Larry Holmes vs. Rocky Marciano

[Russell]

Can Holmes back-up his press conference statments in this one?

[brooklyn1550]

I always though Larry would beat the Rock

[fists of fury]

It's quite possible, yes.

[Russell]

I think 12 rounds might favor Holmes... Looking at how he survived 12 against Mercer when he was, what, 42?

Really think Holme's jab would give Rocky absolute fits too.

[Luigi1985]

It wouldn´t be a one-sided beating in favour of Holmes, he troubled in his prime with so many jokes who didn´t deserve their title shots that a Marciano KO isn´t that impossible...

[mr. magoo]

Rocky had the right style to trouble Holmes, but not the speed nor physical tools. Holmes was a master at using the ring, and his quickness along with considerable reach advantage, coupled with his jab, would most likely keep Rocky away from him for most of the evening. If Rocky could penetrate Holmes Comfort zone, then it would be a closer fight, but I'm not so sure that Rocky could hurt him enough to score a knockout, given that Larry survived the power of Shavers, Cooney and Mercer. Rocky also had the tendency to cut and bleed. Sustaining one or multiple cuts over an extended period with Holmes is definately a possibility.

I just think this is a bad matchup for the Rock.

Prediction: Holmes by wide decision or late round stoppage.

[janitor]

Can Holmes back-up his press conference statments in this one?

I doubt that anybody could back up that particular statment.

[NickHudson]

We've had a few Larry Holmes matchups recently. I think I am right in saying the forum consensus has been for Larry to beat Liston, Lewis and Marciano. I have also heard plenty feel Larry might outpoint Ali (I don't happen to agree with this one).

So, prime for prime, who would you be confident of picking over prime Holmes?

[JohnThomas1]

So, prime for prime, who would you be confident of picking over prime Holmes?

Ali and there's 3 or so i'd put near even but very slightly favour Holmes i think. He matches up well vs near anyone.

[NickHudson]

That's exactly what I think too. He has a style that noone is kryptonite for, IMO.

There might be a few 50/50s but its hard to be confident of picking anyone over him on his best night, given his technical prowess, conditioning, size and toughness.

Ali and there's 3 or so i'd put near even but very slightly favour Holmes i think. He matches up well vs near anyone.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ali and there's 3 or so i'd put near even but very slightly favour Holmes i think. He matches up well vs near anyone.


He most definitely does. If The Rock could actually get The Mallard into the ring with him he'd lose. Larry, fairly wide UD.

[JohnThomas1]

That's exactly what I think too. He has a style that noone is kryptonite for, IMO.

There might be a few 50/50s but its hard to be confident of picking anyone over him on his best night, given his technical prowess, conditioning, size and toughness.

For sure. I think Lewis, Frazier, Louis, Tyson, Liston and Foreman would all be interesting and open matches. I'd hate to count Holmes out in any tho.

[JohnThomas1]

He most definitely does. If The Rock could actually get The Mallard into the ring with him he'd lose. Larry, fairly wide UD.

Yeah i like Holmes via decision tho it is possible Marciano might have him down. Marciano would be as fascinating as anyone from Louis forward when it comes to seeing how he would fare vs a modern fighter. Dundee is a monster fan.

[janitor]

Ali and there's 3 or so i'd put near even but very slightly favour Holmes i think. He matches up well vs near anyone.

I actualy think Holmes would be something of a stylistic nightmare. And there are a few people I would pck over him unhesitatingly.

[JohnThomas1]

I actualy think Holmes would be something of a stylistic nightmare. And there are a few people I would pck over him unhesitatingly.

Who would be the few you'd automatically pick? Tho i'm the first to point out his dodgy opponent selection late prime he's a hard man to beat i think. I can see how people could doubt him due to trips to the canvas and struggles vs average opposition tho.

