Why does Larry get a free ride and Lennox doesn't??

Larry seems to be in a lot of top 5 lists including mine at the moment.....

However something bugs me.......I mean I'd pick a 38 year old Wlad and a 38 year old Lewis to beat Michael easily inside the distance!!

Holmes was 35!!!!.....Sure he probably took a close decision in the rematch but he still should have beaten him convincingly!!

A small man...with no great speed...punch and with dodgy knees beating a top 5er???

Suddenly a fluke defeat to Mccall and Rahman doesn't look so bad!!

Vitali beats Spinks also and a 38 yr old Lewis beat him!!!

Factor in Snipes and Weaver having Larry in queer street.....You kind of wonder whether Lewis really is all that far behind!!

Lewis avenged his defeats..as well!!

as for Rowley's assertion Holmes beats Lewis...sorry disagree!! Holmes dominated his era but i'd pick Holy, Lewis, Bowe and Tyson to beat him..

Rowley forgets Witherspoon got robbed....and Lewis is better than him as he is Norton who lost contentiously!!!

Larry was great but he struggled with garbage too..................Bonecrusher Smith!!!

Larry sems to get away with everything Lennox doesn't......maybe a re-evaluation is needed??

Holmes dominated his division but Lewis faced and beat better opposition.

However I do see Holmes beating Lewis. His movement and jab would frustrate Lewis who was not much of a stalker.

alma wrote:Pretty obvious really. None of us are old enough to have watched Holmes in his prime

True but I am sure we are old enough to work out how to use youtube.

Swinga and roundabouts though Truss re the Witherspoon fight truss, although I personally don't hold this view there are those that will tell you Mercer got jobbed against Lennox and Tim, whilst inconsistent is a better fighter than Ray IMO.

I'm not sure Larry really gets away with anything Lewis doesn't but the reality is the one thing Larry did not do is get splattered as a world champion twice by ordinary guys, may have had a couple of close calls during his reign but there is not a long reigning champion who the same is not true of.

Now had Snipes kept him down or unable to contine the gap between Larry and Lennox narrows big time because I genuinely don't think there is huge margins when it comes to level of opposition.

I think it is mainly due to the fact that Holmes had much more longevity as champ, and cleaned out his era, albeit scraping by on occasion. Add to that this his losses to Spinks are fairly controversial and that he was past his best, he gets an easier ride. I think most people would agree his fights were more entertaining and he was more stylish which also goes in his favour.

Without wanting to go off on a tangent or highjack the thread, I also think Holmes beats Lewis quite easily and does well on a head to head basis against other typical ATG's.

Don't really agree with the article Truss, although it's a good one.

Ultimately, Larry's one title reign accounted for more successful defenses than the three of Lewis put together - I certainly don't think that Lewis dominated his era as completely as Holmes did, unification bouts or no, and I don't think that Lewis can hide behind the excuse of facing superior opposition either, because I'd say that the two of them are largely comparable in that respect.

I appreciate that Holmes holds the dubious distinction of being the first Heavyweight to dump his title to a Light-Heavyweight champion moving up, but while it's hard to see Spinks beating Lewis - even a thirty-eight year old version - that's just speculation, at the end of the day. A great Heavyweight losing his title on a razor-thin decision to a great Light-Heavyweight isn't nearly as ignominious as a great Heavyweight losing his title by concussive knockout to a journeyman Heavyweight. And that's not to mention that Lennox somehow let this happen twice.

As Rowley alludes to, if we're going to say that Larry got lucky against 'Spoon (I actually had Holmes ahead, as it goes, though it was a close one) then we'd have to conclude that Lewis was fortunate against Mercer, a man who Holmes beat while decidedly past his best, and while Larry made hard work of Weaver and the like, Lewis hardly looked a world beater for long periods against Bruno, either.

Head to head? Well, it's the least important part of the equation I suppose, but I'd still back Holmes more often than not. Both were prone to shocking off nights and lapses in concentration, but if you were going to back one of them to somehow find a way out of it, it'd be Holmes, surely?

No reevaluation needed here, for me. Holmes rightly ranked above Lewis and I see no reason for that to change.

Have to disagree re.Holmes being more dominant- he was never undisputed champ, and he only had a couple more successful title fights than lewis. There's a lot of similarity between their careers for me; both have good longevity, both suffered from lack of defining fight/ poor opposition, both do well in theoretical head to head matches. Difference being that Lewis avenged his defeats and didn't sully his legacy by carrying on far longer tan me should have. Both worthy of top ten spots. For me the regular top tenner that gets the easiest ride is Foreman, but that's probably a topic for a different thread...

alma wrote:Pretty obvious really. None of us are old enough to have watched Holmes in his prime

you know how to depress an old man alma.

