That does not change the fact that Louis was humiliatingly ko'd late in his career. Deal with it.
That does not change the fact that Louis was humiliatingly ko'd late in his career. Deal with it.
Holmes could have retired after the Spinks fights and never fought again. I don't see how his decision to fight on has any bearing on his ability or lack thereof. Jack Johnson continued fighting into his fifties. This does not mean he was anywhere close to his prime during the later years.
How many of those fights did Holmes lose? PeteLeo.
actually charles was only 32 and he was still a great fighter and still very fast when he fought marciano despite being past his prime. the charles of the first marciano fight was a damm tough fighter to beat, he fought one of the best preformances of his career in that one. ill take that version of charles against any of holmes title reign opponents and pick charles over themOriginally Posted by fatcity
walcott and moore were 38, but these guys were late bloomers who got better with age. both film and there records suggest they were near there prime when they fought marciano(in walcotts case the first time around)
ill defintiley take at/near prime walcott of first marciano fight over any of holmes title reign opponents
ill take moore over most if not all of holmes title reign opponents. moore dominated big skilled contenders like bob baker and nino valdes who would have quite concievably been alhpa champs during holmes era
Holmes wins were over a very undistinguished bunch. The guys he beat were not top level opponnents. He had one noteworthy win post-Tyson but everything else fails to impress me. These heavyweights would obviously beat an average guy of the streets but they were clearly not top contenders.
Walcott's only significant win came against Charles. Other than that fight he is know for his losses.
i think ur mistaken here HE grant, with all due respect to ur good knowledge of boxing history
dont buy into the bullshit how walcott was this nothing journeyman who happened to get a shot at joe louis in 1947. thats bull.
WALCOTT IN FACT CLEANED OUT THE HW DIVISION from 45-47 thus earning his shot at the heavyweight title. walcott beat 7 top 10 rated fighters from 1945-47 and he clearly established his right to fight for the title by beating #1 and # 2 ranked HW contenders elmer ray and jimmy bivins.
walcott beat IMO and many others 1947 joe louis, who though past his prime was still defintley a great fighter and a big man(213lb). that version of louis 46-48 was still a great fighter and much better than the louis who came back in 1950. like holyfield-lewis I, it was a robbery. this is a huge good mark on walcotts record being able to handle louis like that
also walcott beat mant other dangerous top rated contenders like Hall of famers harold johnson, joey maxim, and jimmy bivins who were all in there primes.
walcott also beat other dangerous contenders elmer ray, curtis hatchetman sheppard, joe baksi, tommy gomez, willie reddish, lee Q murray,
and solid fringe contenders lee oma, omelio agramonte, hein ten hoff, ollie tandberg, huge punching lorenzo pack
jimmy bivins, elmer ray are top 50 heavyweights of all time or at least IMO. i view ray as one of the most underated heavyweights of all time(hes top 30 IMO).
- lee Q murray was one of the best contenders of the 1940s and a damm underated world class heavyweight who would do well in any era. murray has a case for top 50 heavyweight of all time as well.
- think about this....walcott virtually beat 5 hall of famers johnson, maxim, charles,louis(robbery), and bivins. DAMM IMPRESSIVE
- IMO he beat 4 top 50 heavyweights of all time like joe louis, ezzard charles, jimmy bivins, elmer ray thats a solid HW resume alone, and when u add all the other contenders he beat its adds up to a great win resume.
not to mention he nearly beat a peak version of ATG rocky marciano
* plus walcott beat a lot of different styles. he beat skilled big men, he beat great all around fighters, he beat slick master boxers, he beat deadly punchers, he beat strong swarming brawlers, etc
so wins over very good/great fighters like joe louis(robbery), ezzard charles, harold johnson, joey maxim, jimmy bivins, elmer ray, lee Q murray
and other good solid fighters like hatchetman sheppard, joe baksi, lee oma, hein ten hoff, omelio agramonte, tommy gomez, willie reddish
that makes a damm fine WIN resume, one of the better ones in HW history
Last edited by Elmer Ray; 06-26-2006 at 02:38 PM.
