Not like old times in Heavy weights

[BeeBopMalloy]

I have always been a bigger fan of the fetaherweights thru the middle weights but it was great being a fight fan when you had Ali, frazior, Foreman, Norton, Young and others. i am watching clasic TV and they are showing the Thriller in manilla and there just aren't many if any heavy weight fights that are even close in the era i am speaking of.I didn't like Holmes but he would never have won a title fighing oppenents like Ali did. Anyone agree with me on this issue?

[Lee]

I never much liked Holmes either, but I think he is underrated, he had a very good jab and decent hand speed. Could he have beaten Ali in his prime - no, Frazier - no, Liston - maybe. He would have given big George trouble and did beat Norton.

I think an argument can be made that he is a top 10 - 15 heavyweight all time.

These are the greats I feel confident would beat him. (Both guys at their prime and based on how I see their styles meshing)

• Ali
• Frazier
• Louis
• Liston
• Johnson
• Dempsey

These are the guys that I see it as a toss up

• Marciano
• Tyson (I know he beat him, but Holmes was past prime)
• Schmeling
• Holyfield (see Tyson)
• Jeffries
• Langford

As to your question, I agree, Heavyweights over the last 15 - 20 years have gotten increasingly bigger to the detriment of the division, as they are slower and more one dimensional on average.

A lot of the all time great would be cruiserweights, but they were more complete Fighters, with more quickness than today' lot.

[CONN CHRIS]

I do think think Holmes is under rated by virtue of the competition that he had. In my opinion, he is a no-doubt top ten all time heavyweight.

While I do not believe that he could have beaten a handful of the very best (including Ali) I do believe that his jab could have given him a shot against anyone. People often forget how much it stung and took out of opponents when he was at his top. I can't name another jab in the history of boxing that was clearly better.

[CONN CHRIS]

Oh, to answer the question, no - I do not agree with you. While I can't see Holmes beating Ali, I could certainly see him being a champion while facing similar competition.

[Thunder]

I, too, disagree, and on top of it, I dismiss the whole postulate as unreasonable. Saying someone wasn't good enough to be the heavyweight champion in 1975 is like saying someone isn't good enough to be in the baseball Hall of Fame because they weren't as good as Willie Mays. That's a rather tough standard.

Maybe Holmes couldn't have been champ in that era (But I give him a shot vs. Frazier during Ali's exile), but so what? There aren't 10 guys in history who could have.

[IceTea]

I could see Holmes beating Ali and I could also see Lennox Lewis or Riddick Bowe doing it. Lennox Lewis is a top ten all-time heavy in my eyes and Riddick Bowe had all-time great ability. Lets not forget that Ali won some decisions after his exile that raised eyebrows. Doug Jones basically beat him before he (Ali) won the title. Every heavyweight nearly lost or did lose before becoming champion.

[Claybor]

Could you see Holmes beating Norton?

Norton beat Ali. (Twice in my opinion.)

Therefore................

[IceTea]

Originally Posted by Claybor

Could you see Holmes beating Norton?

Norton beat Ali. (Twice in my opinion.)

Therefore................

Norton would catch Ali's jab and throw his own....a classic way to defeat a boxer. Yes, Holmes could be Norton or Ali.

[Claybor]

I was not a Holmes fan, but he had the skills to be competitive in the ring with them all.

[bdennis2]

I agree with Ice Lennox Lewis was a top ten along with Larry Holmes and a 1987 and a 1988 version of Mike Tyson. I think Bowe and Holyfield some where in top 15 and the Klitschko Bros some where in the top15-25 alltime.A fight between Holmes and Lewis both at there best would have been a classic boxing display both fighter great jabbers and both great boxers. Merry Christmas and a happy new year. Bill

[Cap]

The ridiculous proliferation of alphabet soup titles is partly to blame for the lack of action in every division, but especially amongst the dreadnoughts. Everyone is trying to protect his paper title by avoiding dangerous opposition. In the old days, a champion could make money on the vaudville circuit or working in a circus or music hall, but I don't know how these guys can make money without fighting. Could be the huge purses available now. If they don't spend much, one purse can last them a very long time, so no pressure to get back in the ring. Unimaginative promoters and Play-it-safe managers are also culpable.

Cap

[Mr Big]

Originally Posted by Cap

The ridiculous proliferation of alphabet soup titles is partly to blame for the lack of action in every division, but especially amongst the dreadnoughts. Everyone is trying to protect his paper title by avoiding dangerous opposition. In the old days, a champion could make money on the vaudville circuit or working in a circus or music hall, but I don't know how these guys can make money without fighting. Could be the huge purses available now. If they don't spend much, one purse can last them a very long time, so no pressure to get back in the ring. Unimaginative promoters and Play-it-safe managers are also culpable.

