Larry Holmes; genuine all-time top five Heavyweight, or the right place at the right time?

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon everyone, hope all is well in the world with you.

I’m a big admirer of Larry Holmes, in spite of that mouth of his. He was, by a considerable distance, the dominant force in Heavyweight boxing between the eras of Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson, the two most famous Heavyweights to have graced boxing since Jack Dempsey encapsulated the spirit of the roaring twenties. Holmes, as you all know, had one of the best jabs in Heavyweight history, one hell of a right cross, a heart as big as any of his predecessors or successors and great powers of recovery, which he needed to bail him out of one or two sticky patches over his seven year and twenty defence WBC and later IBF title tenures between 1978 and 1985. He’s often complained that he never gets the credit he deserves, yet most sincere boxing fans do see his true worth; I know that many amongst us on 606v2 have him inside the top five Heavyweights of all time, and I myself have him at number four.

But for whatever reason, I’ve started to wonder just a little if such rankings are a result of people effectively trying to over-compensate for the perceived lack of kudos Holmes got during his own time, rather than them being a true reflection of his ability and merits. I think we’ve seen it before with one or two fighters; Mike McCallum slid under the radar a little in his heyday, but as the years have gone on people have come to appreciate his true worth. However, when you hear outlandish claims such as ‘Hagler and Ray Leonard ran for their lives at the thought of facing McCallum’, you can’t help but wonder if people are going over the top and are a little too keen to make up for that perceived lack of respect for ‘The Bodysnatcher’ in the eighties and nineties. While I’m in no doubt that Holmes was a magnificent fighter, I’m starting to wonder if something similar is afoot.

Let’s get the pros out of the way. Holmes lifted the WBC title from Ken Norton in a superb fifteen-rounder in 1978. He made sixteen defences of the crown, including a highly publicized bout with the ‘great white hope’ Gerry Cooney, a thrilling ‘off the deck’ win over the fearsome-punching Earnie Shavers, and a disputed points win over future WBC and WBA champion Tim Witherspoon. Holmes also defeated Trevor Berbick, Mike Weaver and James ‘Bonecrusher’ Smith who all, like Witherspoon, went on to pick up a world title, though none of them established themselves as top quality or dominant champions. In 1983, Holmes relinquished the WBC strap to accept recognition from the newly-formed IBF and, after a further three defences, lost a controversial verdict to Light-Heavyweight champion Mike Spinks, who repeated the trick in a rematch. With nineteen / twenty (one took place with no organizational belts but still the lineal title on the line) defences of his crowns, wins over future belt holders and some memorable bouts under his belt, Holmes looks well worth a top five spot from the outset.

But let’s look a little deeper. What was Holmes’ best win? Ken Norton? Norton was a fine fighter in his own right, but was almost thirty-three by the time he fought Holmes. He’d also been demolished by Foreman, had the same thing happen to him again soon after his WBC tenure against Shavers, and in general did little after the Holmes fight before his career wound down. Norton’s name and reputation, to be honest, hinge on being a bogey man to Muhammad Ali, and while he was an impressive fighter, his shortcomings against Foreman and Shavers, as well as his generally poor record at the very highest level, show that while this was a good win for Holmes, it was hardly a great one. And let’s not forget that it was a bout which could have gone either way, though I did score it 143-142 to Holmes.

Earnie Shavers? A phenomenal puncher he may have been, but a truly great fighter he was not. Without going in to much detail, Shavers’ record at world level was patchy to say the least, and again it’s not impossible that he may have been slightly past his very best by the time Holmes defeated him, too. Again, his two wins over Shavers are impressive, but truly great?

Outside of that, we have the aforementioned Witherspoon, Berbick, Weaver and Smith. Granted, they all claimed belts after Holmes beat them. But Shannon Briggs, Frank Bruno, Vitali Klitschko and Evander Holyfield all did the same after Lennox Lewis beat them, too. Seldom do I see this used as a mark of greatness for Lewis, and truth be told, that latter group probably represents a better collective quality than the former one.

Also, should Holmes’ inability / reluctance to unify with the WBA between 1978 and 1983 (the latter being the last year of the two belt system) count against him? There’s no doubting that boxing politics and the general apathy towards the increasing number of titles over the years have resulted in unification bouts becoming less significant and common, but still, many of Holmes’ successors – Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Wladimir Klitschko – have gone to the trouble of unifying, and as such you’d have to wonder why Holmes didn’t do the same? Instead, he went with the embryonic IBF, only helping to shroud the Heavyweight division in even more uncertainty.

