Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[QueensburyRules]

--- Dunno what the thunderdome is, but anyone can view the higher order dialogue Henry Hascup, Cane who was hurricane back then, and myself as LondonRingRules.

I gather quite a few have died out as did my service provider, hence my new name. I recently gave a tribute to Scott 9945 who was a regular until a couple years ago as one example of battles we waged at the high end of the original first boxing forum now defunct, aol.

Thanks for the warning and amen to that...

[GhostofDempsey]

Most Overrated: Larry Holmes

This isn't to say that Holmes wasn't a good fighter but he doesn't belong in anyone's top 10 HW's of all time. He really didn't fight anyone in their prime who was very good. In fact, he purposely ducked the best fighters later in his career. Let's look at some of his "signature" wins.

Shavers in '78 was 33 years old and had just lost to an OLD Ali. We're talking the Ali who lost to Leon Spinks(!) 5 months later. Shavers was well past his peak. More of a name at that point in his career than an actual contender.

He had an exciting fight against Norton a few months later but Norton was already 34 and would get KO'd by Shavers within a year.

I'm not even mentioning Ali in 1980, who was already showing signs of Parkinson's Disease. ****, he couldn't even end it quickly and Ali had to quit on his stool. Tyson at least blasted Holmes out of the ring in 4 when he was 38.

Mike Weaver? He couldn't beat Larry Frazier, never mind Joe Frazier or Larry Holmes.

Renaldo Snipes looked like a good win in '81 until he went 1-4-1 in his next 6.

Gerry Cooney was probably his signature win but let's face it, Cooney was never a top tier fighter. He made his "name" by fighting the same mid-to-late 30s guys that Holmes did. He needed ring time to perfect his skills and never got it. Big puncher but limited skills.

Tim Witherspoon was another good win, except Witherspoon had only 15 fights as a pro and lost a very controversial decision. Did Holmes offer a rematch? Nope, he ran like hell. This is a pattern too. Bonecrusher Smith after 15 fights. Carl Williams after 16. Marvis Frazier after 10. David Bey after 14. None of those guys had the experience to get in the ring with a Champion and frankly none of those guys should have been allowed to.

And those are the good ones. After that it gets ugly. David Bey? Marvis Frazier? Tex Cobb - the fight that made Howard Cosell quit boxing? Lucien Rodriguez? Lorenzo Zanon? What is this, Louis' bum of the month club? He ducked Page, ducked Thomas, Coetzee, the Witherspoon rematch, and Dokes. He claims it was over money but everyone knows he threw away the WBC belt to avoid Page. Might he have won those fights? Yes, and then he'd be a great champion. But he didn't.

Holmes' record is, quite literally, a list of has-beens and never-weres. Maybe that's a smart way to conduct the business of boxing but it doesn't make a great champion.

I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your post, rather than just say he was overrated, you broke down your reasoning. Can't say I fully agree with your assessment of Holmes though. Norton was still a game opponent, he got off to a late start in boxing (age 26) so he was a relatively young 34 when they fought.

Cooney was highly underrated, and Shavers was still very dangerous. Holmes suffered from being prime in between the Ali and Tyson era and he had no signature opponent to really launch his name. He had to follow the aura of Ali--a HW I find very much overrated myself and whose record I can break down in surgical detail along with the many gifts and favoritism he received.

[BattlingNelson]

--- Dunno what the thunderdome is, but anyone can view the higher order dialogue Henry Hascup, Cane who was hurricane back then, and myself as LondonRingRules.

I gather quite a few have died out as did my service provider, hence my new name. I recently gave a tribute to Scott 9945 who was a regular until a couple years ago as one example of battles we waged at the high end of the original first boxing forum now defunct, aol.

Thanks for the warning and amen to that...

Londonringrules? Really? I remember you and wondered why you suddenly stopped posting. Nice to see you back.

Hurricane is still here although not often. Hhascup ditto. I have t seen Scott in a while. From the old aol days jab is still around as is jreckoning although he rarely posts around these parts.

[Granath]

I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your post, rather than just say he was overrated, you broke down your reasoning. Can't say I fully agree with your assessment of Holmes though. Norton was still a game opponent, he got off to a late start in boxing (age 26) so he was a relatively young 34 when they fought.

Cooney was highly underrated, and Shavers was still very dangerous. Holmes suffered from being prime in between the Ali and Tyson era and he had no signature opponent to really launch his name. He had to follow the aura of Ali--a HW I find very much overrated myself and whose record I can break down in surgical detail along with the many gifts and favoritism he received.

No worries, I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I appreciate your polite response. I agree Holmes suffered being between Ali and Tyson - and I don't think he stood a chance against either in their primes - but it's all those fights he didn't make. It's not just nitpicking his record to death, it's the obvious things - the guys he ducked, the large number of defenses against guys with fewer than 20 wins - that just jump out. And it was all pretty common knowledge back then that when Holmes neared 40 in a row that he was hell-bent on getting to that magical 49-0 in the easiest way possible. He wasn't interested in finding or fighting that signature opponent.

