Was Larry Holmes….”The Greatest”?

[Mr E]

The high ranking of Jeffries with such certainty amazes me...he only beat one top heavyweight in his career that was in his prime and that was the 185 pound Sharkey. There is so little film of him....Corbett was old, Fitz and Choynski were middleweights ..

I personally believe that Paul Bunyon was the best...this is on only a slightly biggger leap than Jeffries...

Oh, I don't know. Jeffries bounced Hank Griffin around like a basketball -- the same Hank Griffin who went undeafeated in 3 fights against Jack Johnson the very next year. Fitz, like Jersey Joe Walcott, seems to have been better as a light-heavyweight in his 30s than he was as a middleweight in his 20s, and he was an all-time great, in a pound-for-pound sense, according to pretty much everyone. You could argue that Jeffries had less trouble with him than Joe Louis did with a similarly-sized Billy Conn. As for Corbett's being over-the-hill, that's a little hard to tell. He was 34, that's true, but most eye-witness accounts credit him with being better on that night than at any other time in his career. Thus, the blind assumption that Jeffries beat a 'diminished' version of Corbett may not be justified.

That said, however, I still like the Easton Assassin, who I believe is very severely under-rated by the boxing community. A great great heavyweight with the brains and the heart to match his considerable physical gifts.

[thumper3852]

I think you are penalizing Holmes for something that he had no control over; in regards to competition.

It's not about a penalty, it's about bestowing the title of greatest.....there has to be some basis for comparison, one of them happens to be competition. the Beys/Greens/Ocasio's/LeDoux don't stand up well and the performances against some others hurt the argument as well.

I personally think Holmes ranks pretty high and was a great fighter (great gets thrown around too easily imo, but for Larry it fits).....but there's a huge difference between great and "greatest". His accomplishments just don't get him into Ali's territory, and I think Holmes would be the first to admit that.

As for the pre exile and post exile version of Ali.......what really needs considered in that regard is that there was any exile at all; its so obvious as to its effects on his career and it robbed the boxing world of ever really knowing the true extent of his prime talent. Split Larry's career like that and I wonder what kind of fighter we would be discussing.

[bodyblow]

Larry Holmes is so overrated its beyond comprehension. I also dont like the idea that because Holmes was 33 we should just toss out anything he did after that because he was milking the title. Since when is that an excuse for not judging a fighters career more harshly? Holmes had plenty of help maintaining his status from the sanctioning organizations and Don King. Several fights could have easily gone the other or continued after crappy biased stoppages. I have an old magazine from the eighties called Lou Sahadis boxing scene. In that back a someone writes in to ask Larry Holmes the question of why hes chasing Rocky Marcianos record by fighting a bunch of bums. Holmes admits it and says hes a business man and his business is to make as much money without getting hurt and as long as he can get paid for fighting subpar competition thats exactly what he will do. That came from the horses mouth and that pretty much sums up his career. I mean look at his biggest fights. He wins a piece of the title from an againg Ken Norton who was probably on the lower rung of the seventies heavyweights. He goes life and death with a then unknown clubfighter in Mike Weaver, he went life and death with unproven Gerry Cooney who other than being born white hadnt done a whole lot before or after. Won gifts over Witherspoon, Smith, Williams, etc. Got controversial stoppages over Snipes and Weaver in fights where he was hurt just as badly as those fighters were earlier in the fight. Refused, absolutely refused to face other title holders and even helped with the proliferation of belts but giving up his original title to endorse the IBF. You could go on and on but his career while definately having some high points absolutely had a hell of a lot of serious lows.

[OMG65]

Ken Norton on the lower rung of the 70's heavyweights with the likes of Coopman,Blinn,Wepner,Bobick???Or Ken Norton on the level with Lyle,Young or Shavers?Please clarify.
Ok so Larry had some rough spots but Joe Louis had some too.It's inevitible with 20 title defenses.

[bodyblow]

Id put Norton below Lyle, Young, and Shavers seeing as how Shavers destroyed him, as would have Lyle, and Young lost a gift decision Norton. Lets face it Norton made his name off breaking an out of shape, ill-prepared, and stylistically mismatched Ali's jaw.