And finally, we can’t ignore the fact that Holmes was the first Heavyweight champion to lose his title to a 175 lb champion moving up. Granted, there is a very real argument that Holmes’ powers were on the wane by 1985 when he lost to Spinks, but even so, Tommy Burns, Jack Dempsey, Primo Carnera, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson and Joe Frazier all turned away the 175 lb men who came to challenge for their crown, whereas Holmes failed to. Of course, Tunney usurped Dempsey, but this was a Dempsey who was no more than 190 lb in his pomp anyway, and had been inactive for three years.

Also, I’d question how well Holmes matches up with some of the other Heavyweight greats. He’s insisted practically all his life that George Foreman wanted no part of him, and many seem to think that he’d have had Big George’s number. However, I look at Holmes’ victory over Norton and find myself thinking that he wouldn’t have lasted to the mid way stages against Foreman fighting like that. His lapses in concentration (Snipes, Shavers II) and sometimes lackadaisical performances (Witherspoon, Weaver) mean that I’d fully expect him to pick up losses against the top men of the Heavyweight ‘golden era’ of c. 1964-c.1975, which begs the question – would we even be talking about Holmes as being ‘great’ at all had he been born ten years earlier?

So combined, where does this leave Holmes? As I said, I have no doubt that he was a superb fighter, a fine champion and a great Heavyweight. But is he really of the elite level? Is he really comparable to the Muhammad Ali’s, the Joe Louis’ and the Jim Jeffries’? Does he really deserve to outrank Foreman, who is the closest thing to a rival you can get without the pair in question actually fighting? Until now, I’d have said yes to all of them, and have always found myself placing Holmes at number four on my all-time Heavyweight list. Now, I’m starting to wonder if I’ve been a little too kind in that respect, and have a feeling that maybe he should be slid down a few places.

What do you reckon? Sorry to go on so long, but as you can see, there are a few elements to consider! Cheers lads.

Hmm I guess that's fair enough. Still for unifying the division and avenging his defeats, I'd prefer to have Lewis a bit further up than Holmes. Maybe Lewis 6th, with Holmes just behind in 7th.

In the case of Holmes he didn't really need to unify as he was clearly the main man in the division, Lewis on the other hand had to unify to prove he was the man, other than defeats when he was well past his best he didn't have the opportunity to avenge them even though he clearly beat Spinks both times.

Alright. I'm maybe just being harsh on Holmes due to my ignorance on it, but I still feel dominating in a weaker era is far from enough to secure a top 5 berth. Definitely a top 10, yet lower end for me. No fault of his own, just find it quite comparable to Marciano.

In any other division it probably wouldn't be but other than Ali there isn't a single Heavyweight champion who has dominated a strong era, take Louis for instance his record is almost indentical to Holmes but generally gets rated a lot higher.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Always would have favoured Foreman to knock Holmes out myself, can never look past the second Shavers fights which if it was Foreman against him he wouldn't have been given a chance to recover.

The same Foreman who got beaten by Jimmy Young?

Yes, Foreman had the ultimate levellor, his punch. But I reckon a smart boxer likes Holmes' beats him on points.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:In any other division it probably wouldn't be but other than Ali there isn't a single Heavyweight champion who has dominated a strong era, take Louis for instance his record is almost indentical to Holmes but generally gets rated a lot higher.

I was considering this just now actually. Trying to order my top 10 Heavies, and did consider the amount of dross Louis fought. Definitely difficult to construct a top 10 list for Heavies!

Atila wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Always would have favoured Foreman to knock Holmes out myself, can never look past the second Shavers fights which if it was Foreman against him he wouldn't have been given a chance to recover.

The same Foreman who got beaten by Jimmy Young?

Yes, Foreman had the ultimate levellor, his punch. But I reckon a smart boxer likes Holmes' beats him on points.

Not the same Foreman at all who got beaten by Young, an easy excuse but he'd all but given up on his career by that point following a defeat to Ali he didn't recover from for almost 20 years.

licence_007 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:In any other division it probably wouldn't be but other than Ali there isn't a single Heavyweight champion who has dominated a strong era, take Louis for instance his record is almost indentical to Holmes but generally gets rated a lot higher.

I was considering this just now actually. Trying to order my top 10 Heavies, and did consider the amount of dross Louis fought. Definitely difficult to construct a top 10 list for Heavies!

It's very much a case of better the devil you know with the heavyweights

Easy to forget that, by the time Louis made his second title defence, he had beaten every one of his predecessors back as far as Tunney's retirement. He had literally cleaned out the division.

Also fair to say that his challengers were, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the best men of their day. Some of them were the Jerry Quarrys and George Chuvalos of their day - world calss fighters who were going nowhere while Louis was around.

HumanWindmill wrote:Easy to forget that, by the time Louis made his second title defence, he had beaten every one of his predecessors back as far as Tunney's retirement. He had literally cleaned out the division.

Also fair to say that his challengers were, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the best men of their day. Some of them were the Jerry Quarrys and George Chuvalos of their day - world calss fighters who were going nowhere while Louis was around.

