BoxRec

way b4 his spur of the moment and regretable jockstrap tirade post spinks Larry holmes was always despised

was it because he beat legends like Norton and Ali?

was it because of his fighting style?

it seems nearly every expert had a dig at Holmes thruout his time

every commentator backed the other guy

and yet Holmes had one of the greatest reigns of all time

he fought everyone

he took his licks and was def in the top 5 of all time

funso banjo baby wrote:he fought everyone

No he didn't.

Decagon wrote:Ken Norton isn't a legend.

correct he's just part of someone else's legend.

In spite of Larry's undeniable qualities, he had the misfortune of following in the steps of Muhammad Ali. Not unlike Charles defeating Louis and Corbett beating Sullivan.

Plus his style of boxing, albeit a winning one as far as he was concerned, was not the kind that made the average fan take notice.

It was nevertheless a good cure for anyone who had trouble sleeping.

Holmes capitalized on what fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Greg Page, Michael Dokes, Toney Tubbs and a host of others failed to recognize, a heaveyweight division that could be ruled with some training hard work and disipline. Did Holmes have that much more natural ability than these guys? I would say no. Where Holmes flourished is he was by far the most intelligent heaveyweight of his day, futhure evidenced by the fact he was able to hold on to his money something else the heaveyweights of that era had trouble with. Larry came into fights in shape and ready to go in a division where a little preperation could take you a long way. So I would say as much as anything Holme's intellegence in and out of the ring were his biggest asset.

Another thing about Larry was he was not exceptional in any one area, except mabe his jab, but he was very good in all aspects. Not as quick as Ali but still quick. Had a good chin but their were a few fighters who had a better one, that along with his survivel skills which gets back to ringsmarts and he was almost impossible to knock out. Didn't have Tysons power but could still hit. Didn't quite have Marciono's stammina but he could always go the distance and have something left. Holmes basically possesed all of the intangebles and the character that was so woefully lacking in his peers.

Anyone who cant see that Holmes was basically one of the greatest heavyweight champs ever is blind.....

KOJOE90 wrote:

funso banjo baby wrote:he fought everyone

No he didn't.

the list of former or future champions during Larrys reign is enourmous....

he fought the experienced campaigners like Norton/ Spinks/ Shavers/
and took on the unbeaten young prospects Snipes/ Williams/ Bey/ Cooney ...tru some of his opps at the start were pedestrian but everyone has fought bums from Ali to Johnson....

my point is ...why was Holmes never appreciated in his time?

and wasnt Howard Cossell the worst commentator ever to strap a mike on ?

silkov wrote:Anyone who cant see that Holmes was basically one of the greatest heavyweight champs ever is blind.....

I agree, Holmes was a true heavyweight great. Bebrick, Shavers, Norton, Cooney, Witherspoon, Bonecrusher, Mercer, Ocasio and Weaver are all good names which Holmes beat.

Though it was a pity that we couldnt se Holmes-Coetzee or Holmes-Page and Thomas, those would of been great fights.

RazorKO wrote:

silkov wrote:Anyone who cant see that Holmes was basically one of the greatest heavyweight champs ever is blind.....

I agree, Holmes was a true heavyweight great. Bebrick, Shavers, Norton, Cooney, Witherspoon, Bonecrusher, Mercer, Ocasio and Weaver are all good names which Holmes beat.

Though it was a pity that we couldnt se Holmes-Coetzee or Holmes-Page and Thomas, those would of been great fights.

Absolute legend, not sure that Coetzee would've been very competetive though, unless Holmes developed a coke problem prior to the bout...

..i go along with the pro-holmes guys here. i've written a couple of times that i saw him from ringside in a prelim bout in cleveland...he got off the floor and very cooly boxed for the rest of the round and kayoed his guy..in the next round, i think. i pegged him as a future champion or at least a top contender from that time on. i followed him when it was hard to even find fight results in the newspapers, and watched his tv fights when he got little respect, though his performances were excellent. he fought his way to the top.

i think asner sums up his abilities within fine insight.

cosell was a verbal clown. good memory..learned and remebered things like dates and resiults.....but really knew very little about what was ging on in the fights he called on tv.

