Larry Holmes - Why does he get a free ride ????

First topic message reminder :

Bowe - "Ducked Lewis...bottler"

Lewis - "Got knocked out by stiffs"...

Klits - "Never fought anybody"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't Holmes avoid Page and Thomas....We all know why he took the IBF belt!!!

Didn't Holmes get decked and nearly stopped by a ring worn Ernie (some years after Ernie lost to a probable Parkinson's sufferer) and a journeyman in Snipes!! Struggled with Weaver too!!....Better chin than lewis?? Not for me!!

Was Larry's record any better than Lewis......I mean you'd struggle to see a defining fight (witherspoon maybe?? who got the shaft!!)..Lost to a light heavy...

Now look I liked Larry but you know to me his "crimes" tend to get overlooked........

Larry Holmes - Why does he get a free ride??????????

Last time I checked he beat both Bruno and Akinwande but history must have changed in the space of 5 minutes.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Since when did the opinions of journalists bother you, when they back up your opinion you'll bring it up but when they don't you'll dismiss it, try to be a bit consistent.

Just to show that most independent observers has Holmes winning. Not some ridiculous poster with an axe to grind.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Last time I checked he beat both Bruno and Akinwande but history must have changed in the space of 5 minutes.

Yep. And Ike pole-axed the guy who splattered Lewis. So by your theories, Ike > Lewis.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My point Chris was that Holmes allowed lightning to strike twice against the same fighter, he was and still is the only lineal heavyweight champion to lose to a former light heavyweight champion, were he to have conclusively beaten Spinks second time around then it wouldn't effect his standing too much. Lewis losing to Rahman to start with is very harmful but at least he put the record straight and did it in the best possible way, I felt that Holmes lost the first fight but won the second but he allowed the judges to score it to Spinks.

I agree with your scoring of the two Spinks-Holmes fights, but I just don't see how losing to an outstanding Light-Heavyweight champion can be more damaging than losing to a journeyman Heavyweight, regardless of whether or not it was put right in a rematch in the latter case. Holmes, in one sense, is a victim of circumstance and problems which were there long before he; had Tunney and Charles been given their rightful shot at the 175 lb crown, this old stigma surrounding Larry losing his title to a former Light-Heavyweight champion would long since have been washed away. In essense, Holmes losing to Spinks was no different than Dempsey surrendering his title to Tunney - and I believe you have Dempsey ahead of all but Ali and Louis in the all-time Heavyweight scheme of things? (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, mind!).

Seems that I'm not the only one who had Larry beating 'Spoon then? Besides the point, but it's encouraging to know that at least someone agrees that the 'robbery' claims there get blown well out of proportion....Even if it is Azania!

Again my memory might be failing me but Ike never beat either Rahman or McCall so christ knows what you're going on about.

88Chris05 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My point Chris was that Holmes allowed lightning to strike twice against the same fighter, he was and still is the only lineal heavyweight champion to lose to a former light heavyweight champion, were he to have conclusively beaten Spinks second time around then it wouldn't effect his standing too much. Lewis losing to Rahman to start with is very harmful but at least he put the record straight and did it in the best possible way, I felt that Holmes lost the first fight but won the second but he allowed the judges to score it to Spinks.

I agree with your scoring of the two Spinks-Holmes fights, but I just don't see how losing to an outstanding Light-Heavyweight champion can be more damaging than losing to a journeyman Heavyweight, regardless of whether or not it was put right in a rematch in the latter case. Holmes, in one sense, is a victim of circumstance and problems which were there long before he; had Tunney and Charles been given their rightful shot at the 175 lb crown, this old stigma surrounding Larry losing his title to a former Light-Heavyweight champion would long since have been washed away. In essense, Holmes losing to Spinks was no different than Dempsey surrendering his title to Tunney - and I believe you have Dempsey ahead of all but Ali and Louis in the all-time Heavyweight scheme of things? (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, mind!).

Seems that I'm not the only one who had Larry beating 'Spoon then? Besides the point, but it's encouraging to know that at least someone agrees that the 'robbery' claims there get blown well out of proportion....Even if it is Azania!

88Chris05 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My point Chris was that Holmes allowed lightning to strike twice against the same fighter, he was and still is the only lineal heavyweight champion to lose to a former light heavyweight champion, were he to have conclusively beaten Spinks second time around then it wouldn't effect his standing too much. Lewis losing to Rahman to start with is very harmful but at least he put the record straight and did it in the best possible way, I felt that Holmes lost the first fight but won the second but he allowed the judges to score it to Spinks.