An often forgotten and, in some ways, slightly scary fact that, isn't it? Louis' level of opposition gets derided more than any of the great Heavyweights, but by my reckoning he beat more lineal Heavyweight champions than anyone else in history, save for Holyfield.

I ignore the Holyfield statistic especially when you look at who those lineal champions were and how many years past their bests they usually were.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I ignore the Holyfield statistic especially when you look at who those lineal champions were and how many years past their bests they usually were.

Absolutely, Ghosty. So do I, but was just highlighting how Louis did take care of a lot more impressive fighters than some give him credit for.

Yes and no Chris, they're better than he's given credit for but nor do I think they were particularly amazing fighters, for fighters beaten there's little to choose between Louis, Lewis and Holmes.

Would have to have Louis wins overall with a bit of daylight compared to Lewis or Holmes.

Sharkey, Baer, Conn, Schmelling, Walcott and even second tier wins over the likes of Buddy Baer, Carnera, Uzcuden, Braddock, Pastor and Savold outstrips the competition beaten by Holmes or Lewis.

In terms of the criteria used in measuring heavyweights I think Louis is probably the most well balanced in ln tems of longetivity, ability, opposition beaten and head to head. Tend not to place too much emphasis on the whole personality/social/political aspects which is why I generally rate Ali lower than most.

Outside of Ali and Louis there is a quite significant gap when I consider my lists but it does surprise me that a few on here seem to question Louis on both the head to head counts and the opposition beaten. Head to head is entirely subjective of course but there are few heavyweights who have beaten a better level of competition overall or cleaned out the division so decisively.

You're saying Buddy Baer, Carnera, Uzcuden, Braddock, Pastor and Savold are better than anything Lewis/Holmes have beaten?

Scottrf wrote:You're saying Buddy Baer, Carnera, Uzcuden, Braddock, Pastor and Savold are better than anything Lewis/Holmes have beaten?

When combined with the rest of his wins, yes.

Re: Larry Holmes; genuine all-time top five Heavyweight, or the right place at the right time?

A very wellput article i must say Chris.
My opinion. is the later. Right place Right time..
Very much overrated in my opinion Larry Holmes
Even Holmes admits his greatest win was beating Ken Norton and as you said in your article Norton was getting on a bit

88Chris05 wrote:Though I'm flattered by those options (in a way, at least) Daz, I think the actual thruth is just that I'm a bit of a sad act and obsessive! And to link in a 'Holmesism', I couldn't carry Windy's, the captain's, Jimmy Stuart's, Rowley's or LRR's (and some others') jockstrap!

I am willing to let this pass without too much fuss Chris.

I assume leaving me off this list was a genuine oversight.

Great article chris, food for thought indeed. I think the "right place right time" accusation could be levelled at many a well ranked heavy due to the frequent lack of depth in the division at many given stages of its history. Joe Louis could be one. Or the man for whom Holmes was supposedly "keeping the title warm" - Tyson - is for me certainly another. Did tyson himself beat a level of quality superior to norton, shavers, cooney, weaver et al in putting himself in Larrys position? Arguably not, yet he's far more revered.

I have Larry 5th on my list, but the question if you're gonna slide him down is who takes his place and more importantly do they deserve it on the basis that we re-evaluate larrys position because of him being overrated for being underrated (so to speak). So who usurps him - Lennox? Maybe but unlike him (or tyson for that matter) Larry was never stopped by a second tier fighter in his prime. Frazier or Foreman? Apart from signature wins over Ali or Frazier respectively do either have a thick enough resume to to justify being above Holmes? I'd say not. Marciano had similar (at one stage almost identical unbeaten longevity) but a lesser CV I'd say.

I think in a career where weight jumping is not an option, then longevity counts for a lot and larry had that in spades, beat virtually every worthy contender available to him and showed skill and heart along the way. You make some cracking points and as always I enjoyed your article, but I'd say even on evaluation there's no reason to bump larry down and no contenders quite worthy enough to take his place in the top 5 in my opinion.

Cheers Sugar Boy, and that's a great post, particularly your point about how longevity is probably a little more important in the Heavyweight division given the fact that they can't go elsewhere in search of challenges.

I'll stress that even if I did move Holmes down from the fourth spot I've had him at for the last couple of years, it wouldn't be by all that much. A top eight without Holmes would be impossible, I reckon. But the more I look at it, the closer Jeffries and Foreman are getting in my head, whereas I never used to think twice about putting Larry ahead of both of them.

Cheers again.

88Chris05 wrote:Though I'm flattered by those options (in a way, at least) Daz, I think the actual thruth is just that I'm a bit of a sad act and obsessive! And to link in a 'Holmesism', I couldn't carry Windy's, the captain's, Jimmy Stuart's, Rowley's or LRR's (and some others') jockstrap!