[HE Grant]

Bodyblow proves you can put a spin on anything...

[The Shoemaker]

You're missing the point on Norton. Norton's a bitch for boxers, who are not powerful punchers. If he is coming forward against a boxer and Norton's not intimidated, then he can be murder (all three Ali fights, Young, and Holmes). Norton also has a deadly body attack and is an awkward fighter (he had that cross-over crab like stance that caused Ali and Holmes to misjudge him (he's 6-3), and reach for his head allowing Norton to counter them. If Norton's fighting a big hitter or gets forced back he's done. Personally, I scored Norton-Holmes, 9-6 Holmes (I also gave Young an 8-6-1 win over Kenny) but I'll admit that Norton is tough on boxers.

Jeeze, have you ever heard the saying "styles make fights" ? A lot of guys went the distance with or gave tough matches to Hollyfield; the same guys would have been blown away by Tyson, yet Hollyfield beat Tyson twice (don't give me the excuses, Hollyfield was more shot than Tyson when they fought). i can give you tons of other examples. just because fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats fighter C, doesn't mean fighter A is going to beat fighter C.

Holmes and Ali wern't heavy handed, therefore they are going to have problems with Norton. IT's THE MATCH-UP !!

[HE Grant]

No way Shoe ... If A beats B and B beats C than A kicks C's ass all the time....don't you get it ?

[rocky111]

Let Larry Holmes comment about Rocky Marciano sink in on Rocky and let him prepare for this fight. Let Larry Holmes feel the pain. Let him in for fifteen rounds with Rocky Marciano, a Rocky intent on destruction. Then you can forget about height and weight and all the bull. Then wed see who carries whose jock....
Larry was a champ in every way, but hes no lock against Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott and as for Sonny Liston...... Well comon now.

[Mr E]

You're missing the point on Norton. Norton's a bitch for boxers, who are not powerful punchers. If he is coming forward against a boxer and Norton's not intimidated, then he can be murder (all three Ali fights, Young, and Holmes). Norton also has a deadly body attack and is an awkward fighter (he had that cross-over crab like stance that caused Ali and Holmes to misjudge him (he's 6-3), and reach for his head allowing Norton to counter them. If Norton's fighting a big hitter or gets forced back he's done. Personally, I scored Norton-Holmes, 9-6 Holmes (I also gave Young an 8-6-1 win over Kenny) but I'll admit that Norton is tough on boxers.

Jeeze, have you ever heard the saying "styles make fights" ? A lot of guys went the distance with or gave tough matches to Hollyfield; the same guys would have been blown away by Tyson, yet Hollyfield beat Tyson twice (don't give me the excuses, Hollyfield was more shot than Tyson when they fought). i can give you tons of other examples. just because fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats fighter C, doesn't mean fighter A is going to beat fighter C.

Holmes and Ali wern't heavy handed, therefore they are going to have problems with Norton. IT's THE MATCH-UP !!

Norton was not, in my view, a great fighter. He did not have the ability to deal with the really big hitters. Foreman and Shavers killed him and I believe Frazier and Lyle would have done likewise.

Against boxer/movers, he was much more successful, but a boxer with heart and stamina who was willing to hang in there and compete for all 12 or 15 rounds could also beat him. IMO, Holmes beat him by a wider margin than the scorecards indicated and Young beat him as well.

As for the Ali trilogy, I think Norton benefited greatly from not having met the Ali of 1967, who would, I believe, have beaten him a mile. As it stood, the Ali of the first fight was, let's say slightly past his prime, certainly out of shape, suffering from extreme pain in his hands going in, and suffered what was probably a fluke broken jaw in the 2nd round. Norton got the decision, and deservedly so, but the fight was close. For the rematch, Ali was in better shape and his jaw was not reinjured, but he was still a step slower than the Ali of old and he was still suffering from the pain in his hands (which was evidently gotten under control for the Frazier rematch -- all this about the hands according to the Durham "auto"biography and an interview Dundee gave once). Ali got that nod, which I believe was fair.