I agree with your scoring of the two Spinks-Holmes fights, but I just don't see how losing to an outstanding Light-Heavyweight champion can be more damaging than losing to a journeyman Heavyweight, regardless of whether or not it was put right in a rematch in the latter case. Holmes, in one sense, is a victim of circumstance and problems which were there long before he; had Tunney and Charles been given their rightful shot at the 175 lb crown, this old stigma surrounding Larry losing his title to a former Light-Heavyweight champion would long since have been washed away. In essense, Holmes losing to Spinks was no different than Dempsey surrendering his title to Tunney - and I believe you have Dempsey ahead of all but Ali and Louis in the all-time Heavyweight scheme of things? (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, mind!).

Seems that I'm not the only one who had Larry beating 'Spoon then? Besides the point, but it's encouraging to know that at least someone agrees that the 'robbery' claims there get blown well out of proportion....Even if it is Azania!

I have since reassessed my rankings of the heavyweights with Dempsey drastically moving down to about 7th but I would say that I consider Charles and Tunney to be far greater light heavyweights as well as heavyweights than Spinks. Holmes was also not coming off a 3 year lay off before fighting Spinks, there are in essence less excuses for Holmes losing than Dempsey. As for Louis losing to Charles, that does for me needs no explanation.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Again my memory might be failing me but Ike never beat either Rahman or McCall so christ knows what you're going on about.

My bad. Was thinking of Tua.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Was Holmes near his best when he fought Spinks?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Age is largely dependent on style, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey were always going to age quite early compared to men Holmes, Ali, Lewis, Louis and the Klitschkos.

On a personal level I can't imagine 35 year old versions of Lewis, Louis or the brothers losing to Michael Spinks, Louis did of course lose to Charles but you're then talking about a fighter I consider to be the greatest of all 175lbers as well as pound for pound comfortably in the top 5.

I don't quite follow what you mean ghosty, do you mean that fighters have shorter careers than boxers? If you do, then in some part i agree. I would agree that a career can be cut short due to the prolonged punishment often associated with being a fighter. However, I'm a bit confused about your list? It makes me wonder, if infact that IS what you are saying that??

Tyson hardly took any punishment, he was so dominant, ok when he did get beat he was dominated but hey. Same with Jack Demsey, a huge force but many of his fights did not go over four rounds, granted they may have been brutal while they lasted but all fights back then were. Ali probably took just as much, if not more, than anyone in your "fighter" list. Isn't Ali's durabilty and bravery in face of adversity and punishment one of the features of his greatness?

I'm just a little confused as to your point. I mean why are Joe Louis and a Klitschko in list together? Did Vitali's fighting style fix his shoulder? Like i say, punishment can cut careers short but styles don't necessarily.

It's not so much a case of punishment taken but diminishing physical attributes effects fighters more than boxers. Tyson, Dempsey and Frazier relied on explosiveness as opposed to pure boxing skill, once they started to lose their speed and stamina they were always going to be nigh on finished as they didn't have as much to fall back on. Lewis, Holmes, Louis and the brothers had their jabs, timing and ability to judge distance to fall back on as well as never relying on speed to win. Ali was possibly a poor example to use as there are two contrasting incarnations of him. You also have someone like Foreman who relied on pure brute strength and power, things like that aren't effected as much by age as speed is.

The perfect example is the contrasting fortunes of Jones and Hopkins as they grew old, you have the speedster who was finished as his speed went and the ring general who could carry on rely on his brain.

I will start off by saying, you were right, I did Tyson an injustice by saying a Jab and self belief was all that was needed to beat him... you also needed a right hand.

Right, so you weren't saying anything about punishment. What you were saying is that age causes a loss of speed and stamina and this effects boxers that rely on speed and stamina...... I don't know whether to feel insulted that you just pointed that out.

While you're here maybe you can apologise for saying I said 35 was young for a heavy.....too!!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:While you're here maybe you can apologise for saying I said 35 was young for a heavy.....too!!!!

Truss you said "He was only 35 then!!! kind of seems much younger for a heavy now..."

Anyway I have no ego or pride, so if it makes you feel better.....SORRY!!!

It really is as simple as that, punishment isn't really dependent on style, you have a come forward brawler like LaMotta who has never shown any signs of being punch drunk and then you have a defensive wizard like Benitez who has been suffering from pugilistic dementia for half his life.

Now i am insulted.

Punishment is dependant on style and I can't belive you are trying to tell me otherwise?? If you are a pressure fighter who lacks power to end a fight you will take punishment. Some boxers are just more suseptable to dementia pugilistica. And Benitez was probably sparring men aged 11 or 12. Thats punishment.

Punishment is very much dependent on the fighter themselves, just because you take more punches doesn't mean you take more punishment. LaMotta took less physical punishment than most because his body was able to take it, Benitez's was not able to.