[young griffo]

I've always thought that Frazier would give Holmes fits.
Holmes didn't have the power to back Frazier up which meant you were going to have a war with Joe and Joe didn't lose too many of those.
We all know the skills and heart of Holmes but would he be able to stand up to the remorseless Frazier attack like Ali could?
Or was Larry forever an Ali B-side and not as good as the original and likely to fold against Joe?
Holmes would have to start as favourite but I've got my doubts about this one and think Frazier may win this.
As for Marciano-Holmes I think that Marciano gives up a little too much in size and susceptibility to cuts and would come up a bit short against Larry but I wouldn't write him off.

[mr. magoo]

Who would be the few you'd automatically pick? .

I'm not exactly sure that I would just automatically pick him, but I can't help but think that Joe Frazier might have given him a hell of a time, and on the right night may have beaten him. Frazier had a lot of handspeed and the right style to trouble even the best boxers. I need not even mention his three fights Muhammad Ali.

[Holmes' Jab]

Can Holmes back-up his press conference statments in this one?

Yes, I think he beats Rocky.

It's not out of the question that Rocky might have him down at some stage during the contest, given Holmes' great recuperative powers, though, he'd brave the storm and in the end emerge with the decision. Holmes by close UD.

Incidently I think Ali, Liston and Lewis are the three fighters who would give Larry the biggest problems in a prime for prime matchup. What y'all think?

[janitor]

Who would be the few you'd automatically pick? Tho i'm the first to point out his dodgy opponent selection late prime he's a hard man to beat i think. I can see how people could doubt him due to trips to the canvas and struggles vs average opposition tho.

My personal take on it.

I don't think he would have much chance against Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis. I would also make him a clear underdog against Marciano Liston and Frazier.

[JohnThomas1]

I've always thought that Frazier would give Holmes fits.
Holmes didn't have the power to back Frazier up which meant you were going to have a war with Joe and Joe didn't lose too many of those.
We all know the skills and heart of Holmes but would he be able to stand up to the remorseless Frazier attack like Ali could?
Or was Larry forever an Ali B-side and not as good as the original and likely to fold against Joe?
Holmes would have to start as favourite but I've got my doubts about this one and think Frazier may win this.
As for Marciano-Holmes I think that Marciano gives up a little too much in size and susceptibility to cuts and would come up a bit short against Larry but I wouldn't write him off.

Nice post. Big Book of Boxing done Holmes - Frazier in their dream fights and Holmes won a ultra close decision from memory. Both went down i think.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm not exactly sure that I would just automatically pick him, but I can't help but think that Joe Frazier might have given him a hell of a time, and on the right night may have beaten him. Frazier had a lot of handspeed and the right style to trouble even the best boxers. I need not even mention his three fights Muhammad Ali.

Yes, this match has stylistic drama and balls to the wall written all over it.

[JohnThomas1]

My personal take on it.

I don't think he would have much chance against Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis. I would also make him a clear underdog against Marciano Liston and Frazier.

Tho i don't entirely agree it's a fair call. I remember thru the 80's Holmes - Marciano was considered a very difficult match with Larry if anything the slight underdog.

[Ramon Rojo]

Holmes would win this easily

[mr. magoo]

My personal take on it.

I don't think he would have much chance against Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis. I would also make him a clear underdog against Marciano Liston and Frazier.

I can't possibly see Dempsey, who only defended his title six times in seven years, and only fought 4 black men, none of whom ranked, as possibly being favored over Larry Holmes. Joe Louis had a better legacy than Holmes with a 12 year reign and 25 title defenses, but head to head, this is a terrible matchup for Joe. Most of the better boxers whom Louis fought either gave him severe trouble or defeated him, ex. Billy Conn, Ezzard Charles etc. None of them were as good of a boxer, nor possesed the physical tools that Holmes had. I'll agree with Frazier being the best possible pick to beat Holmes, but probably no one else on your list.

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo]I can't possibly see Dempsey, who only defended his title six times in seven years, and only fought 4 black men, none of whom ranked, as possibly being favored over Larry Holmes.