The 3rd fight could have gone either way, but Ali was completely shot. Even so, you have to say that Ali manned-up in a big way reeling Norton back in after losing 6 of the first 7 rounds or whatever it was. IMO, a prime fighter in shape freezing down the stretch of a championship fight like that is inexcusable. Whether the old guy earned the nod or not, that was one HELL of a performance in crunch time and really shows you that Muhammad Ali had the heart of a champion. Norton had age and style on him, but couldn't close the door.

But Norton's shortcomings do not affect Holmes's all-time standing. Norton still had the style designed to give Holmes the most trouble and Holmes beat him with an injured arm.

Weaver caused Holmes some serious trouble for a while there, but he caused lots of people serious trouble. The guy was a top 10, maybe a top 5 fighter for a decade. Holmes got caught with a couple big shots from a prime time puncher, manned up, and took him OUT. What the Hell? Great fight.

The Snipes KD came from a nice shot, but take another look at the film (I did last night). Holmes got right up-- the punch didn't affect him at all after that and he won every other second of that fight. Except for the KD, it was a complete wax-job.

Spoon, a 'mere' 15 fight 'novice' or not, was NEVER as good as he was on the night he fought Holmes, and Holmes was already past his prime by then. I think Holmes underestimated Spoon going in, as well, but the bottom line is that Holmes won a tough fight against a super talented fighter on the one night in his career in which he lived up to his potential. Bravo.

Yeah, you could argue that he wasn't any too anxious to get into the ring with Greg Page, Michael Dokes or Pinklon Thomas, but, with the exception of Ali, Charles and Holyfield, you could say something similar about EVERY great champion.

IMO, the more film of Holmes you watch, the better he looks.

[HE Grant]

Norton won at least 11 rounds of the second Ali fight...Norton froze up against huge punchers but was hell for everyone else. He was big, strong, fast, well conditioned, had good defense, a huge reach and a damn good punch. When he lost to Holmes he was still the number heavyweight in the world. Norton may have benefited from not fighting the Ali of 67 or not. He would have been tough for any Ali. As it was, he was still hell for the Ali that beat Foreman and Frazier and Lyle and Shavers.

[JLP 6]

Showmaker if I may add a little input.

Do think Joe Louis is with hands too?

[fatcity]

Let Larry Holmes comment about Rocky Marciano sink in on Rocky and let him prepare for this fight. Let Larry Holmes feel the pain. Let him in for fifteen rounds with Rocky Marciano, a Rocky intent on destruction. Then you can forget about height and weight and all the bull. Then wed see who carries whose jock....
Larry was a champ in every way, but hes no lock against Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott and as for Sonny Liston...... Well comon now.

If a faded Charles could give Rocky so much trouble, including almost severeing his nose from his face, think about what a peak, faster and stronger Holmes would have done to him!... weight does come into it... Holmes was bigger and stronger than Charles, yet faster also... certainly faster than the Charles that fought Marcinao... I think Rocky would be feeling the pain of Holmes Jab in his face all night and this is a peak Holmes not a Charles, Walcott, louis or Moore pushing 40....

[Mr E]

Norton won at least 11 rounds of the second Ali fight...Norton froze up against huge punchers but was hell for everyone else. He was big, strong, fast, well conditioned, had good defense, a huge reach and a damn good punch. When he lost to Holmes he was still the number heavyweight in the world. Norton may have benefited from not fighting the Ali of 67 or not. He would have been tough for any Ali. As it was, he was still hell for the Ali that beat Foreman and Frazier and Lyle and Shavers.

Ali-Norton III will always be the subject of intense controversy and debate, and there's no question that opinions on that fight vary widely, but, in my humble opinion, no freakin' way in the world did Norton win 11 rounds -- "at least" or otherwise.

[wildhawke11]

Marciano's nose being really badly cut in that second fight by Charles i believe was in fact done accidentally with his elbow and not a punch.