Thats not true Chris. Without wanting to recieve a tongue-lashing off Truss for being a butt licker, you are - in my opinion - at the very least the equal of any of the above in terms of boxing knowledge, you really do never cease to amaze me, especially as you're only in your early '20's. You also have a very good writing style and Daz is correct when he says you should be doing something professional in boxing writing - what line of work are you in? Have you ever considered it?

Awww, cute

Well, all I can say to that is a big thanks, Sugar Boy! To be honest mate, I've never really thought about writing professionally, though I work on bits and bobs as a hobby. Might sound a little daft, but I wouldn't really have any clue about how to get in to it right now, and I definitely don't have the right qualifications for it, either.

Pay some of your mates to give me a few more compliments like that though, and I might just be convinced to give it a go!

Well you can gain qualifications in writing or journalism via evening school or the Open University etc. but those kind of things aren't always necessary. I have a friend who works for the Associated Press in London and he seems to think that it's more about getting your work in the hands of the right person, whether it's a website, magazine editor or book publisher, as long as the work is well researched enough to stand up to scrutiny and professionally written you have a fighting chance. I don't know what you do or whether you enjoy it, but if you ever had an urge for a career change then it's something to consider.

Anyways I'm gonna hit the hay - got a puncture on the A41, smashed my laptop with an important business plan for a friend on it and got told I look like a terrorist all within 90 minutes today so gonna call this one off and start again tomorrow!

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Anyways I'm gonna hit the hay - got a puncture on the A41, smashed my laptop with an important business plan for a friend on it and got told I look like a terrorist all within 90 minutes today so gonna call this one off and start again tomorrow!

Well, it's one to tell the grandkids, at least.

Great article, dude...tried to write a similar reappraisal type-affair of Big George a few months back,but got half the replies!(You truly are a good writer!)
Also makes look daft for ranking Larry number two recently. (Goes off to play with twigs and mumble to myself)

Could ve wose Andy I did one along the same lines on the old 606 about Johnson, think half the responses thought he was a singer.

There's nothing daft about ranking Holmes at number two at all, Andy! Don't be harsh on yourself! It's an understandable view to a certain extent, I think. Just one that I happen to disagree with, but it's all about opinions.

As quite a few have already said, most of the Heavyweights are separated by fairly small margins. Depending on how much weight you give to the different elements in the article, you could have names such as Holmes, Lewis, Johnson, Dempsey, Jeffries etc anywhere between, say, third and tenth and make a decent claim either way.

Thanks for contributing.

rowley wrote:Could ve wose Andy I did one along the same lines on the old 606 about Johnson, think half the responses thought he was a singer.

Touché, Jeff!

Glad you left Marciano out of that list Chris is good to see azania's time on here was not totally in vain.

rowley wrote:Glad you left Marciano out of that list Chris is good to see azania's time on here was not totally in vain.

Must have subconsciously been influenced by reading an Azania post saying that 'Marciano was only a Cruiserweight' for the millionth time, or something.

The other Jack Johnson-now there's over-rated, in my opinion.Made a career out of Postman Pat type ditties.
Now, I would agree that JJ is a tad over-rated. I think I was over-impressed because my old man played me the Miles Davis soundtack to the film, and this magnificent voice says,"I'm Jack Johnson, heavyweight champion of the world". Course, it is James Earl Jones...I believe JJ affected a whimsical English accent.
Funny how these re-evaluations do occur.I think Holmes HAS to some extent been dusted down by "historians", recentlyas has Jeffries,very much so ,IMO.
Now,back to my Sullivan campaign..

Sullivan is an interesting one Andy, as you know I rate him and he is far from the crude slugger history would have you believe. However think for me his problem is that the level of his opposition was not always great and the better opponents he did tend to face tended to be barknuckle affairs making comparisons across the eras nigh on impossible. The IBRO have him just outside the top 20 which seems harsh to me, personally though based on him straddling the eras it is probably better to exclude him altogether because in comparison his gloved record is always going to look shallow and for such a fine and significant fighter to be outside the 20 seems unfair.

Of course.Either rank him highly, or leave him out altogether.Most folks will do the latter...a shame, which is why I bang the drum on occasion.I can't see Rock or Sullivan competing against a Lewis or a Holmes to be honest.Maybe it's something to do with....(No.I'll rise above it...)

Where is Azania, anyway...I'd like to think he has been captured and is in Windy's basement, with a snooker-ball wedged in his mouth.

andygf wrote:Where is Azania, anyway...I'd like to think he has been captured and is in Windy's basement, with a snooker-ball wedged in his mouth.

Or somewhere..............................................

I have him tied to a chair ala Alex in a clockwork orange, he will appreciate Marciano sooner or later