sorry to veer off topic, back to holmes......... i rate himn # 4 greatest heavyweight of all time. he has the credentials and overall skill to be in top 5, but i cant possibly see him being in top 2 heavyweights of all time over louis or ali.
my biggest critisim of holmes is that he wasted many of his title defenses fighting average competition when he could have replaced them with top guys like gerrie coetzee, michael dokes, pinklon thomas, greg page, tony tubbs, ALL alhpa champs/top contenders holmes never managed to fight during his title reign.
how come holmes never fought pinklon in 1984-85 right after pinklon beat witherspoon easier than holmes did and pinklon was undefeated at his peak
As for Louis-Marciano, Joe was much further down the trail as a fighter when Rocky got him than Holmes was with Tyson. Look at how they reacted following the KO losses: Larry had a number of decent and occasionally inspiring fights (such as against Mercer and his very close efforts with Holyfield and McCall), while Louis retired. And Joe still went twice as many rounds with Rocky as Larry did with Mike.
as cojimar said. louis was soundily whipping good heavyweights/ranked contenders before he fought marciano. holmes wasnt.
sure u can say just 2 years prior to tyson fight, holmes basically beat a great fighter in michael spinx but was robbed proving that the holmes(who fought tyson) was not far removed from the man who basically beat spinx
but then i can turn around and say louis just 3 years prior to marciano fight knocked out ATG jersey joe walcott who was better than spinx. so as u see, it doesnt work like that.
whats the difference betwee holmes loss to holyfield and louis loss to charles? both lost wide decisions. difference is louis managed to badly bust up charles face while holmes never managed to do that vs holyfield
but i agree with u overall.sure holmes proved how much he had left years later when he outpointed mercer and gave holy a tough fight. but i cant see how louis was more gone than holmes was when both fought tyson and marciano
The talent level of Holmes opposition during his reigngenerally outweighes the level of opposition that the likes of Johnson, Dempsey, Marcinao and Louis fought... many of Louis defences were against very poor opposition... only Ali's title reign opposition compares to Holmes imo...Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945
Fatcity I find that hard to believe .
Johnson - Choynski, Jeffries , McVey , Jeannette , Jackson , langford
Dempsey - willard , carpentier , Brennan , Tunney , Sharkey , Gibbons
Louis - Sharkey , Braddock , carnera , schmeling, conn , walcott ,
I think we tend to under rate past eras
Originally Posted by fatcity
disagree with ur assertion on joe louis. he beat better competition than holmes IMO.
many of Louis defences were against very poor opposition...
not as bad as some of holmes defenses
Originally Posted by iskigoe
ur forgetting louis beat max baer
max was on my list don't know how I forgot him . But the lists could go on and on . When you see the pictures in these new threads it almost looks like fighters in the past were in better shape , did you see barbados walcott or gans . Those guys could go 40 rds and fight or get beat down .No ref stopping for a bloody nose . No big money ,fight or starve . Joe louis said Canera could beat most fighters in the 60's maybe even be champ.
Charles was a very good fighter but he was only a small cruiserweight. Holmes era featured much bigger heavyweights with considerable skills.
Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945
charles was a great fighter with legendery skills
holmes beat on much bigger heavyweights, but none of them came close to matching the skill level of ezzard charles. charles would have defintley beaten all holmes title opponents IMO
charles may be small, but hes not going to lose to a bigger man unless that big man is an all time great big man like a liston, ali, holmes, etc
You cant compare the two, ... Johnson didnt fight for the world title again in his mid-40s and give a good account of himself against two champions in their prime... he also didnt beat a rated contender at 40+ either!. Surely Holmes post Tyson career shows the mans intelligence and skill at being able to mix it and beat men young enougth to be his sons... to just dismiss this is misguided....Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945
I viewed the re-run of Tyson vrs Holmes on Espn Classic last week.
Holmes looked a full step and a half behind in it then he did just a few years earlier.
Also noticed in my opinon,that Mike Tyson could not body punch as hard as Rocky Marciano.