Ali of course who we all know proclaimed himself as the greatest fighter ever and here we are discussing Larry Holmes as perhaps taking the crown on that one. We know of course that both of these could be and were beaten as pro fighters. The twist here though is the guy who was never beaten as a pro Marciano. Never said or pretended he was the greatest ever. Wonder if when all three meet in the world beyond will Rocky smile and ask Ali and Larry when the start mouthing off "How does it feels to lose a pro fight" Only jesting with you guys

As for Holmes being to big for Rocky and Charles a lot always make the same mistake when they compare fighters from the past against a more modern one. If Holmes had been around in there time he would not have had much weight advantage. On the other hand fast forward Rocky and Charles to Holmes time and of course they would have been a little bigger to. I think we have to keep that in mind.

Myself i think Holmes fits in nicely about half way up the top ten. Charles could be great MW, Best ever LHW and in the top twenty in the HWs. Personally i rate Ezzard Charles as one of the greatest P4P fighters ever at his peak and just beyond. Check out who this guy beat !!!! But of course as i always say "Thats just my opinion"

[PeteLeo]

I'm not trying to fan flames or start an entirely different gabfest, but one thing that I left out in my first post on this thread (way back there, I think it was #3 or 4) when I rated Ali and Louis over Holmes was the Tyson fight.
Save your breath, Holmes-ites, I understand that Larry was past it, had been in retirement, Mike was probably at his peak and may well have been a legit Top Ten All Timer at that point, etc., etc., etc. Taking all of this into account, we're still left with the sight of Holmes getting smeared all over the ring by a naturally smaller man. This never happened to Ali. If you compare Ali to Holmes at the point he fought Frazier the first time (older, slower, rusty, out for a long time, and like that), I think you have a representative comparison, if not a perfect one, yet Joe wasn't able to dominate Muhammad the way Tyson crunched Holmes. Perhaps Larry might have done better against Mike in a couple of rematches (a la Ali-Frazier II and III), but we'll never know because Holmes stated publically that he'd never fight Tyson again.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that Tyson was a great offensive fighter at that time, as well as a very good defensive one, but he wasn't then (nor was he ever) mentally an "iron" man. It seems to me that even a faded Holmes -- if he were truly "the Greatest" -- would have been able to recognize and exploit these weaknesses of grit and confidence. I have to wonder if the best Holmes (who himself fell apart against Bobick and Wells in the amateurs) would have been any more successful against peak Tyson or, by extention, peak Dempsey, Liston (Larry didn't like getting jabbed), Marciano, or Frazier (I pick the Frazier of Ali I over any Holmes).
Again, I realize that there were plenty of things working against Larry on that night, but it remains difficult for me to reconcile the image of "the Greatest" with a man going down to such ignominious defeat after reaching his mature powers. Ali didn't. Dempsey didn't. Louis . . . well, it took Marciano longer to break him down.
Just something to think about. PeteLeo.

[bodyblow]

The nose being cut by Charles was not an elbow. It was courtesy of a punch the landed perfectly on the tip of the nose (I think it was an uppercut). Not only is there a great photo of the punch landing but you can also clearly see it in the film.

[Mr E]

I'm not trying to fan flames or start an entirely different gabfest, but one thing that I left out in my first post on this thread (way back there, I think it was #3 or 4) when I rated Ali and Louis over Holmes was the Tyson fight.
Save your breath, Holmes-ites, I understand that Larry was past it, had been in retirement, Mike was probably at his peak and may well have been a legit Top Ten All Timer at that point, etc., etc., etc. Taking all of this into account, we're still left with the sight of Holmes getting smeared all over the ring by a naturally smaller man. This never happened to Ali. If you compare Ali to Holmes at the point he fought Frazier the first time (older, slower, rusty, out for a long time, and like that), I think you have a representative comparison, if not a perfect one, yet Joe wasn't able to dominate Muhammad the way Tyson crunched Holmes. Perhaps Larry might have done better against Mike in a couple of rematches (a la Ali-Frazier II and III), but we'll never know because Holmes stated publically that he'd never fight Tyson again.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that Tyson was a great offensive fighter at that time, as well as a very good defensive one, but he wasn't then (nor was he ever) mentally an "iron" man. It seems to me that even a faded Holmes -- if he were truly "the Greatest" -- would have been able to recognize and exploit these weaknesses of grit and confidence. I have to wonder if the best Holmes (who himself fell apart against Bobick and Wells in the amateurs) would have been any more successful against peak Tyson or, by extention, peak Dempsey, Liston (Larry didn't like getting jabbed), Marciano, or Frazier (I pick the Frazier of Ali I over any Holmes).
Again, I realize that there were plenty of things working against Larry on that night, but it remains difficult for me to reconcile the image of "the Greatest" with a man going down to such ignominious defeat after reaching his mature powers. Ali didn't. Dempsey didn't. Louis . . . well, it took Marciano longer to break him down.
Just something to think about. PeteLeo.