Regardless of which of them has the better resume Dempsey has every tool necesary to put Holmes to sleep and there would not be a lot that Holmes could do to guard against it.

Joe Louis had a better legacy than Holmes with a 12 year reign and 25 title defenses, but head to head, this is a terrible matchup for Joe. Most of the better boxers whom Louis fought either gave him severe trouble or defeated him, ex. Billy Conn, Ezzard Charles etc.

Holmes is not as elusive as fighters like Conn or Pastor. He generaly went toe to toe with his oponents at some point and the punchers he fought generaly caught up with him at some point.

You just can't aford to let that happen against Louis.


I'll agree with Frazier being the best possible pick to beat Holmes, but probably no one else on your list.


If Frazier can do it then Dempsey and Marciano can also theoreticaly do it.

[hopkinsfan07]

if this is a 12 rounder then Holmes by UD if its a 15 rounder Rock by ko/tko round 13-15

[mr. magoo]

If Frazier can do it then Dempsey and Marciano can also theoreticaly do it.


Theoretically maybe, but Neither of those guys ever proved their abilities against the likes of a Muhammad Ali as Frazier did. Although I don't consider Holmes to be Ali, he still had many similarities, and ones that I feel could be a problem for Dempsey, Marciano and Louis.

[Dempsey1238]

Walcott was just as tricky as Ali was. And it was not just one mere punch that won the fight. Marciano thouh behind, DID battler Walcott for 12 rounds. I think Marciano can get to Ali more often than not. And when Holmes starts to drop his hands in the later rounds as he often did, Marciano would wack him with the right hand imo. Marciano had way more displine in that department. Holmes takes the early rounds before Marciano's bruiseing style takes its toll on Holmes imo.

[Duodenum]

Holmes UD 15 Marciano

I don't like Frazier's chances against Larry, because Holmes wasn't particularly susceptible to the hook, or a body attack. Dempsey would have been a lot more dangerous with his right, and the speed with which he sprung on retreating opponents.

The HW champion with the best shot at springing an upset over Holmes would be the erratic and wildly unpredictable Max Baer. Larry would box his ears off, but I don't think he had the artillery to take out Baer, and Maxie went 20 rounds with Uzcudun and King Levinski, dominating Levinski over that distance. He wouldn't wear down as Shavers did, and his right hand would be deadly throughout. Holmes would probably dominate him as Loughran did, but the puncher's chance would definitely be a live one.

[Lex]

I'm not sure Holmes had the mobility to keep Marciano away for 15 rounds. I can see Larry beating Rocky to a pulp for 10-12 rounds with Rocky catching him late with his relentless pressure.

[janitor]

Theoretically maybe, but Neither of those guys ever proved their abilities against the likes of a Muhammad Ali as Frazier did. Although I don't consider Holmes to be Ali, he still had many similarities, and ones that I feel could be a problem for Dempsey, Marciano and Louis.

I think that Marciano would probably be more dangerous for Holmes than Frazier would because he used his right hand more. The same hand that Holmes was a little prone to getting caught with.

I also don't think that Holmes moved enough to pull an Ali on Louis Dempsey or Marciano. They would get to him sooner or later.

[Duodenum]

I think that Marciano would probably be more dangerous for Holmes than Frazier would because he used his right hand more. The same hand that Holmes was a little prone to getting caught with.

I also don't think that Holmes moved enough to pull an Ali on Louis Dempsey or Marciano. They would get to him sooner or later.I think the Holmes of the first Shavers fight did. He also could have stayed on his toes for 15 rounds against Cooney, had he chosen to do so. It's my impression that Larry circled right with better consistency than Ali did. Dempsey might pose the biggest problem because of the speed he could spring upon his quarry with.

[janitor]

I think the Holmes of the first Shavers fight did.

Aparently not enough. Marciano was much better at cuting off the ring than Shavers and generaly finished oponents off when he had them hurt.