A prime example is Johnny Owens, he was regardless of style always going to either die or suffer a very serious injury such was the thinness of his skull, Chuvalo on the otherhand was always going to be able to take a punch because of the thickness of his skull. Minter and Cooper were always going to suffer from cuts.

Careful Mackem. Your knowledge of boxing will soon be questioned in a huff of pique.

You'll be making up fights that never happened again soon Az.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You'll be making up fights that never happened again soon Az.

Of course me old china. And you'll be moaning about the lack of knowledge of others when they own you.....again.

It's only those with no knowledge that think they can own you when it's all opinion based, factually you're wrong an awful lot, I make sure I don't make mistakes.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's only those with no knowledge that think they can own you when it's all opinion based, factually you're wrong an awful lot, I make sure I don't make mistakes.

Classic ghosty.

I'll give it to you. You certainly have the knowledge. You'd make a cab driver proud. But unlike can drivers, you have no clue how to apply that knowledge. I should bill you for this lesson me old china.

That's your opinion Az, I would far rather have an opinion that is based upon factual evidence rather than an opinion based on factual inaccuracies.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That's your opinion Az, I would far rather have an opinion that is based upon factual evidence rather than an opinion based on factual inaccuracies.

Oooooh, Ghosty. You are perilously close to making me laugh twice in a day. Your opinions are based on bias and nothing more. You actually claimed that Darius M was the real champ as opposed to Jones. It later transpired that you were a fan of Darius and disliked Jones.

You are funny in a Victor Meldrew sort of way.

Virgil Hill and Henry Maske were the number one and two at light heavyweight so when they fought it was for the vacant lineal title, Hill won then lost his claim to Michalczewski, having never beaten him Jones was never the fully legitimate lineal champion. I for the record don't dislike Jones but feel he is massively over rated and gets away with his failed drugs test when a lesser fighter wouldn't have.

Lovable Larry was to have done one of those '4-course dinner, speech, auction etc' nights in London a few years ago. One of the promoters was none other than John Conteh. A week or so after the tickets had went on sale the price of them had halved. So apart from coming across as an unlikable bloke ( perhaps he's a barrel of laughs when he has a drink in him ) who's low in the charisma stakes and in possession of a chip on his shoulder the size of Jupiter, it would appear that he's not a very popular bloke, at least not in the London area.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Punishment is very much dependent on the fighter themselves, just because you take more punches doesn't mean you take more punishment. LaMotta took less physical punishment than most because his body was able to take it, Benitez's was not able to.

A prime example is Johnny Owens, he was regardless of style always going to either die or suffer a very serious injury such was the thinness of his skull, Chuvalo on the otherhand was always going to be able to take a punch because of the thickness of his skull. Minter and Cooper were always going to suffer from cuts.

I will give you this ghosty. You certainly know your stuff. I certainly don't proclaim to be an encyclopedia.

I did a bit as junior and i did bit more as a senior. I hope this qualifies me to have an opinion. My factual knowledge may desert me at times, and I didn't watch much as a youth because we couldn't afford Sky. Also alot of my knowledge has been passed down from my Dad. For that reason, I may be guilty of naivity at time's, for instance, I wasn't aware Benitez had pugilistica dementia.

I will say this though, I will not stand for nonsense such as "just because you take more punches doesn't mean you take more punishment".

What long term punishment did Jake LaMotta receive despite taking hundreds of heavy shots from a lot of big punchers, the beating he received in the valentines massacre would have been enough to finish most fighters but he didn't even touch the canvas. As far as boxing is concerned punishment in the ring is dependent on the long term effect it has on you and that varies from fighter to fighter.

Another example is Meldrick Taylor, he was finished after Chavez beat the life out of him and he was in no way a come forward face first fighter.

How rude, I forgot to say a big hello to everyone at the forum when I arrived here two days back, and would like to thank everyone for making me instantly feeling like a participant. I can tell who the big boys are (Az, ghosty, truss, mcjack and xxxx) and I'm looking forward to our future conversations and debates, just keep it clean and be ready to defend yourself at all times.....
...on that cheesy note i'm off!!

Also fighters who roll and deflect punches by taking the sting out of em take hundreds more than most of their peers and remain unaffacted

That's a very good point Shah, for all the bad press he receives for his style, LaMotta was as good as anyone at rolling with the punches.

I could never rate Holmes higher than Lewis.He wa s lucky to get the nod against Witherspoon and in the first Spinks fight he hardly threw a right hand all night and I wasn't surprised when he lost the fight I didn't see the second fight and from all accounts he got a raw deal but he was never very popular with the media.

