Calling Larry Holmes A Greater HW Than Jack Dempsey?

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet do you believe that Shavers was a great fighter? Or that version of Norton anything special. In an interview I read of Norton he said that he had lost his zeal for boxing by the time he faced Holmes. Cooney big puncher what else?

I would point out that it's rare for two in-prime ATG Heavyweights to be active at the same time. Ali's era was the exception not the rule. While neither Shavers and Norton were great fighters, neither were Tucker or Spinks (usually touted as Tyson's biggest wins). Neither were Charpentier or Willard. Neither was Schmeling or Conn (at least not at Heavyweight). Neither were Walcott and Charles at the time Marciano fought them. Neither was Holyfield or Tyson at the time Lewis fought them.

You can do this with the opponents of any Heavyweight not named Ali. Shavers and Norton weren't great but they WERE good.....and that usually represents the best opponents of of the vast majority of the the great Heavyweight champions.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

This is what my point was when we were discussing Pacquiao (no hijack). It's senseless to bring up a guy beating a bigger guy when the other guy is much slower. Speed is the king.

My only point was that it's unfair to single Pacquiao out for critiscism over getting kudos for beating up a much bigger guy when others get those same kudos for pulling the trick......regardless of whether I believe the kudos are necessarily deserved for that sort of accomplishment.

Poet

[PhillyPhan69]

It is certainly justified! It is also probably the consensus in the more recent ratings I see. I don't do a flat out list, but rate by tiers and have Holmes on tier 2 rated 3-5 at HW Dempsey tier 5 rated 10-12. Some might argue dempsey the higher rated, and while I disagree I would not have a major issue with it...I would rather be interested in the why Dempsey should be rated higher, to see if it was a bias or if I could gain some insights into his carear that I am missing.

[joseph5620]

Can it be justified? I get the feeling not many think this.

But could you say Holmes had the more impressive HW career with the better resume of wins than Dempsey? Does anyone actually think this anyway?

If one is to objectively look at it, Holmes had a better heavyweight career than Dempsey. And it's really not that close. People critisize Holmes opposition but it's not like Dempsey beat a murderers row of heavyweights either. Ken Norton was better than Jess Williard. And Dempsey rarely fought after he won the title. Holmes was active. But Dempsey apologist will conveniently overlook that. Yeah Shavers wasn't a great fighter but he was superior to Jim Flynn who Ko'd Dempsey.

[Greatest1942]

I would point out that it's rair for two in-prime ATG Heavyweights to be active at the same time. Ali's era was the exception not the rule. While neither Shavers and Norton were great fighters, neither were Tucker or Spinks (usually touted as Tyson's biggest wins). Neither were Charpentier or Willard. Neither was Schmeling or Conn (at least not at Heavyweight). Neither were Walcott and Charles at the time Marciano fought them. Neither was Holyfield or Tyson at the time Lewis fought them.

You can do this with the opponents of any Heavyweight not named Ali. Shavers and Norton weren't great but they WERE good.....and that usually represents the best opponents of of the vast majority of the the great Heavyweight champions.

Poet

Actually Schmelling was pretty good at heavy. He was world champ, and is ranked in the top 30 by all historians that I know of. He was ranked in the top 10 pre 1960 pretty regularly. Scmelling was a very good heavyweight, no two ways about it. His rankings even now bear that out.

I am noy saying Shavers or Norton were not good. Norton was pretty good, but the time he fought Holmes he lost his appetite for boxing. Shavers was a good win fine. But based on this win, should he rank far above Dempsey and a host of other ATGs who faced similar competition.

[Greatest1942]

If one is to objectively look at it, Holmes had a better heavyweight career than Dempsey. And it's really not that close. People critisize Holmes opposition but it's not like Dempsey beat a murderers row of heavyweights either. Ken Norton was better than Jess Williard. And Dempsey rarely fought after he won the title. Holmes was active. But Dempsey apologist will conveniently overlook that. Yeah Shavers wasn't a great fighter but he was superior to Jim Flynn who Ko'd Dempsey.

Of course Flynn KO'd Dempsey, considering the circumstances Dempsey went into fight him, I doubt Holmes would have even stood upto fight.

Sure Norton is better than Willard. Dempsey did beat Sharkey who was pretty good too. He does rank in top 30 most of the time. Don't think thats very one way though. Considering the inexperinced guys Holmes fought and the trouble he had with them, I can easily say that Holmes was not a demon in there too.

I have no problem if you rate Holmes higher, I am no Demopsey apologist firstly but if they are wrong supporting jack , then so are you putting a selective list of fighters, and quoting a loss of man which was viewed with su****ion back then, and also of a man who was clearly underfed, if not starving going into a fight.


Jack's level of competition is not far away from Holmes. Atleast not so much as some fans like to make out, to show Holmes in better light.

[SNVDoublePunch!]

HAHAHAHAHAHA...Oh, I'm going to be laughing a long time about someone saying Jack Dempsey would knock out Larry Holmes...HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.

[Greatest1942]

HAHAHAHAHAHA...Oh, I'm going to be laughing a long time about someone saying Jack Dempsey would knock out Larry Holmes...HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.

HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

What Witherspoon almost did? Not even a top 20 heavy, Against one of the best p4p punchers of all time , top 10 heavy and one of the best punchers of all time (ranks higher than Shavers in rings list) its a impossiblity right?

Its not preposterous mate, that you are laughing about it.
The fact that Holmes was decked and hurt against much lesser foes should tell you against better opponents he might be KO'd.

I favour Holmes too, but its not so laughable to suppose that jack will KO him.

[SNVDoublePunch!]

HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

What Witherspoon almost did? Not even a top 20 heavy, Against one of the best p4p punchers of all time , top 10 heavy and one of the best punchers of all time (ranks higher than Shavers in rings list) its a impossiblity right?

Its not preposterous mate, that you are laughing about it.
The fact that Holmes was decked and hurt against much lesser foes should tell you against better opponents he might be KO'd.

I favour Holmes too, but its not so laughable to suppose that jack will KO him.

My sides are killing me!

[sonnyboyx2]

HAHAHAHAHAHA...Oh, I'm going to be laughing a long time about someone saying Jack Dempsey would knock out Larry Holmes...HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.

we are talking Jack Dempsey here not Reynaldo Snipes, Mike Weaver, Roy Williams, David Bey, Tim Witherspoon, Earnie Shavers or Ibar Arrington who all had Holmes on the floor or on ***** street..

Larry Holmes was a very good fighter but his biggest pitfall was trying to imitate Muhammad Ali getting up on his toes and flicking out his jab which always left him vulnerable to an over-hand right.. Holmes was very difficult to beat when fighting his own style of fighting which was flat-footed.. He was able to fight well into his 40s against journeymen fighters and with plenty of success, yet in his prime when he got up on his toes he was vulnerable and Dempsey was vastly superior to Weaver, Shavers & Co and far faster... i cannot see Holmes survive.