Is Larry Holmes the most underrated heavyweight of all time?

[QueensburyRules]

He did well way past his prime and except the Tyson KO (which was on short notice and 2 yr layoff) he kept all the losses close.

- -Lar in training for Tyson for over a year as he disparagingly called out Tyson at every fight.

He literally was crucified dead away on the canvas for 5 min.

The only thing close was hovering Death.

[BobU]

I got Holmes at no.3 behind Louis and Ali

[Rusty Tromboni]

He's definitely not the most underrated. If anything, revisionists have given him soooo many Sympathy Points that he's overrated. He's the posterboy for Participation Trophy culture.

He's definitely top 10, but definitely not top 5.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I got Holmes at no.3 behind Louis and Ali

That's ridiculous. All three lost in their prime. Two of them to Ken Norton, no less.

Holmes might be the fighter who did the most with least. Considering Boxing is a 200 year old sport where mentality and timing almost always matter as much as (if not more than) physical prowess and technical acumen, that's a tremendous... um... compliment? I don't mean it as an insult, per se.
But Holmes played it smart and overcame t the odds.

I'd pick him in most head-to- head matches with everyone who preceded him. And I like his consistency as champion. But there have been a lot of Heavyweights better than Holmes - and a few better than the other two.

[HOUDINI563]

Losing a bout in your prime is not ever an issue. It’s how you lose and what you do after that loss that counts as well as separates the good from the ATG.

Louis lost to Schmeling, one of boxing’s hardest hitters at the time. Schmeling was either heavyweight champion or a top five contender for a ten year period during that time. What did Louis do afterwards? He dominated heavyweight boxing for nearly 14 years and in a rematch stopped the No 1 contender for his title, Schmeling, in one round.

Ali only lost to Norton once and that bout was post prime Ali.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Losing a bout in your prime is not ever an issue. It’s how you lose and what you do after that loss that counts as well as separates the good from the ATG.

Louis lost to Schmeling, one of boxing’s hardest hitters at the time. Schmeling was either heavyweight champion or a top five contender for a ten year period during that time. What did Louis do afterwards? He dominated heavyweight boxing for nearly 14 years and in a rematch stopped the No 1 contender for his title, Schmeling, in one round.

Ali only lost to Norton once and that bout was post prime Ali.

I can agree he was losing his legs. But anyone with even a marginal understanding of Boxing knows Norton's pressure and jab would ALWAYS trouble Ali. And a younger Ali would have been troubled by Ken's underrated power. Actually, Norton was a solid athlete in his own right, but how he fought Ali is the textbook example for beating a more athletic, more mobile, more defensively competent opponent.

Where Ken fell off was staying strong late. Which is exactly the opposite of what transpired against Holmes, where he started slow and finished strong.

[HOUDINI563]

Norton only won once from Ali and that was an unprepared unconditioned Ali. ALL three bouts were Ali way past his prime. Prime Ali circa 1967-1968 would be too quick for Norton who typically lost the rounds where Ali moved and boxed.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Norton only won once from Ali and that was an unprepared unconditioned Ali. ALL three bouts were Ali way past his prime. Prime Ali circa 1967-1968 would be too quick for Norton who typically lost the rounds where Ali moved and boxed.

Ali personally claimed to have trained very hard.

Norton had been Quarry and Frazier's sparring partner. Years as their ***** had gained him a reputation as a soft touch. Lucky for him the greats of the Golden Age were aging, and he wasn't adverse to using steroids.

I don't fault Ali for not being espcially riled up and ready to go. The problem is HOW Norton beat him. Again, this comes down to your reading comprehension and ability to put together simple pieces of a puzzle.

Look I get it, we parents posting here should be thankful that our children came of age when Crayola was legally mandated to make non-toxic crayons thanks to your partiality to them. But even a mouth-breather like you should be able to understand why Norton's victories (recognized and DENIED) matter.

And look, I get it, a younger Ali has the legs and wind to present Norton a taller challenge. But if Clay needed smelling salts to survive Cooper, and was gifted hopeless challengers like Williams, Terrell, Chuvalo and Foley, how do you expect him to do against Norton?

[HOUDINI563]

Rusty knows nothing of the sport. Give up now.

Ali came into his bout with Norton, their first bout at 221 pounds. Up to that time one of his highest weights. For the rematch he weighed 212. For the second fight he trained hard. The difference in weight tells the tale.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Rusty knows nothing of the sport. Give up now.

Ali came into his bout with Norton, their first bout at 221 pounds. Up to that time one of his highest weights. For the rematch he weighed 212. For the second fight he trained hard. The difference in weight tells the tale.

So in his hypothetically invincible prime, when he was fighting such luminaries as Cleveland Williams, George Chuvalo, Earnie Terrell and Zora Foley (none in their prime, of course), you think he shuts out Norton?



This ought a be good...