[mr. magoo]

Aparently not enough. Marciano was much better at cuting off the ring than Shavers and generaly finished oponents off when he had them hurt.

One thing that I'm surprised is rarely mentioned, is that when fighters crowded Holmes against the ropes or in a corner, he would sometimes launch a lethal uppercut. If you watch the Mike Weaver fight, you'll see this punch around the 11th round when he floored Weaver. Another time, was against Mike Tyson in the 4th round, shortly before being Ko'd, Holmes threw the right uppercut, but it was cought in the ropes near the turn buckle. One possible concern with Marciano, is that he made his living crowding and swarming his opponents. In addition, he would likely leave himself temporarily vulnerable when punching upwards against Holmes in a corner or on the ropes. At this moment, Rocky could most definately be suseptible to getting hit with a shot, that could drop him, or even knock him out. Not that it would happen, but it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility. Therefore, it's only a half truth to say that Marciano, would just maul Holmes. Unbeknownst to many, Larry could actually be quite dangerous on the inside, especially when feeling threatened by an over Zealous puncher.

[janitor]

One thing that I'm surprised is rarely mentioned, is that when fighters crowded Holmes against the ropes or in a corner, he would sometimes launch a lethal uppercut. If you watch the Mike Weaver fight, you'll see this punch around the 11th round when he floored Weaver. Another time, was against Mike Tyson in the 4th round, shortly before being Ko'd, Holmes threw the right uppercut, but it was cought in the ropes near the turn buckle. One possible concern with Marciano, is that he made his living crowding and swarming his opponents. In addition, he would likely leave himself temporarily vulnerable when punching upwards against Holmes in a corner or on the ropes. At this moment, Rocky could most definately be suseptible to getting hit with a shot, that could drop him, or even knock him out. Not that it would happen, but it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility. Therefore, it's only a half truth to say that Marciano, would just maul Holmes. Unbeknownst to many, Larry could actually be quite dangerous on the inside, especially when feeling threatened by an over Zealous puncher.

Valid points.

At the end of the day whether Holmes wins looses or draws he is going to be hurting in every part of his body the next day. He will have to work hard for this one.

[Bill1234]

[quote]

Regardless of which of them has the better resume Dempsey has every tool necesary to put Holmes to sleep and there would not be a lot that Holmes could do to guard against it.

Just like he did to Tunney right? Larry is better than Tunney, and Larry is a bad match up for Dempsey. Larry would out box Jack and take a clear ud IMO. As for Louis vs Holmes, bad match up for Joe. Joe was out boxed by Conn and Walcott, and Larry is better than both of them. Larry's jab and precision would be a problem for Joe. Larry was good at picking his shots too.

[Bill1234]

One thing that I'm surprised is rarely mentioned, is that when fighters crowded Holmes against the ropes or in a corner, he would sometimes launch a lethal uppercut. If you watch the Mike Weaver fight, you'll see this punch around the 11th round when he floored Weaver. Another time, was against Mike Tyson in the 4th round, shortly before being Ko'd, Holmes threw the right uppercut, but it was cought in the ropes near the turn buckle. One possible concern with Marciano, is that he made his living crowding and swarming his opponents. In addition, he would likely leave himself temporarily vulnerable when punching upwards against Holmes in a corner or on the ropes. At this moment, Rocky could most definately be suseptible to getting hit with a shot, that could drop him, or even knock him out. Not that it would happen, but it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility. Therefore, it's only a half truth to say that Marciano, would just maul Holmes. Unbeknownst to many, Larry could actually be quite dangerous on the inside, especially when feeling threatened by an over Zealous puncher.


:good One of Larry's most underrated punches is his uppercut. It was sneaky, quick, and had a lot of power.