"Surely Holmes post Tyson career shows the mans intelligence and skill at being able to mix it and beat men young enougth to be his so...".
Yet at the same time, Holmes's moderate success in his final comeback (in his 40's and 50's) should not be an indication that he was anywhere near his prime. It speaks to his overall skillset, intelligence and greatness, but it doesn't mean that becuase he fought until he was in his 50's that when he lost to Spinks and Tyson in his mid to late 30's that he was THEN anywhere near his best.
His prime (if not necessarily his peak) eneded at the end of 1983. Given the two cancelled bouts in 84 (Tate and Coetzee), THAT year pretty much was a waste and a momentum killer, as he only got in the ring once with Bonecrusher (with a broken thumb) late in the year. His last shining performance was rounds 5-10 against Bey in early 85.
The Two Spinks bouts were past his prime. THe Tyson bout was past his prime, after a long layoff, with only short time to prepare agianst an excellent fighter at the very peak of his game.
Holmes stated that he never wanted to get in the ring with Tyson? Well right after the win over Larry, Mike said he himself would not have stood a chance with a prime Holmes. Read what one wants into the spoken word by fighters. History has shown us they don't carry a whole lot of weight.
As far as the comparison with Johnson post championship? I see many similarities. Johnson never got a shot at the title agian, and Larry did. But given how much he was loathed and the mere fact that NO balck fighter was given a shot at the title for another 22 years after Willard beat Johnson, even if Jack had as much in his 40's as Larry did, it is doubtful he would have sniffed a title shot.
Bottom line, I don't denigrate Johnson for waht happened to him well after his prime had faded and I wouldn't elevate Larry for moderate success agianst a Ray Mercer (who lets remember folks, LOST to Jesse Fergusson) and extending Holyfield with his guile and smarts and nearly upsetting the unremarkable McCall. Nice late career showings for Larry. But they weren't anything that made me think I shoudl reevaluate his standing among the greats or think he still had "it".
"It" being what he had at his very best. Which in the late 80's or early 90's, he did NOT have.
Holmes competition during his reign was not particularly good but I was talking about the competition he beat post-Tyson which was much less impressive.
Holmes did miss out on fighting guys like Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner, Jimmy Young, George Foreman, Michael Dokes, etc. whom he theoretically could have fought.
Please don't anyone confuse this with Holmes "ducking" or avoiding these guys, which he did not.
Let's recall that Pre-title Holmes faced Roy WIlliams when absolutely NO ONE wanted anything to do with him. ANd Larry got a chicken feed purse and a broken right hand for his efforts.
Did you know that there is less then a years difference in the age
of Larry Holmes and George Foreman?
i think I rember Holmes saying in a television interview he was just biding his time for the heavyweights of the Golden Age to beat each other's career out of one another and or get old,then move in for the world title against whoever was left.
between the two.
That said, Foreman's career started after he won Gold in the 68 Olympics. Holmes lost in the 72 trials and thus began his career a full 4 years behind Foreman's.
Larry turned Pro in March of 73'. In January of that same Year, Foreman was beating Frazier for the title.
1977 was the year Holmes became a legit title threat. Which is the same year George was upset by Jimmy Young and then retired.
Young who had beaten Foreman in 77 (following a year in which a lost a close but IMO far duke to Ali and beating Ron Lyle) and then lost a c-hair duke to Norton in thier title eliminator bout (retroactively a bout for the WBC belt) Lost his next two bouts, one of them being to Ossie Ocasio on the Holmes Norton undercard.
Don't see how Holmes Foreman comes off unless George didn't "see God" and don't see how Holmes Young comes off unless Young doesn't drop consecutive dukes to Jaws.
Johnson was not given another shot at the title so we don't know how he would have done. Holmes only beat one top contender post-Tyson. This is not enough to impress me. All his other victims were not top guys.
I think Holmes should have stepped up in competition much earlier. He might have been the best heavyweight in the world as early circa 1975. Fights against top-level heavyweights in 75-77 could have helped his legacy.