88Chris05 wrote: I must take a bigger exception to your point that Holmes' losing to the younger Spinks hurts his standing more than Lewis losing to Rahman, however. Simply not the case at all in my eyes.

A Heavyweight champion losing to an outstanding Light-Heavyweight is nowhere near as damaging as a Heavyweight losing to a plainly average fellow Heavyweight who could be described as a journeyman at best. If Ray Leonard had followed through with his churlish retirement talk immediately after the 'Brawl in Montreal', would he somehow be more disgraced by losing to Duran than he would be for losing to someone such as Randy Shields? That's not even mentioning the fact that the manner of Lewis' defeats were far more crushing, and that the comparison with Shields is arguably a little generous to Rahman.

We'd have to agree to disagree on this one. There are two reasons why Lewis' losses to McCall and Rahman are not as bad and that is the simple fact that he put both losses right. Holmes didn't do this.

Secondly, Lewis was the victim of the classic "anything can happen at heavyweight" scenario which makes the heavyweight division such a draw. One golden punch can end a fight, you can be dominated, outboxed, outmuscled and outclassed but if you can bang and you can land one lucky punch and you can turn it all around. And one thing both McCall and Rahman could do and that was bang.

Spinks record at heavyweight bar Holmes was unspectacular. A good KO win against an always average hype job in Gerry Cooney and then doing his load and getting owned against Tyson means that Spinks is best remembered as a great unbeaten light heavyweight. Yes, Spinks may have been great but Holmes was also supposed to be great so a great heavyweight shouldn't lose to a great blown up light heavyweight.

Boon

Was that a Holmes anywhere near his peak when he 'lost' to Spinks? Their first fight was close. Their second wasn't and the judges got it plain wrong. So to say that Holmes didn't set the record straight is a moot topic.

Lewis lost twice whilst at his peak to club fighters. I dont agree with the lucky punch scenario. Never have done. McCall and Rahman threw a punch with the intention of that punch landing. I can't see how it can be called lucky seeing as it was their intention to throw and land that punch. In fact McCall said between rounds what he intended to do. He did it. How was it lucky?

Rahman hot the jackpot against Lewis who was just plain sloppy in the fight but McCall properly knocked him out with the correct tactics. He even tells his corner the shot hes looking for right before he does it. I also think Lewis putting the rematch right in the circumstances of the second McCall fight is a bit tenuos. Lets be honest, if Lewis had turned like McCall did who was clearly a mental wreck then nobody would claim the fight was legitimate. Its not Lewis fault for the condition that McCall turned up in but its not a case of him putting it beyond doubt. I also think had the roles been reversed in the Bruno fight the same argument would have been forward that Lewis was the victim of a lucky shot. In that fight its Lewis who is actually losing but changes the whole fight around with a monster punch.

azania wrote:Boon

Was that a Holmes anywhere near his peak when he 'lost' to Spinks? Their first fight was close. Their second wasn't and the judges got it plain wrong. So to say that Holmes didn't set the record straight is a moot topic.

Lewis lost twice whilst at his peak to club fighters. I dont agree with the lucky punch scenario. Never have done. McCall and Rahman threw a punch with the intention of that punch landing. I can't see how it can be called lucky seeing as it was their intention to throw and land that punch. In fact McCall said between rounds what he intended to do. He did it. How was it lucky?

I can't remember the McCall fight but by lucky punch I mean a heavy punch where in heavyweight boxing if it lands it's game over. Lucky inasmuch that one punch is all it takes in the heavyweights kind of lucky, especially if you're losing the fight as Rahman was. Lewis was toying with him in the very round he got struck.

The Rahman punch though I found lucky. Lewis lifed his chin just as Rahman was about to connect, if he hadn't had lifted his head he would have ended up with a painful smack in the mouth rather than been spreadeagled on the canvas.

Rahman threw a knock out punch with the sole intention of knocking Lewis out. He intended to throw and land that punch. No luck that he did. Just unlucky for Lewis that it landed.

McCall called the punch between rounds and landed it the next round. Hardly lucky.

But was that a prime Holmes that Spinks fought?

Az, I give you an answer. No. Holmes that lost to Spinks was not prime, and at 35, yes he was getting old. A fair few people seem to have forgotten that for years, Joe Walcott held the record for being the oldest man to win the title - at 38. The age of the 35+ successful heavyweight is a relatively new one.
The problem for Larry is that he then went on to produce some good performances after that , notably against Mercer and Holyfield which make his showing against Spinks look worse. For me he was the author of his own downfall in the first Spinks fight- it was a complacency, he thought he would win easy and didn't, if he had fought like he did second time around I'd have more sympathy.