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.

could be

I really liked Holmes when I was young and his fight with Norton is really the fight that sealed my love of boxing for years to come. Over the years I have grown less favorable toward Holmes, but no one can deny what he accomplished in the ring. Though the higher percentage of his title defenses may have been again opponents that should not have been in the ring, Holmes was still the best heavyweight of the late 70s and early to mid 1980s and an all-time great who at his best would have given any heavyweight in history a tough go...except maybe Tyson, which I don't consider Tyson the greatest, but his style would have just eat Holmes up no matter what age Holmes was!

barry wrote:I really liked Holmes when I was young and his fight with Norton is really the fight that sealed my love of boxing for years to come. Over the years I have grown less favorable toward Holmes, but no one can deny what he accomplished in the ring. Though the higher percentage of his title defenses may have been again opponents that should not have been in the ring, Holmes was still the best heavyweight of the late 70s and early to mid 1980s and an all-time great who at his best would have given any heavyweight in history a tough go...except maybe Tyson, which I don't consider Tyson the greatest, but his style would have just eat Holmes up no matter what age Holmes was!

I totally disagree... look through Tysons career and he always had trouble with fighters who could move and who had great jabs... remind you of anyone??.... the Holmes Tyson fought took the fight at 6 weeks notice after over 2 years out and at the age of 38... he had no legs and no jab and had no resemblance to Holmes in his prime... the Holmes who fought Holifield and Mccall was far better than the version which fought Tyson.... Holmes in his prime would have out boxed Mikey like he was his daddy!... 8)

Well FACT speaks louder than opinion and fantasy and the FACTS point out that Tyson destroyed Holmes...nothing opinion about it...no would've, should've or could've...FACT is Tyson DID!!!!

Jaclem wrote:..i go along with the pro-holmes guys here. i've written a couple of times that i saw him from ringside in a prelim bout in cleveland...he got off the floor and very cooly boxed for the rest of the round and kayoed his guy..in the next round, i think. i pegged him as a future champion or at least a top contender from that time on. i followed him when it was hard to even find fight results in the newspapers, and watched his tv fights when he got little respect, though his performances were excellent. he fought his way to the top.

i think asner sums up his abilities within fine insight.

cosell was a verbal clown. good memory..learned and remebered things like dates and resiults.....but really knew very little about what was ging on in the fights he called on tv.

Thanks for the compliment. On Cosell I know some people found him grating but I always thought he was entertaining. Sort of like the late Chicago Cubs anouncer Harry Carey, might not have been the best or most knowlagable announcer but would make a game seem more exciting. The difference between the two was that Harry always admitted he was not the best announcer where Howard automaticlly assumed he was the best.

barry wrote:Well FACT speaks louder than opinion and fantasy and the FACTS point out that Tyson destroyed Holmes...nothing opinion about it...no would've, should've or could've...FACT is Tyson DID!!!!

Well Marcinao beat Louis, Berbick beat Ali, Tarver and Johnson beat Jones, Joppy Beat Duran!... were they all the better fighters then???... if you really think so then I'm shocked!... and if your just saying this because of what I've said on the Jones thread then thats just sad!... but judging by what you're saying Johnson and tarver are both better fighters than Roy Jones as they both beat him like they were his daddy!... FACT MATE!

barry wrote:I really liked Holmes when I was young and his fight with Norton is really the fight that sealed my love of boxing for years to come. Over the years I have grown less favorable toward Holmes, but no one can deny what he accomplished in the ring. Though the higher percentage of his title defenses may have been again opponents that should not have been in the ring, Holmes was still the best heavyweight of the late 70s and early to mid 1980s and an all-time great who at his best would have given any heavyweight in history a tough go...except maybe Tyson, which I don't consider Tyson the greatest, but his style would have just eat Holmes up no matter what age Holmes was!