Opportunity strikes those who are in a position to strike.
Management plays a HUGE role in obtaining that opportunity.
1975 is an unrealistic year for Larry to have been stepping up the Opp as it was essentially his second year as a pro and he did NOT have any significant promotional ties nor was he alligned with a manager or trainer of significance who could have provided him with such opportunities.
The Williams win in early 76 should have been a lauching pad for initial noteriety. But Holmes broke his right hand and was shelved for 9 months. And momentum gained then was absolutely lost.
Don King who got Larry under contract in 76' didn't think much of Holmes and really didn't put him in line to acheive anything until 1977 when he got the bout with Shavers.
COULD Holmes, with better management and a promoter who had his best interests in mind have afforded Larry the Opportunity to step it up earlier in his career, HAD Holmes ALSO not broken his hand in April of 76'?
DIdn't work out that way for Larry. Don't you think Larry would have wanted the bigger paydays rather than toiling in obscurity?
SHOULD Marvin Hagler been given a title shot a bit earlier than 1979? Abosolutely. Didn't work out that way.
I wish I understood what PeteLeo was trying to say. That way I could try to respond. It's like one long run on paragraph ...
I personally do not think Holmes had a chin as good as Ali did. Holmes however had an excellent chin. I don't know what else to say about who hit who harder. How the hell are we to know, we were not hit. From the film I saw the shot Tyson hit Holmes with was much morew flush that the shot Shavers hit Ali with.
Whatever, no body knows like PeteLeo knows !!!
Maybe you should have accepted the chance at those remedial reading classes in hi skool, Granny.
A simple point, one that I outlined in the very first post that brought it up: late in their respective careers, both Ali and Holmes met ferocious punchers at or near their primes (Ali = Frazier, Foreman, and -- I think he fought his best fight against Ali for the title -- Shavers; Holmes = Tyson). Holmes was crushed and KO'd early; no one ever did the same to Ali. As I said, this is but one small (check your thesaurus, as "small" means "of modest or minute size, not large") factor in deciding who really was "the Greatest" (you know, referring back to the title of this thread).
Somehow, this observation exploded into debates about how near death Holmes was even going in against Tyson, how his career following the Tyson fight was a pile of steaming shit against worthless stumblebums, how Frazier, Foreman, and Shavers couldn't dent soap bubbles in comparison to the all-mighty Tyson, and on and on like that.
All I said and all I meant was that in sizing up Ali and Holmes, one was destroyed in short order by a smaller guy and one wasn't. Yeah, I believe Ali was closer to "the Greatest" than Holmes was, but there are other reasons for this evaluation in addition to the Tyson Factor.
Clear enough for you, poor little guy? Maybe we'll try it with stick figure pictures next time? (No offense, just having some fun after a long day.) PeteLeo (whoops! don't read that last part!).
First off, I get it now. Secondly, you have good points. Really can't argue (damn!!!)
Joe Louis was more dominant in his prime than Ali was and made a record 25 title defenses but if you judge him like Holmes than he cannnot be considered the greatest. I think it is a bit silly to judge fighters based on losses that occurred when they were past their prime.
Besides if we agree that a 38 year old Ali would be badly beaten by Tyson (as I certainly suspect is the case) than Holmes loss does not look so bad in comparison.
I would agree that Shavers hit harder than Tyson yet it is worth noting that Holmes beat Shavers yet lost to Tyson. Holmes ability to come back from Shavers shots did not guarantee that he would not be ko'd by the lighter hitting Tyson.
Just a couple of points to wrap this up:
Holmes was a younger 38 than Ali. People age differently (Dempsey was shot by his early thirties), out of the ring activities impact upon ring longevity (like Dempsey, Ali was no saint in his private life), and the earlier introduction to the pro ring helped to hasten Muhammad's deterioration.
The younger, fresher closer to his prime Holmes who beat Shavers would -- in MY opinion, okay? -- have had a damned good chance of beating Tyson. That's probably going to start an entirely new, outraged thread, so goodnight, y'all. PeteLeo.