He was, however, a tremendous businessman. He took safe fights and made a lot of money from those.

[HOUDINI563]

Experts rate Holmes highly for a reason. He demonstrated ATG characteristics of will to win, durability, heart multiple times (as did Ali) add to this an excellent skill set that few in his prime could conquer. Typically experts do not rate fighters highly unless it is deserved. As examples no one called Braddock, Sharkey, Carnera, Johansson, L Spinks ATG fighters. Conversely experts did bestow ATG status to Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc. Typically the decision of experts of the time stands true.

[Granath]

Experts rate Holmes highly for a reason. He demonstrated ATG characteristics of will to win, durability, heart multiple times (as did Ali) add to this an excellent skill set that few in his prime could conquer. Typically experts do not rate fighters highly unless it is deserved. As examples no one called Braddock, Sharkey, Carnera, Johansson, L Spinks ATG fighters. Conversely experts did bestow ATG status to Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc. Typically the decision of experts of the time stands true.

Thank you for the wonderful demonstration of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

[JAB5239]

Thank you for the wonderful demonstration of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

I think you have forgotten that between Ali and Tyson, Holmes was the only man able to retain a title. This in itself is why many fights did not get made. I've been told he ducked Coetzee. This is in fact untrue. You're also forgetting the stubbornness of the ABC orgs at the time and their unwillingness to not only not work with one another, but to not even recognize another champion in their respective top 10 the same as today but with less cooperation. Any way you look at it though, it takes a special fighter to get 20 successful defenses and Holmes talent shouldn't even be a question.

[Granath]

I think you have forgotten that between Ali and Tyson, Holmes was the only man able to retain a title. This in itself is why many fights did not get made. I've been told he ducked Coetzee. This is in fact untrue. You're also forgetting the stubbornness of the ABC orgs at the time and their unwillingness to not only not work with one another, but to not even recognize another champion in their respective top 10 the same as today but with less cooperation. Any way you look at it though, it takes a special fighter to get 20 successful defenses and Holmes talent shouldn't even be a question.

Nope, I haven't forgotten. Those are all points in his favor and I expect any of his defenders to bring those up. When it comes down to it he had to get into the ring and win those fights. That's why I've not said that Holmes wasn't talented or was a bum. He was a good fighter in a mediocre era who took measures to ensure he never fought anyone in their primes who could have a true threat.

But no one can dispute he fought inexperienced guys over better fighters, that he gave up a belt to duck Page and that his opposition was entirely underwhelming. Heck, it was discussed even back then: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/06...6935488174400/

I look at Holmes like I look at Calzaghe - great records but it's hard to measure them historically when they never measured themselves while fighting. It's tough to evaluate a guy with a lot of wins in an empty record. Are they Julio Cesar Chavez, who was knocked for beating "Mexican cab drivers" by some until he came to the US and proved he was an all time great? Or is it a guy who racked up soft win after win who was never that great (some would say Deonte Wilder is an example of this)?

Of course, it's fine to disagree. It's all opinion anyway. I also probably have some deep-seated bias against Holmes because he talked crap about Marciano and I'm from that same hometown even if my guy was Hagler and not the Rock.

[JAB5239]

Nope, I haven't forgotten. Those are all points in his favor and I expect any of his defenders to bring those up. When it comes down to it he had to get into the ring and win those fights. That's why I've not said that Holmes wasn't talented or was a bum. He was a good fighter in a mediocre era who took measures to ensure he never fought anyone in their primes who could have a true threat.

But no one can dispute he fought inexperienced guys over better fighters, that he gave up a belt to duck Page and that his opposition was entirely underwhelming. Heck, it was discussed even back then: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/06...6935488174400/

I look at Holmes like I look at Calzaghe - great records but it's hard to measure them historically when they never measured themselves while fighting.

Of course, it's fine to disagree. It's all opinion anyway. I also probably have some deep-seated bias against Holmes because he talked crap about Marciano and I'm from that same hometown even if my guy was Hagler and not the Rock.

Fair enough. I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and I'm just not into getting into a long drawn out debate that will go nowhere except circles. I have read other posts of yours and do appreciate your insight. And I to never liked Holmes comments about Rocky, but I attribute it more now to his own frustration than any real disrespect.

My father saw Marciano fight several times at the old Providence auditorium. And I myself made a trek to Brockton to work out at The Petronelli's gym nearly 30 years ago with Steve Collins. Hagler was also one of my favorites. Met him at a bar in New Hampshire years ago. Not the friendliest guy, but he did give me his hat.

[Granath]

And I to never liked Holmes comments about Rocky, but I attribute it more now to his own frustration than any real disrespect.

Those comments were him being bombastic to sell the fight. He even apologized after the fight. And let's face it, having Marciano's family praying for Holmes to lose wasn't a good look either.

PS - Hagler liked his privacy and never, ever interrupt him while he's doing his road work. The man was, shall we say, focused. Originally I read your post that you went to the gym to spar with Collins. I was going to ask how that went for you and did your head roll all the way to Quincy?