Wellllll... okay. I understand where you're coming from, but all the metaphysical analysis aside, Holmes got caught flush on the button with some HUGE shots -- and not just one at a time, either. Regardless of what else he was, Tyson was a GREAT puncher. Coming in from -- what? -- a 2-year lay-off at that age (37?) against a red-hot bomber like that was a pretty ambitious endeavor no matter how you slice it. And, I'll tell ya something else: IMO, had Larry made it 2 more rounds without getting clocked, he would have had a real shot at winning that fight.

I think Holmes beats either Frazier or Marciano. Dempsey or Louis? Much taller order-- I think I'd bet on the Mauler and the Bomber, respectively, but I wouldn't bet much.

Just my opinion, gentlemen.

[PeteLeo]

You know you can't go just by age, man. Ali was champ by 22 or 23, and how old was Larry when he even turned pro? The younger you start, the sooner you're washed up.
Not that either Holmes or Ali was totally "washed up," and both had nice victories following their losses to Tyson and Frazier. However, each was never again as good as his "pre-retirement" level.
If the comparison still rankles you, though, look at the Ali of the Shavers bout. He certainly was as far past it as Holmes against Tyson, and Shavers probably hit as hard or harder than Tyson, if not as quickly or as frequently. But you didn't see Muhammad falling like a rootless tree over and over. Certainly, it's not a perfect assessment of Larry's relative greatness (Tyson is among the very best opponents any champ ever faced), but it is something to take into account when rating the man. A declining Ali was never blown out like that, nor was Dempsey or Louis (he was in the fight with tank-like Marciano for more than half of the fight). It's just one of the facts that lead me to believe Holmes was a step or two below the elite of the division. PeteLeo.

[Mr E]

You know you can't go just by age, man. Ali was champ by 22 or 23, and how old was Larry when he even turned pro? The younger you start, the sooner you're washed up.
Not that either Holmes or Ali was totally "washed up," and both had nice victories following their losses to Tyson and Frazier. However, each was never again as good as his "pre-retirement" level.
If the comparison still rankles you, though, look at the Ali of the Shavers bout. He certainly was as far past it as Holmes against Tyson, and Shavers probably hit as hard or harder than Tyson, if not as quickly or as frequently. But you didn't see Muhammad falling like a rootless tree over and over. Certainly, it's not a perfect assessment of Larry's relative greatness (Tyson is among the very best opponents any champ ever faced), but it is something to take into account when rating the man. A declining Ali was never blown out like that, nor was Dempsey or Louis (he was in the fight with tank-like Marciano for more than half of the fight). It's just one of the facts that lead me to believe Holmes was a step or two below the elite of the division. PeteLeo.

Fair enough. I agree it's a factor to be considered. How much weight to accord that factor will differ with each analyst.

[brutu]

You know ,I use to believe it was Larry Holmes fault,
that he never fought Big John Tate,Michael Dokes,Gerrie Coetzee,Greg Page,
instead fought a lot of ham and eggers on network television usually.
However did you see larry Holmes on Neil Cavuto's show yesterday?
Neil Cavuto was b*tching about there being four current con-curent heavyweight champions today,
Well I think there was when Larry Holmes was champ too back in the day.
Now I believe its all Don King's fault.
Muhammad Ali left a big void,so he couldnt find one person,so he made them multyiplelized.