There's certainly some truth in the fact that lewis is easier to scrutinise because the scrutinisers have witnessed his reign warts and all. Its easier to forget the below par performances of the others when they're just an entry on boxrec... but they all had them. Truth is you can pick apart of the records of anyone in the usual top 10 outside of ali and louis, and its not unknown for theirs to be scrutinised from time to time.

i think truss has a valid point about holmes because whilst recognised as no 1, he never unified and had his squeaks, and his opposition wasn't great. As chris has said, in his prime he found a way through his hairier moments which lewis didn't so deserves his place a touch higher,in my view but its fine margins.

alma wrote:You might know the answer to this Chris. Was there any controversy over how spinks managed to put on twenty four pounds in the space of 3 months prior to fighting Holmes?

None as far as I know, Alma, but don't take that as gospel.

Although I have to admit, I never realised that it was such a small amount of time between Spinks' last fight as a Light-Heavy and his first Heavyweight title fight - I pretty much just assumed, without checking, that it must have been between six and nine months, because 25 lb is a lot and Spinks looked pretty darn good as a Heavyweight, too.

My best guess is that he found it easy to pack on the muscle and weight because his upper body was so lithe to begin with, so there was no possible way he could 'hit the wall' in that respect. A common saying amongst commentators during Spinks' 175 lb title reign was that he had "the thighs of a Heavyweight, but the upper body of a Middleweight" and there is a fair bit of truth to that. I imagine that his training was pretty much weights-free when he was at the lower weight before he hit the program of squats, dead lifts and full-body weight training exercises which he maintains are what helped him to become a genuine Heavy - hence the quick progress all of a sudden once he was attempting to bulk up.

Don't sully Spinks name by infering abuse!!!

Any fan will tell you that fighters have weights they walk around in....Ie Spinks probably weighed 190 or 195 before cutting...

Weighttraining doesn't make you lose weight...so the fact is Spinks only put on a few real pounds for Holmes...

Chris and Rowley it's a fair debate ..

For me Lewis beat better fighters...and it's only mccall and Rahman that hold him to account....I'd pick mccall to wear spinks down If he was in the mood!!

But thanks for the comments...

Spinks was and is a gentleman....

Amen to that, brother.

Special mention must be made for one of Larry's trademarks ie holding his opponent's head with his left glove whilst proceeding to smash him in the face with right-handers.
Real class.

I think the stigma of Holmes being the first champion to lose his title to a light heavyweight champion is a little unfair. In reality the likes of Corbett, Dempsey and Louis suffered a similar fate all in much more a convincing manner it has to be said.

Think you also have to remember how much fighters drop weight to reach there goal, it is very possible that Spinks was coming into the ring at 190 lbs, as a LHW, so then without having to drop the weight just worked on putting on an extra stone or so. Might just not have been difficult for him being a big LHW?

Great article! You are spot on. Homes should never be ranked higher than Lewis. Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count. People who rate Holmes highly because of this need to re-evaluate and know the full story. If it had of been Tyson or Lewis against Ali at that time it would have been over in a couple of rounds. Holmes was a good fighter but really he wasn’t in Lewis’ class. The time he fought was not as good as when Lewis did. Holmes was champion but things changed when Tyson came along. Mentally Lewis would have had a big advantage against Holmes. Mike Tyson was able to beat Holmes quite easily and the intimidation he used against his opponents weakened them before they even got into the ring. Mentally Holmes didn’t have the same strength as Lewis. When it came to Lewis’ turn to fight Tyson he showed exactly how to deal with him in and out of the ring. He had the perfect blend of staying cool but also showing Tyson he would not be intimidated by him and the whole plan to intimidate Lewis backfired on Tyson. Holmes was also beaten by Holyfield, another guy that Lewis beat. He was older then but it shows how the heavyweights were better at that time. If I was ranking them in order I would go Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, Holmes. Other fighters who would beat Holmes would be Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Marciano and Ali when he was younger (around the time he beat Foreman and Frazier).

Gordy wrote: Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count.

This coming from a man who raves about Lewis beating Tyson, the concept of irony is not one you trouble yourself with too greatly is it Gordy?

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote: Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count.

This coming from a man who raves about Lewis beating Tyson, the concept of irony is not one you trouble yourself with too greatly is it Gordy?

