I was wondering because I have him at number three behind Louis and Ali

Larry Holmes was a very good fighter who was taught his trade by sparring with the great heavyweights of the 70s Ali, Frazier & Lyle he had great trainers in his corner like Eddie Futch, Freddie Brown & Ray Arcel for the big fight with Gerry Cooney.. Holmes often fought on his toes trying to replicate Muhammad Ali but he was a far better boxer when fighting flat-footed.. Holmes won the title then made around 20 defences against mostly lower-class fighters, he is without doubt a fighter who should make the tail-end of most top 10 heavyweight lists and is far superior to any champion of the last 10yrs..... IMO he is rated No9

Holmes was a great fighter but he came straight after Ali and was judged by Ali's standards . If he had his time later he would have been recognised as a greater champion . A deffinate to 10er.

Yeh i have him at number 3! Shame he is over looked by many, he had a great career. Had possibly the best jab ever in the Heavyweight division and 20 defences of the title. As many have said in other threads, living in Alis shadow didnt help, neither did his attitude. But for me he is right up there.

Number 3 to me too.

I feel bad for the guy, he came into his own right after the era of Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, so really the only top profile guys from that era he got to fight were Ken Norton and Ernie Shavers. Top 5, anyone that has him lower than 10 is a hater.

Definite top 10. Had a fantastic jab, great heart and was driven by his perception of being under appreciated and being in Ali's shadow. I would love to have seen him and Foreman get it on in the late 1970's, or a mid 70's showdown with Frazier.

I was wondering because I have him at number three behind Louis and Alihave you ever heard of holyfield,foreman,tyson,and a slew of others,holmes is around the 100 mark:boxing:

Let's all be unoriginal and parrot what others have been saying for over twenty years and talk about how Larry Holmes lived in Muhammad Ali's shadow and how unappreciated and underrated Larry Holmes is.

Larry Holmes took a prime Ray Mercer to school and former top heavyweight MMGAY fighter Tim Sylvia got knocked out in nine seconds by a washed up,near 50 year old Ray Mercer.....that's all you need to know.

Holmes at number 2 for me after Ali. I wouldn't confidently pick anyone to beat prime Holmes. I'd give prime Tyson or Bowe a fair chance but not Lewis, Louis, Rocky, Holyfield or Foreman.

I rate him that highly...

I have him ranked as the 5th greatest heavyweight of all-time.

My list changes frequently but here it is....

12. frazier
11. Dempsey
10. Marciano
9. Holyfield
8. Liston
7. Tyson
6. Foreman
5. Lewis
4. Johnson
3. Holmes
2. Ali
1. Louis

If you rank the heavyweights by skill and accomplishments he belongs in the top 3 0r 4. If you rank by popularity maybe not.

My list changes frequently but here it is....

12. frazier
11. Dempsey
10. Marciano
9. Holyfield
8. Liston
7. Tyson
6. Foreman
5. Lewis
4. Johnson
3. Holmes
2. Ali
1. Louis

why is marciano so low? he was a more accomplished HW than Liston, and Tyson

In the top 10, second half of.

It's a shame he was sandwiched between Ali and Tyson really.

why is marciano so low? he was a more accomplished HW than Liston, and Tyson

Both faced better prime fighters than Rocky, in my opinion. Liston in particular thoroughly cleaned out the top 10 and was till made to wait for a shot at the title. He should have been champ in 1958. Tysons wins over Spinks and Holmes are on par with Rocky's biggest wins and he was the youngest man to ever capture a heavyweight title. That to me says more than Rocky's 49-0. Funny thing is.....I'm a bigger fan by far of the Rock than I am either Tyson or Liston. Its just the way I see it.

Both faced better prime fighters than Rocky, in my opinion. Liston in particular thoroughly cleaned out the top 10 and was till made to wait for a shot at the title. He should have been champ in 1958. Tysons wins over Spinks and Holmes are on par with Rocky's biggest wins and he was the youngest man to ever capture a heavyweight title. That to me says more than Rocky's 49-0. Funny thing is.....I'm a bigger fan by far of the Rock than I am either Tyson or Liston. Its just the way I see it.

