs to get over the fact that he lived in Ali's shadow, with every passing decade, Larry's reign is appreciated more, he puts Lewis, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield in the shade, due to consistency if nothing more.

I think Holmes is a great champ, I have him third on my list all time, but he's a bit of a sad, bitter human being, I mean can't he enjoy the fact that he's regarded as one of the best heavyweights of all time, and that he's financially secure, it doesn't seem to be enough for him.

I wish when these people were interviewed that the interviews would go a bit deeper and question some of their beliefs and some of their statements, to get at the heart of what underlies the resentment.

For instance, if someone had said 'What would have been in it for Lewis to fight you?"

or
"Do you resent the fact that Foreman got a second shot at the title and you didn't?"

0r
"If you could have beaten Tyson if you were in shape, why didn't you get in shape and take a couple of tune up fights first?" "Why did you take the fight if you were in such poor shape?"

Easy for me to say without having conducted the interview, and who knows, maybe Larry made it clear what he would and wouldn't talk about.

I would just like to have heard what Larry would have said to those questions.

I think Larry would have done better against Tyson, but great a champ as he was, at 40 he wouldn't have beaten him, it's like Louis against Marciano, in his prime I think Louis would have cut him to shreds, but he got taken to pieces at age 38. Tyson is too good and ferocious a fighter to get beaten by 40 year old Holmes.

Larry has always been a pretty bitter individual, stemming from the way he was unfarely seen as a inferior Ali rip-off in his early career.

He had, and still has, a mean streak in him; but most of the great champs do.

Go back a few years and Joe Louis & Marciano often talked down Ali's achievements - never gave him the respect he deserved either. We just have to take it with a pinch of salt I guess.

I remember watching him insult the low key Norton, prior to their epic fight, and I really wanted Ken to win that one. But by the end of the 15th round, I had nothing but respect for Holmes - a truly great warrior.

I never seen anyone hit by a harder punch, and get up off the canvas, than Holmes in the 2nd Shavers fight.

As for Holmes v Lewis at 48 years old? Well who cares, a meaningless fight anyway.
In there primes? Who knows. I'd definitely rank Larry higher, but Lewis had the size, brains, punch and skill to give him hell I reckon.

Holmes always loved a beer - he went on a binge with the late Harry Mullan in Denmark, after his Nielson fight I think.

I think Lewis had a longer jab, and IMO it was just as hard. Cant really see Holmes getting close to him, Lewis to outbox him at distance and win by UD is my call, but not without some hairy moments.

I have to say there are pretty much similar parallells between Lewis and Holmes, similar type of fighters in that they used their skills more than most, both come out of the shadow of two extremely popular and more notorious chamnps in Ali and Tyson, whom they both had to beat.

I dont think its fair to compare Lewis and Hoilmes legacy at this stage, hostory always presents itself ina more favourable light, I think that in time the paralells between Lewis and Holmes will be rated similarly in the futile all time lists give or take a slot here or there depending on whom you favour, however at present Lewis has only just reitred so theres been little chance for rhetoric or the dust to settle on his legacy for it to be given the recognition or the fair evaluation it deserves.

bugs wrote:I think Lewis had a longer jab, and IMO it was just as hard. Cant really see Holmes getting close to him, Lewis to outbox him at distance and win by UD is my call, but not without some hairy moments.

Holmes and Lewis had the same reach.

There is no doubt that Holmes had the better jab, it was quicker, more consistent and was thrown with more authority. Lewis used his jab as a rangefinder more often than not, and often just kept it out there like a pole. He used it to good effect to set up his right hand, but Holmes used it to set the tempo of the fight and to peck away at his opponents' resolve.

No contest on that front.