[rocky111]

Rocky won every round in the second Charles fight and when in danger of a stoppage he came through and koed Ezz. How many people could come through and ko a Ezzard Charles in a round when he had too, with the title on the line? Not too many guys. Ezz couldnt handle Larry Holmes? Compare those guys records and the quality of the guys they both beat. Ezz matches up. As far as Rocky eating Holmes jab, well i say Rocky gets under neath and bangs away. Holmes was no Tunney or Ali for legs and no Liston or Louis or Dempsey for power. He wasnt gonna push Rock or tire him out, thats for sure. He surely didnt beat any fighter that Rock couldnt handle also. But thats not the whole point-The point is CHARACTOR. Two different levels with these two guys. Rock would drown him........................

[HE Grant]

This is where I disagree with Rocky...Holmes had tremendous heart and exceptional character. Maybe he easily beats Marciano or maybe Marciano beats him like Rocky (writer) thinks...either senario is possible but to say Marciano wins because he has much greater levels of heart and character is simply not true. Each man had all time great levels of both.

[Mr E]

This is where I disagree with Rocky...Holmes had tremendous heart and exceptional character. Maybe he easily beats Marciano or maybe Marciano beats him like Rocky (writer) thinks...either senario is possible but to say Marciano wins because he has much greater levels of heart and character is simply not true. They both had all time great levels of them.

I think that's exactly right. Holmes and Marciano were both guys who would die to win. No "quit" in either man.

[jim]

well i never saw rocky scared of an opponet, and holmes was scared of tyson--and i never saw an old dempsey,luois, ali, get so scared and so blasted out. --charles and walcott rate higher to me than holmes-- too much class and experience as all as talent. imo

[fatcity]

Holmes was not scared of Tyson, I saw no evidence of that at all... he was simply out of shape and old having taken the fight on 6 weeks notice after being retired for 3 years.... the Holmes who fought Holifield and Mercer would have done much better against Tyson.
Larry had one of the biggest hearts of any champion I've seen, look at him vs Norton, Weaver, Shavers, Williams.... and to be brutal, Holmes didnt need to foul his opponents to death like Rocky did to win his fights... Rocky would have been disqualified in many of his title bouts had they been fought anywhere else, his treatment of Don Cockell especially was nothing short of outrageous!....

[fatcity]

Holmes was not scared of Tyson, I saw no evidence of that at all... he was simply out of shape and old having taken the fight on 6 weeks notice after being retired for 3 years.... the Holmes who fought Holifield and Mercer would have done much better against Tyson.
Larry had one of the biggest hearts of any champion I've seen, look at him vs Norton, Weaver, Shavers, Williams.... and to be brutal, Holmes didnt need to foul his opponents to death like Rocky did to win his fights... Rocky would have been disqualified in many of his title bouts had they been fought anywhere else, his treatment of Don Cockell especially was nothing short of outrageous!....

[HE Grant]

Jim: You base Walcott and Charles higher than Holmes based on what ?

Walcott's only significant win came against Charles. Other than that fight he is know for his losses.

Charles was a great middleweight and light heavyweight, a great fighter who was never at his prime at heavyweight. To say he was better than Holmes when Larry had size, strength, power and chin on him as well as at least equal hand speed, heart and stamina does not make any sense.

[HC05]

Ali-Norton III will always be the subject of intense controversy and debate, and there's no question that opinions on that fight vary widely, but, in my humble opinion, no freakin' way in the world did Norton win 11 rounds -- "at least" or otherwise.

I don't get why this fight is a source of controversy. IMO Ali won 5 rounds tops and I rank the decision as one of the worst ever given the magnitude of the fight.

[Cojimar 1945]

Holmes was never beaten in his prime and losses later in his career do not have any bearing on his abilities in his prime. His competition was not the most impressive but the fact that he was unbeaten in his prime still seems worth noting.