I'd like to comment that Spinks was out of action for a year and Holmes for nearly two years.

I'd like to comment that Spinks was out of action for a year and Holmes for nearly two years.

Very true. would you say that is comparative to the wear and tear Ezzard Charles had on him at the time he faced Marciano? Or the age and amount of fights Joe Walcott and Archie Moore had when they fought Rocky?

Very true. would you say that is comparative to the wear and tear Ezzard Charles had on him at the time he faced Marciano? Or the age and amount of fights Joe Walcott and Archie Moore had when they fought Rocky?

Charles and Walcott were both ranked in the top 10, when Marciano fought them. Moore was the reigning light heavyweight champion. Plus, they were all active.

Charles and Walcott were both ranked in the top 10, when Marciano fought them. Moore was the reigning light heavyweight champion. Plus, they were all active.

Charles was at the end of a long career that saw him take on some of the best fighters in history. Had it been 5 or 6 years earlier Ezzard may very well had won. Walcott was 38 and 39 and in his 70th and 71st fights, his last fights. Moore was 39 with well over 150 at that time I believe.

I am not trying to discredit Rocky, the man was great. But I think Tyson edges him by a few spots. Spinks was the lineal heavyweight champ at the time and the man who stopped Holmes from breaking Marciano's record (though controversially) and Holmes I would bet was still a top 10 fighter at the time and better than the 38 year old version of Walcott. When I combine this as well as the fact that Tyson was the youngest titlist ever.....it becomes my opinion that he edges Rocky all time. That isn't even taking in how I think they match up head to head.

Louis
Ali
Johnson
Wills
Holmes

#5

Charles was at the end of a long career that saw him take on some of the best fighters in history. Had it been 5 or 6 years earlier Ezzard may very well had won. Walcott was 38 and 39 and in his 70th and 71st fights, his last fights. Moore was 39 with well over 150 at that time I believe.

I am not trying to discredit Rocky, the man was great. But I think Tyson edges him by a few spots. Spinks was the lineal heavyweight champ at the time and the man who stopped Holmes from breaking Marciano's record (though controversially) and Holmes I would bet was still a top 10 fighter at the time and better than the 38 year old version of Walcott. When I combine this as well as the fact that Tyson was the youngest titlist ever.....it becomes my opinion that he edges Rocky all time. That isn't even taking in how I think they match up head to head.

Charles was the number two ranked heavyweight. Walcott was the legitimate champion, after beating Charles twice. Moore was the reigning light heavyweight champion and the number one ranked contender, in the year he fought Marciano.

Ranking Tyson ahead of Marciano is debatable but understandable. I can see why you would. I was just commenting on this:

"Tysons wins over Spinks and Holmes are on par with Rocky's biggest wins"

Charles was the number two ranked heavyweight. Walcott was the legitimate champion, after beating Charles twice. Moore was the reigning light heavyweight champion and the number one ranked contender, in the year he fought Marciano.

This to me is an indication of just how weak the era was when you take the factors I pointed out into consideration.

Ranking Tyson ahead of Marciano is debatable but understandable. I can see why you would. I was just commenting on this:

"Tysons wins over Spinks and Holmes are on par with Rocky's biggest wins"

It's ALL debatable my friend. I could just as easily make an argument going the other direction, but this is what my heart and head tells me is right. I wouldn't ask everyone to agree, only to understand the logic behind my argument. Peace.

It's ALL debatable my friend. I could just as easily make an argument going the other direction, but this is what my heart and head tells me is right. I wouldn't ask everyone to agree, only to understand the logic behind my argument. Peace.

True. I just felt that you were really discrediting Marciano.

True. I just felt that you were really discrediting Marciano.

Not at all my friend. Marciano is one of my favorite fighters ever. Pure heart and determination. Plus he's Italian, just like me. :fing02:

If you look at the HW title in the 20th century and the dominant fighters I always think:
Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Marciano
Ali
Holmes
Tyson
I think Holmes sits very well in that company