Would prime Holmes crack the top 10 in the 90s or always be stuck at #11

[uncle ben]

Let's say that in 1990, Holmes entered his prime. How well would he do during the decade? Personally, I think he'd have a great chance at being the greatest heavyweight of all time.

I say that because a prime Holmes could realistically have beaten a 1990-91 Mike Tyson, prime Holyfield, prime Bowe and a prime Lewis. Having victory over those 4 while they were close to or in their prime would qualify you to be the GOAT.

Not to mention if he beat top contenders like Stewart, Morrison, Mercer, old Foreman, Moorer, Rahman etc.

[giant_king]

Larry probably will never get the respect he deserves simply because he never really had any real punching power

[chrisJS]

It’s never as straightforward as he was better therefore he’d beat the whole era. You continue to fight top opponents consistently eventually you lose. He had some very close calls with fighters far inferior to Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe and Tyson.

He’d likely not be as dominant but would still be where he is now as a top 5 all-time Heavyweight.

[Sugarj]

Larry probably will never get the respect he deserves simply because he never really had any real punching power

I'd argue that he probably hit harder than Ali.

[uncle ben]

It’s never as straightforward as he was better therefore he’d beat the whole era. You continue to fight top opponents consistently eventually you lose. He had some very close calls with fighters far inferior to Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe and Tyson.

He’d likely not be as dominant but would still be where he is now as a top 5 all-time Heavyweight.

True, but I was just pointing out that it's not out of the question that he'd have beaten them.

[The Old LefHook]

A sunken chest bodes ill for legacy.

[giant_king]

I'd argue that he probably hit harder than Ali.

I don't know I think to me its a tie.but what made Ali better was his footwork his heart and determination.not to mention he fought for his people so that alone made him a legend.but if u add footwork and just a tad bit more heart to Larry then you have a twin Ali.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Tyson would always trouble Holmes. He was very fast and imposing. Holmes liked to dictate range and pace, there's no hope of him doing so against Tyson. And while Holmes was good defnesively, he wasn't a Pep. He regularly took big shots - even when he was trying to fight safe.

And I just can't pick him to beat Lewis. It's a shame we didn't see a series of Norton-Holmes. The one fight was great, but it created more questions than it answered. Norton shot himself in the foot, trying to make Holmes work in the early rounds. With just the one adjustment (getting to work from the opening bell) Norton might have avenged that loss. That's probably the best win/name on Holmes' record.

Lewis was a lot more foreboding than Norton. His offense was every bit as good/better than Shavers and Cooney's. And because Holmes can't really hurt Lewis, I don't see Lewis being terribly intimidated. We saw lesser men than Holmes (Mercer and Holyfield) make it competitive with Lewis, but I really don't think the best Lewis drops a loss to Holmes. Of course, Holmes is probably the division's greatest overachiever, and Lewis the greatest underachiever.

I don't know I think to me its a tie.but what made Ali better was his footwork his heart and determination.not to mention he fought for his people so that alone made him a legend.but if u add footwork and just a tad bit more heart to Larry then you have a twin Ali.

Holmes hit harder than Ali. But then a again Ali hit like a bi.tch

Holmes also was the one who showed more consistency and determination.

That point is a little hard to argue, since Ali fought like a lion in so many fights to gut out the win. But Ali definitely was the more physically gifted fighter. He was waaay faster, bigger and stronger. He also came of age in a much more forgiving era. The best opponent he met in the 1960's was George Chuvalo.

Holmes was more technically sound, and carried a heftier punch. LOok at his jab, his uppercut, even his right hand.

But I would agree, he lacks the physical tools the more famous champions have possessed. That's why he never attracted the same attention other champions have.

[Rusty Tromboni]

It’s never as straightforward as he was better therefore he’d beat the whole era. You continue to fight top opponents consistently eventually you lose. He had some very close calls with fighters far inferior to Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe and Tyson.

He’d likely not be as dominant but would still be where he is now as a top 5 all-time Heavyweight.

That's a sobering response.

I'd argue, though, that 90's Heavyweights had more allure. Almost like the generation of Heavyweights preceding Holmes' rise to dominance. Allure isn't synonymous greatness.

A lot of those guys, despite the familiarity of their names, epic performances & the menacing skills associated with them, are easy pickings for Holmes. Old Holmes really troubled prime Holyfield. A younger Holmes would find Holmes and Bowe easy work.

Even Tyson would probably eventually lose to Holyfield. His style wasn't made to last. Even if he had made adjustments to his style, to be more economical of energy, and strategically oriented, would those have been the adjustments to beat Holmes? And he was tempramental. He struggled when fighters took him the distance. Even if Rooney had hung around, how long would Tyson have really lasted? Blaming Cus D'Amato's death and Rooney's exile are sometimes too convenient excuses for the fact that Tyson was never really built to last.

I don't doubt that Lewis and Tyson could beat Holmes. But I really wonder if their physical advantages were sufficient enough to compensate for what they lacked between the ears, over the long-haul.

It's not unlike comparing Ali and Foreman: compare how Ali rebounded from his loss to Frazier and how Foreman plummeted following his loss to Ali. I think we can argue that Foreman was as talented as Ali, maybe more. Maybe not, but Gil Clancy sure gave him an opportunity to make his case. Holmes, like Ali, proved himself through his consistency. Tyson and Lewis, despite their apparent advantages, came up short.

[giant_king]

Tyson would always trouble Holmes. He was very fast and imposing. Holmes liked to dictate range and pace, there's no hope of him doing so against Tyson. And while Holmes was good defnesively, he wasn't a Pep. He regularly took big shots - even when he was trying to fight safe.

And I just can't pick him to beat Lewis. It's a shame we didn't see a series of Norton-Holmes. The one fight was great, but it created more questions than it answered. Norton shot himself in the foot, trying to make Holmes work in the early rounds. With just the one adjustment (getting to work from the opening bell) Norton might have avenged that loss. That's probably the best win/name on Holmes' record.

Lewis was a lot more foreboding than Norton. His offense was every bit as good/better than Shavers and Cooney's. And because Holmes can't really hurt Lewis, I don't see Lewis being terribly intimidated. We saw lesser men than Holmes (Mercer and Holyfield) make it competitive with Lewis, but I really don't think the best Lewis drops a loss to Holmes. Of course, Holmes is probably the division's greatest overachiever, and Lewis the greatest underachiever.








Holmes hit harder than Ali. But then a again Ali hit like a bi.tch

Holmes also was the one who showed more consistency and determination.

That point is a little hard to argue, since Ali fought like a lion in so many fights to gut out the win. But Ali definitely was the more physically gifted fighter. He was waaay faster, bigger and stronger. He also came of age in a much more forgiving era. The best opponent he met in the 1960's was George Chuvalo.

Holmes was more technically sound, and carried a heftier punch. LOok at his jab, his uppercut, even his right hand.

But I would agree, he lacks the physical tools the more famous champions have possessed. That's why he never attracted the same attention other champions have.

Excellent points.