How high do you rank Larry Holmes in your all time rankings

[JAB5239]

In 1922 when Doc Kearns was out west beating the bushes for a fight (to get Dempsey away from Rickard) he wired the newspapers that he was on his way to Mexico City to negotiate a million dollar guarantee for a Dempsey-Johnson go.

Kearns never got any further south than San Francisco. Lol

I wonder if the million dollar offer was legit or if Kearns was just blowing more smoke up Rickard's ass?

Kearns didn't seem to have any desire to fight outside the States; he had also that year turned down a Carpentier rematch in Paris, that looked to have solid British money backing it.

He of course ended up in Shelby; that taught him a hard lesson.

I would imagine blowing smoke. Why would they try to get a Johnson fight when he was irrelevant and not a Wills fight while Harry was clearly the top contender?not rehashing the Wills-Dempsey thing, I just think it was smoke and mirrors to get some publicity. If not, it would have been a serious cherry pick. Just my opinion of course.

[QueensburyRules]

I'm slow? You're the one with reading comprehension problems. I never asker what ranked fighters he beat. I asked what other noteworthy fighters he beat, to which you have still not answered.

And where do you get 26 fast paced rounds from? I've read Johnson started fast, but nothing of this fight having a torrid pace.

Do you really want to to get into a debate obout the world class heavyweights Holmes beat in comparison to Willard? Please do!

So, as I originally stated. I'll take Shvers, Witherspoon, Cooney and Spinks over anyone Johnson fought as champion. Better skills, closer to prime and better resumes overall besides Jeffries who was woefully out his depth at the time he fought Jack.

- - Slow and returning to turtle origins.

Ring rankings are modern noteworthy, and otherwise Jess fought plenty of "name" noteworthy fighters, coming up not the least of whom was Luther McCarty, a bigger name than Lar fought until he fought Tyson. And JJohnson as champion a bigger "name" than your mentionables and JJohnson has a couple HOFers not named Jeffries fought during his reign. Spinks is the only HOFer in your Lar foursome.

Like I say, U slow and growing slower.

[JAB5239]

- - Slow and returning to turtle origins.

Ring rankings are modern noteworthy, and otherwise Jess fought plenty of "name" noteworthy fighters, coming up not the least of whom was Luther McCarty, a bigger name than Lar fought until he fought Tyson. And JJohnson as champion a bigger "name" than your mentionables and JJohnson has a couple HOFers not named Jeffries fought during his reign. Spinks is the only HOFer in your Lar foursome.

Like I say, U slow and growing slower.

Lmao!! I'm sure McCarty was a more noteworthy than Norton, Shavers, Spinks!!

Even 15-0 Witherspoon was better than McCarty with a top 10 win over Snipes. McCarty was 12-3-1 and the only recognizable name till that point on his resume was Jeff Clark, who he lost to.

Cooney beat a past it Norton, but he was still top 10 ranked.

So go ahead and explain how McCarty was better. I'm already laughing so hard I'm in tears!

[Willie Pep 229]

Lmao!! I'm sure McCarty was a more noteworthy than Norton, Shavers, Spinks!!

Even 15-0 Witherspoon was better than McCarty with a top 10 win over Snipes. McCarty was 12-3-1 and the only recognizable name till that point on his resume was Jeff Clark, who he lost to.

Cooney beat a past it Norton, but he was still top 10 ranked.

So go ahead and explain how McCarty was better. I'm already laughing so hard I'm in tears!

When we argue who is better it takes us back to those consistent arguments of resume, evaluation, and eras . . . But that always results in personal conjecture.

What you can argue is that Willard took on the guy everyone was saying he needs to beat to prove his worth; he took on the best avaiable.

I suspect Willard could have avoided tough fights, and on size alone (with Tex Rickard's backing) could have gotten the JJ fight, via being this month's 'great white hope' anyway, without taking any risks; any tough fights. He didn't take that route

Whether McCarty or Snipes is better isn't a realistic argument, nor is it relevant to evaluating Holmes or Willard's career.

Queen seems to be arguing that Holmes didn't act in Willard's manner, instead he avoided dangerous opponents (particularly from the WBA and later the WBC when he jumped ship to the IBF.)

I am not sure if Queen is correct - but that's what I take away from the argument.

You can only judge a man by his own time. Willard doesn't seem to have any dog in him. Queen seems to believe Holmes does.

[QueensburyRules]

Lmao!! I'm sure McCarty was a more noteworthy than Norton, Shavers, Spinks!!

Even 15-0 Witherspoon was better than McCarty with a top 10 win over Snipes. McCarty was 12-3-1 and the only recognizable name till that point on his resume was Jeff Clark, who he lost to.

Cooney beat a past it Norton, but he was still top 10 ranked.

So go ahead and explain how McCarty was better. I'm already laughing so hard I'm in tears!

- - McCarty was 21 years old when he died with a JJ title challenge lined up.

Reason being he held the "white" title and had beat more comprehensively many of the recent opponents of JJ before JJ ever got to them.

How Dum can U sink in the History Forum?