I dont understand the point? Lewis dominated Tyson in their fight that very few people predicted. I knew from the build up that Lewis was going to win but people thought I was mad. People forget that half the battle is the mental one and that Tyson used intimidation to bully and defeat his opponents mentally. Holmes was intimidated of Tyson and had lost before the opening bell. Lewis was unflappable though and was unfazed by anything Tyson did. It was then I knew that Lewis had the fight in the bag. I knew he had the skills and ability to beat Tyson but he also needed the mentality and to be honest he completely dominated Tyson from the moment the fight was announced to the moment he knocked him out. I had learned from the Holyfield match against Tyson that strong mentality was needed to beat Tyson which Holyfield proved he had. I will be honest, I didnt give Holyfield a hope of beating Tyson the first time but he proved me wrong and I didnt make the same mistake of underestimating Lewis!

Gordy wrote:

I dont understand the point?

You surprise me.

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote: Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count.

This coming from a man who raves about Lewis beating Tyson, the concept of irony is not one you trouble yourself with too greatly is it Gordy?

I dont understand the point? Lewis dominated Tyson in their fight that very few people predicted. I knew from the build up that Lewis was going to win but people thought I was mad.

I can totally believe that people thought you were mad, however not for that reason.

Everyone in Boxing, everyone that was any form of the know, everyone who realised anything and had properly seen Tysons decline in the years believed Tyson was going to take a pasting, and thats what Lewis did, but everyone who knew anything about Boxing realised that Tyson was going to take a proper beating.

Gordy wrote: Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count.

I've never met anyone or read anything that suggests Holmes is rated highly due to his win over Ali. I think most people saw with their own eyes that Ali was done in that fight and had looked over the hill when he'd beaten Spinks 2 years earlier.

... Probably because you reside on a different planet to Gordy, Atila.

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote: Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count.

This coming from a man who raves about Lewis beating Tyson, the concept of irony is not one you trouble yourself with too greatly is it Gordy?

I dont understand the point? Lewis dominated Tyson in their fight that very few people predicted. I knew from the build up that Lewis was going to win but people thought I was mad. People forget that half the battle is the mental one and that Tyson used intimidation to bully and defeat his opponents mentally. Holmes was intimidated of Tyson and had lost before the opening bell. Lewis was unflappable though and was unfazed by anything Tyson did. It was then I knew that Lewis had the fight in the bag. I knew he had the skills and ability to beat Tyson but he also needed the mentality and to be honest he completely dominated Tyson from the moment the fight was announced to the moment he knocked him out. I had learned from the Holyfield match against Tyson that strong mentality was needed to beat Tyson which Holyfield proved he had. I will be honest, I didnt give Holyfield a hope of beating Tyson the first time but he proved me wrong and I didnt make the same mistake of underestimating Lewis!

You’re such a GOON Gordy, I would bother putting a proper reply to your tripe together but it’d be wasted as you’d never reply anyway.

So I’ll stick to calling you a goooooooooooooon

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote: Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count.

This coming from a man who raves about Lewis beating Tyson, the concept of irony is not one you trouble yourself with too greatly is it Gordy?

I dont understand the point? Lewis dominated Tyson in their fight that very few people predicted. I knew from the build up that Lewis was going to win but people thought I was mad.

I can totally believe that people thought you were mad, however not for that reason.

Everyone in Boxing, everyone that was any form of the know, everyone who realised anything and had properly seen Tysons decline in the years believed Tyson was going to take a pasting, and thats what Lewis did, but everyone who knew anything about Boxing realised that Tyson was going to take a proper beating.

But were they experts Alex? Did they rate Ali #1? Or did Lewis just say it was going to be a tough fight and therefore, by default, it meant it was because Lewis is God and his word is the truth......

Atila wrote:

Gordy wrote: Alot of people rate Holmes highly due to his most famous win against Ali. But Ali was way past his best and suffering from parkinsons at the time so really the fight should barely count.

I've never met anyone or read anything that suggests Holmes is rated highly due to his win over Ali. I think most people saw with their own eyes that Ali was done in that fight and had looked over the hill when he'd beaten Spinks 2 years earlier.

People who know their boxing know this yes. But alot of people dont do their research or dont understand the sport and think that because Holmes beat Ali he must be better. This is not true. Holmes only beat Ali when he was long past his best so people who understand the sport do not count this fight and would rate Lewis higher.

Gordy wrote:people who understand the sport do not count this fight and would rate Lewis higher.

..........

I honestly am lost for words.

Gordy, go to Youtube, type in "Larry Holmes" and watch all you can. The man was better than Lewis.

I also think that Chris is scarily knowledgeable about boxing and he rates Holmes so I'm unsure where your jibe is directed.

This is not true. Holmes only beat Ali when he was long past his best so people who understand the sport do not count this fight and would rate Lewis higher.