I think Holmes in his prime would have been able to adapt to just about any fighter including Tyson. Tyson with his stregnth and quickness liked to bull rush his opponent. Now that would work with someone like Marvis Frazier who did'nt have the means to hold him off. But if you look at a fighter with even the modest boxing skills of a James Tillis he was able to keep Tyson at bay with a jab and some movement. Holmes would have been able to backpeddle while firing his jab. Tyson would have kept coming foreward with limited effect eventually tiring himself out. Holmes would have then administered a boxing lesson. Larry was much to clever and ring savy for Tyson. A prime Holmes would be much different than the one Tyson faced.

>>>I think Holmes in his prime would have been able to adapt to just about any fighter including Tyson. Tyson with his stregnth and quickness liked to bull rush his opponent. Now that would work with someone like Marvis Frazier who did'nt have the means to hold him off. But if you look at a fighter with even the modest boxing skills of a James Tillis he was able to keep Tyson at bay with a jab and some movement. Holmes would have been able to backpeddle while firing his jab. Tyson would have kept coming foreward with limited effect eventually tiring himself out. Holmes would have then administered a boxing lesson. Larry was much to clever and ring savy for Tyson. A prime Holmes would be much different than the one Tyson faced.<<<

It may not have been as quick and as decisive as the bout the had, but I think the end result of a prime Tyson-prime Holmes fight would have been pretty much the same as the actual bout they had! Holmes had the skill, but the big equalizer for Tyson was his overall speed, which Tyson was one of, if not the most fast-handed heavyweight in history and that backed with the fact that Tyson hit like a wrecking ball, was one of the very best finishers and himself at his best had a very good defense the outcome against Holmes would pretty much always be the same. In a 10-bout series I think Tyson would take 8 of 10, or maybe even 9 of 10 every time.


>>>Well Marcinao beat Louis, Berbick beat Ali, Tarver and Johnson beat Jones, Joppy Beat Duran!... were they all the better fighters then???<<<

LOL

In what way does what you said have to do with anything? It is absolutely classic when you go off on some rant that has nothing to do with anything...classic...LOL!!!

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.

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

barry wrote:Well FACT speaks louder than opinion and fantasy and the FACTS point out that Tyson destroyed Holmes...nothing opinion about it...no would've, should've or could've...FACT is Tyson DID!!!!

And now we add a little bid judgement -- on relative age, conditioning, preparation time, etc....

barry wrote:>>>I think Holmes in his prime would have been able to adapt to just about any fighter including Tyson. Tyson with his stregnth and quickness liked to bull rush his opponent. Now that would work with someone like Marvis Frazier who did'nt have the means to hold him off. But if you look at a fighter with even the modest boxing skills of a James Tillis he was able to keep Tyson at bay with a jab and some movement. Holmes would have been able to backpeddle while firing his jab. Tyson would have kept coming foreward with limited effect eventually tiring himself out. Holmes would have then administered a boxing lesson. Larry was much to clever and ring savy for Tyson. A prime Holmes would be much different than the one Tyson faced.<<<

It may not have been as quick and as decisive as the bout the had, but I think the end result of a prime Tyson-prime Holmes fight would have been pretty much the same as the actual bout they had! Holmes had the skill, but the big equalizer for Tyson was his overall speed, which Tyson was one of, if not the most fast-handed heavyweight in history and that backed with the fact that Tyson hit like a wrecking ball, was one of the very best finishers and himself at his best had a very good defense the outcome against Holmes would pretty much always be the same. In a 10-bout series I think Tyson would take 8 of 10, or maybe even 9 of 10 every time.


>>>Well Marcinao beat Louis, Berbick beat Ali, Tarver and Johnson beat Jones, Joppy Beat Duran!... were they all the better fighters then???<<<

LOL

In what way does what you said have to do with anything? It is absolutely classic when you go off on some rant that has nothing to do with anything...classic...LOL!!!

Well he's making far more sense than you at the moment!...

Well you're certainly not!!!!

barry wrote:Well you're certainly not!!!!

Well according to you Tarver and Johnson are both better fighters than Jones as they beat him to hell, does that make sense??... you're completely contridicting yourself!... anyone with decent boxing knowledge knows that the Holmes who fought Tyson bore no resemblance to the prime Holmes or even the 90s Holmes... but then you know all this but are just saying what you are because your peeved about another thread... sad!.