Bottomless Pit of Infamy

[JAB5239]

When we argue who is better it takes us back to those consistent arguments of resume, evaluation, and eras . . . But that always results in personal conjecture.

What you can argue is that Willard took on the guy everyone was saying he needs to beat to prove his worth; he took on the best avaiable.

I suspect Willard could have avoided tough fights, and on size alone (with Tex Rickard's backing) could have gotten the JJ fight, via being this month's 'great white hope' anyway, without taking any risks; any tough fights. He didn't take that route

Whether McCarty or Snipes is better isn't a realistic argument, nor is it relevant to evaluating Holmes or Willard's career.

Queen seems to be arguing that Holmes didn't act in Willard's manner, instead he avoided dangerous opponents (particularly from the WBA and later the WBC when he jumped ship to the IBF.)

I am not sure if Queen is correct - but that's what I take away from the argument.

You can only judge a man by his own time. Willard doesn't seem to have any dog in him. Queen seems to believe Holmes does.

You can only judge a fighter by his era. This isn't a knock on McCarty personally. He did what he had to do. But if you look at the competency of there opponents at the time they fought Holmes and Willard respectively I believe that strongly sways in Holmes favor.

[JAB5239]

- - McCarty was 21 years old when he died with a JJ title challenge lined up.

Reason being he held the "white" title and had beat more comprehensively many of the recent opponents of JJ before JJ ever got to them.

How Dum can U sink in the History Forum?

Bottomless Pit of Infamy

He had a JJ fight lined up? Can you show a source for this?

McCarty became the white champ on New Year’s Day in 1913. Soon after, in an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, he has quoted as saying he had “no use for a Negro” and would not fight Jack Johnson “under any circumstances.”

https://www.daytondailynews.com/spor...b9xuZSF4lj1yO/

Now, you were talking about "dum" and "sinking"?

[QueensburyRules]

He had a JJ fight lined up? Can you show a source for this?

McCarty became the white champ on New Year’s Day in 1913. Soon after, in an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, he has quoted as saying he had “no use for a Negro” and would not fight Jack Johnson “under any circumstances.”

https://www.daytondailynews.com/spor...b9xuZSF4lj1yO/

Now, you were talking about "dum" and "sinking"?

- - Yupsir, and dum and sinking responded from his usual depths.

Luther McCarty Willing To Meet Johnson

White Champion Ready To Face The Black Title Holder

Johnson’s statement that he would fight Luther McCarty of Nebraska, white champion of the world, providing he could get permission from Judge Carpenter’s jurisdiction of the court…

Johnson’s proffer of a fight was immediately transmitted to Billy McCarney, manager of Luther McCarty, the white champion, who is training in Calgary, Alberta, for his match there on May 24, with Arthur Pelkey of New England, for the white heavyweight title.

“McCarty has signed for no battles after May 24…he would gladly declare everything except this Pelkey match off on the spot if assured a meeting with Johnson. Further, I want to say that right now McCarty is Johnson’s master, and would beat him sure.”

-Milwaukee Free Press. May 17, 1913

[JAB5239]

- - Yupsir, and dum and sinking responded from his usual depths.

Luther McCarty Willing To Meet Johnson

White Champion Ready To Face The Black Title Holder

Johnson’s statement that he would fight Luther McCarty of Nebraska, white champion of the world, providing he could get permission from Judge Carpenter’s jurisdiction of the court…

Johnson’s proffer of a fight was immediately transmitted to Billy McCarney, manager of Luther McCarty, the white champion, who is training in Calgary, Alberta, for his match there on May 24, with Arthur Pelkey of New England, for the white heavyweight title.

“McCarty has signed for no battles after May 24…he would gladly declare everything except this Pelkey match off on the spot if assured a meeting with Johnson. Further, I want to say that right now McCarty is Johnson’s master, and would beat him sure.”

-Milwaukee Free Press. May 17, 1913

That's funny, there is no quote in your research (nice job by the way) attributed to McCarty. His manager says he'll meet Johnson, but nothing seems to be "lined up" as you put it from McCarty himself who had already declared he would never fight Johnson.

On top of that, none of this shows he was a better fighter, or that Willard was a better fighter than Holmes opponents, which was the argument at hand.

[Willie Pep 229]

I have to throw in my two cents historiography wise - a manager's quote is as valuable as a fighter's quote - neither is worth a tinker's damn.

Why do you all think that something that comes from a man's mouth is somehow a truth?

Quotes, testimonials, biographies, autobiographies, interviews, debates, eulogies ETC. All crap!

You all think because you found a quote that agrees with your opinion you have found an absolute truth.

I know you all can spot the BS in the current rhetoric surrounding us, but for some reason add just a little dust to the book cover and you all get giddy and think somehow it suddenly has value.

Also, stop thinking there is a right and wrong answer, there never is. History isn't something simple like math, where you can hang your hat on a correct answer. This is history, you never know what you are looking at; the number seven just might jump off the page and start shooting at you with a AK 47.

Judge a man by what he does not by what he said; judge an epoch by what happened not what they claimed happened.