I've got Holmes higher so clearly don't understand the sport. Thanks for pointing that out, Gordy. Here's me reading books and watching fights but clearly it isn't enough.

A remedial class is in order. Any idea which end of the cue the fighters use to hit the little white ball into the basket?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS8JXVpJDIk

Watch that Gordy.

Holmes was a good fighter but not in the same class as Lewis. HE fought at a time when there were less good heavyweights around. That changed when Tyson and Holyfield came onto the scene and both of them beat Holmes. George Foreman also made a comeback then and would also have beaten Holmes. Frazier, Liston and Marciano would also have beaten Holmes if they had been around so they would rank ahead of him. Lewis was a better boxer overall and also had a stronger mentality. You can see the differance when they fought Tyson. Holmes did have the mentality to deal with that kind of intimidation but Lewis handled Tyson perfectly.

You can see the differance when they fought Tyson. Holmes did have the mentality to deal with that kind of intimidation but Lewis handled Tyson perfectly.

Nah, you're a muppet and I'm not rising to it.

Yes a muppet who understands boxing and knows why Lewis should be above Holmes!

Gordy wrote:Yes a muppet who understands boxing and knows why Lewis should be above Holmes!

Gordy the Gimp Goon.....

superflyweight wrote:

You can see the differance when they fought Tyson. Holmes did have the mentality to deal with that kind of intimidation but Lewis handled Tyson perfectly.

Nah, you're a muppet and I'm not rising to it.

At least you get a response! I responded intelligently, with a sensible reasoned question, and got nothing. Not the first, second or third times I asked it. So now I just spam the pathetic little bell-end.

He's only ever responded once or twice to me, toppy. At least it confirmed that he's human and not some primitive AI programme.

No, just a primative human.

Saying that Holmes was better than Ali because he beat him is a bit stupid, Berbick also has a win against Ali, would you say that he was better than Ali? I don't think so. Lewis knew when the time was right to call it a day, it's a pity more boxers don't admit that it's a young man's game and get out and enjoy the results of thir efforts.

Holmes and Ali, legends.

Lewis ranks above Holmes for me, and would beat him, too.

I have Inspector Morse ahead of Lewis in my list.

I don't see how Lewis beats Holmes, I used to think the same as you Fists, but I have Holmes slightly higher after watching a lot of his fights, although yours is an opinion i hold rather highly so I will respectfully accept that.

I think it'd be mighty close, Jabmachine. In fact, over a three fight series, I'd perhaps see it as 2-1 to Lewis. I just think that the extra size of Lewis would allow him to push Larry back sufficiently, nullifying part of the snap of Larry's primary weapon - the jab. I'd see Lewis' uppercut as the key punch.

I agree, if Lewis was able to utilise the uppercut then Larry would have a hard time getting through the later rounds without it being stopped.

I think although the first few rounds would go to Holmes because he's a good starter, Lewis would probably outwork him in the mid to late rounds but Holmes would have done enough by round 4 and from maybe 9 onwards to sneak a decision.

Don't think there would be any knockouts - if Lewis turned up properly he could get hit and stay up, and lets face it, although Lewis could bang, Holmes had one almighty chin.

Over 12 rounds I'd have it 115 -113 Holmes as being likely.

Over 15...wider.

Lewis would beat Holmes comfortably. He was a better boxer in every way, he had a stronger mentality and was a cooler customer. Holmes was not able to beat Tyson and Holyfield and Lewis beat them easily. I know the first fight with Holyfield was scored a draw but it was one of the worst decisions ever. Lewis would knock Holmes out at about the halfway stage. He would start with the jab early and then gradually start upping the pressure.

Gordy wrote:Lewis would beat Holmes comfortably. He was a better boxer in every way, he had a stronger mentality and was a cooler customer. Holmes was not able to beat Tyson and Holyfield and Lewis beat them easily. I know the first fight with Holyfield was scored a draw but it was one of the worst decisions ever. Lewis would knock Holmes out at about the halfway stage. He would start with the jab early and then gradually start upping the pressure.

Was he better at recovering from punches?

Gordy wrote:Lewis would beat Holmes comfortably. He was a better boxer in every way, he had a stronger mentality and was a cooler customer. Holmes was not able to beat Tyson and Holyfield and Lewis beat them easily. I know the first fight with Holyfield was scored a draw but it was one of the worst decisions ever. Lewis would knock Holmes out at about the halfway stage. He would start with the jab early and then gradually start upping the pressure.

You really are just a massive bell-end, aren't you Gordy? Why don't you just do one and leave us adults be.