Cap

With no less than 28 current sanctioning organizations, and all the "jr." divisions, simple mathematics tells us that there are approximately 476 "world" championships available in modern boxing.

Compare that to the 8-9 world titles that the old-timers were competing for, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's easier to be a "world" champion now than at any time in history.

Ask the average person on the street in the 1880s who was the heavyweight champion of the world, and they would repy, "John L. Sullivan." In the 1920s, "Jack Dempsey" or "Gene Tunney." In the 50s, "Rocky Marciano" and in the 60s and 70s "Cassius Clay" or "Muhammad Ali."

Ask the same question now, and most would be completely clueless. Why? Because, with all the aforementioned alphabet organizations, there is no clear cut answer. At last check, of the 28 sanctioning bodies, 15 are currently recognizing "heavyweight champions of the world." With 15 guys walking around with all those belts and titles, it's no wonder there is so much confusion.

Sadly, in the 21st century, only true boxing fans know who the "real" champions are. The very concept (sanctioning bodies) that should have brought greater legitimacy to the sport, has, sadly, had just the opposite effect. You can almost hear John L. turning over in his grave.

Heaven help us...

[Cap]

Recent activity in the heavyweight class:

September - Nikolay Valuev beat Bergeron in Germany and Chris Arreola stopped Thomas Hayes in the USA
October - JC Gomez beat Oliver McCall and Alex Povetkin stopped Chris Byrd in Germany, Sultan Ibragimov beat Holyfield in Russia, and Sam Peter escaped with a win over Jameel McCline in the USA
November - Vladimir Virchis ko'd Hawkins in Germany. Eddie Chambers decisioned Brock and Hasim Rahman beat Zuri Lawrence in the USA.

[Cap]

Originally Posted by Claybor

Could you see Holmes beating Norton?

Norton beat Ali. (Twice in my opinion.)

Therefore................

I still maintain that Norton should have got the nod over Holmes, but I'm probably in the minority. I think I disliked Holmes from that point on. There was also some stink left behind from the Ring Magazine tournament on TV.

Cap

[mh2365]

Not to mention Tim Witherspoon defeated Holmes ... Holmes was gifted quite a few decisions along the way.

[Cap]

One other that sticks in my mind was the Berbick fight. I remember being at my brother's house and we were listening to the recap on the radio of all things! Every few rounds they'd tell listeners what had happened and who was ahead. Holmes had been expected to establish the new record for consecutive KOs in title defences, breaking Tommy Burns' record of 8. Oddly enough it was a Canadian (resident) with the same initials, Berbick, who stymied the champion's quest. When I saw the fight later on TV I scored it dead even.

Cap

[Mr Big]

As I recall, Carl "the Truth" Williams beat Larry pretty convincingly back in '85. But, when the decision was read, the scores were 11-4 twice, and 8-7, in favor of Holmes. As bad decisions in world heavyweight title fights go, that one ranks right up there with Lewis-Holyfield 1 IMO.

[bdennis2]

Also Holmes never ever fought Page,Dokes,Coetzee or Thomas not that Holmes wouldn't have won which i thank he would have those were 4 of the top HW of that time also he never fought Berbick ,Weaver or Snipes again after there first fights.A lot of big money could have been made with these fight with these guys always wonder why at least some of these fights didn't take place.His power also was over rated most of his stopages was by tko not ko were he just out classed his opponet like Leon Spinks,Marvis Frazier,Leroy Jones,Zanon,Ocasio and Scott LaDoux.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally Posted by Claybor

Could you see Holmes beating Norton?

Norton beat Ali. (Twice in my opinion.)

Therefore................

I Find that interesting because I believe Norton did beat Holmes, but it was close, and I disagree on the second one.

I think Norton beat Ali all THREE times, and only the second one was close.

Two things gave Ali trouble.

1. Pressure Fighters
2. An opponent with a great jab to offset his, and that is why Norton gave him fits, and also why I believe that Louis, Johnson, Holmes, and a few others
could beat Ali.


Greg

[IceTea]

Holmes did get an all-time gift in the Carl Williams fight and the Witherspoon fight could have went either way. Holmes was a fairly dominate champion but was very unpopular, especially early in his career. It wasn't really his fault, he just happened to be the next dominate heavyweight that followed Ali.