Holmes could not stand up to Mike Tyson or take his punches but look how Lewis handled him. He had the mentality not to be intimidated inside or outside the ring which Holmes lacked. I was a big fan of Bruno and if he was around now I think he would be the world champion but he was just not in the same class as Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson and Holyfield would have also beaten him if they fought. Holmes was not is the same class as those guys either but he was the best until Tyson came along. If Bruno was around when Holmes was champion then who knows he could have been champion then but its pot luck and Bruno was unlucky he had great fighters like Lewis and Tyson in his division. Holmes would probably beat Bruno and would definately be champion if he was around now but he just wasnt as good as Lewis, Tyson or Holyfield which was a much stronger period of heavyweights. Foreman, Liston and Marciano would also beat him.

Gordy wrote:Holmes could not stand up to Mike Tyson or take his punches but look how Lewis handled him. He had the mentality not to be intimidated inside or outside the ring which Holmes lacked. I was a big fan of Bruno and if he was around now I think he would be the world champion but he was just not in the same class as Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson and Holyfield would have also beaten him if they fought. Holmes was not is the same class as those guys either but he was the best until Tyson came along. If Bruno was around when Holmes was champion then who knows he could have been champion then but its pot luck and Bruno was unlucky he had great fighters like Lewis and Tyson in his division. Holmes would probably beat Bruno and would definately be champion if he was around now but he just wasnt as good as Lewis, Tyson or Holyfield which was a much stronger period of heavyweights. Foreman, Liston and Marciano would also beat him.

Give me strength, Gordy no offense, but please enough of this now. This is probably the the most ignorant post on here since Tysonisking was calling Ali a hype job. Firstly the Tyson that fought Lewis was a shadow of the man that fought Holmes, Holmes was way past his best at that time, and the defeat had nothing to do with Holmes being intimidated. Larry was never mentally fragile as a fighter , where did you get that idea from?
Holmes was champion for seven years and had around twenty successful defenses, and is almost universally recognized as being one of the divisions best boxers, yet you claim that he's not in Holyfield's league???
Probably beat Bruno??? Please tell me you are joking.

Holmes would have knocked out Lewis. Too good a jab and more importantly, next to Ali, Holmes had the best footwork of any HW I have seen. Lewis was simple a good HW but had terrible footwork and a pawing jab. He was made for Holmes.

Cant help feeling that whenever Lewis fought, he was a punch away from from a loss. I never had that impression with Holmes until his later days. Holmes b R6 KO.

Gordy wrote:Holmes could not stand up to Mike Tyson or take his punches but look how Lewis handled him. He had the mentality not to be intimidated inside or outside the ring which Holmes lacked. I was a big fan of Bruno and if he was around now I think he would be the world champion but he was just not in the same class as Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson and Holyfield would have also beaten him if they fought. Holmes was not is the same class as those guys either but he was the best until Tyson came along. If Bruno was around when Holmes was champion then who knows he could have been champion then but its pot luck and Bruno was unlucky he had great fighters like Lewis and Tyson in his division. Holmes would probably beat Bruno and would definately be champion if he was around now but he just wasnt as good as Lewis, Tyson or Holyfield which was a much stronger period of heavyweights. Foreman, Liston and Marciano would also beat him.

Yeh, let's ignore the fact that Holmes, at the tail end of his career, fought a prime 1988 Tyson whereas Lewis was in his 1998-2002 prime and fought a shot busted-flush version of Tyson, 14 yrs + a couple of divorces + a prison term after he beat Holmes.

Gordy wrote:Lewis would beat Holmes comfortably. He was a better boxer in every way, he had a stronger mentality and was a cooler customer. Holmes was not able to beat Tyson and Holyfield and Lewis beat them easily. I know the first fight with Holyfield was scored a draw but it was one of the worst decisions ever. Lewis would knock Holmes out at about the halfway stage. He would start with the jab early and then gradually start upping the pressure.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on these boards. Gordy you should leave. You know nothing about boxing. This is the stick you're using to measure with?

I swear, you're either retarded or just a WUM.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

Gordy wrote:Lewis would beat Holmes comfortably. He was a better boxer in every way, he had a stronger mentality and was a cooler customer. Holmes was not able to beat Tyson and Holyfield and Lewis beat them easily. I know the first fight with Holyfield was scored a draw but it was one of the worst decisions ever. Lewis would knock Holmes out at about the halfway stage. He would start with the jab early and then gradually start upping the pressure.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on these boards. Gordy you should leave. You know nothing about boxing. This is the stick you're using to measure with?

I swear, you're either retarded or just a WUM.

Retarded WUM, maybe?