[Duodenum]

[quote=janitor]

Just like he did to Tunney right? Larry is better than Tunney, and Larry is a bad match up for Dempsey. Larry would out box Jack and take a clear ud IMO. As for Louis vs Holmes, bad match up for Joe. Joe was out boxed by Conn and Walcott, and Larry is better than both of them. Larry's jab and precision would be a problem for Joe. Larry was good at picking his shots too.But it's not the Dempsey of the Tunney fights, rather the version who demolished Willard who's in question. I agree with you about a Holmes/Dempsey outcome, but Larry would need to proceed with due caution.

[mr. magoo]

Valid points.

At the end of the day whether Holmes wins looses or draws he is going to be hurting in every part of his body the next day. He will have to work hard for this one.

Fair enough. Given, that he was hurt by Snipes, R. Williams, Weaver, Shavers, and a few others I think it reasonable to assume that Marciano would inflict a fair amount of damage on Holmes, regardless of the outcome.

[Bummy Davis]

Holmes had trouble with good right hand puncher but none of them had the 2 fisted backup of the Rock nor the STAMINA to persist, Nick Wells KO'd Holmes 2 times in the amatuers with right hands,Duane Bobick stopped him, hurt him with a right hand, Snipes,Issacs,Shavers dropped and hurt him and Tyson KO"D him all with rights but none had the late persistant power of the Rock, Rocky by KO between 9-15, I would bet my Jockstrap on it

[Bill1234]

Fair enough. Given, that he was hurt by Snipes, R. Williams, Weaver, Shavers, and a few others I think it reasonable to assume that Marciano would inflict a fair amount of damage on Holmes, regardless of the outcome.

He had a broken hand in the R. Williams fight though, so obviously he wasn't fighting at 100%. There is no shame in being hurt by Shavers or Weaver, or the right hand that Snipes nailed Larry with.

[Bill1234]

Holmes had trouble with good right hand puncher but none of them had the 2 fisted backup of the Rock nor the STAMINA to persist, Nick Wells KO'd Holmes 2 times in the amatuers with right hands,Duane Bobick stopped him, hurt him with a right hand, Snipes,Issacs,Shavers dropped and hurt him and Tyson KO"D him all with rights but none had the late persistant power of the Rock, Rocky by KO between 9-15, I would bet my Jockstrap on it

Larry was DQ'd against Bobic. Issacs didn't hurt Larry with the right hand, just caught him off guard with it. So Wells KO'd Larry twice with right hands IN THE AMERATURES. That means nothing in the pro's. Larry proved that he was an ATG heavyweight PROFESIONAL fighter, not amerature. Tyson TKO'd him with a right hand he never would have gotten in if Larry's uppercut didn't get in the ropes. Whats wrong with being hurt by Shavers? Or the right hand that Snipes dropped Larry with? So far, it seems to me, that you vastly underrate Larry, and his defence. With the amount of jabs he threw, of course people will eventualy get you with a right hand over the top. I think Marciano would beat Larry too, but not the way your puting it. You make it seem like all Larry did was get hit and KO'd by right hands, when thats not the case. Larry was dropped by 4 people legit (Not he BS call the ref pulled in the butterbean fight) out of 75 fights. Thats pretty good.

[mr. magoo]

There is no shame in being hurt by Shavers or Weaver, or the right hand that Snipes nailed Larry with.


Agreed, and I don't think anyone's saying that there is any shame in it. I think all we're pointing out, is that Marciano could potentially hurt Holmes as well, but of course we'll never know.

[Bill1234]

Agreed, and I don't think anyone's saying that there is any shame in it. I think all we're pointing out, is that Marciano could potentially hurt Holmes as well, but of course we'll never know.

Theres no doubt in my mind that Marciano could hurt Holmes. If he landed his Suzie Q clean, he could easily knock anyone out, because even if you have all of the heart in the world, if your out cold...your not getting up.

[C. M. Clay II]

Larry's jab would be the key here. Marciano would be eating that jab all night. Larry might be hurt a couple of times or even sent down, but he will get up, recover, and contine to finish the business he started. Marciano would win a few rounds on aggresiveness and overhand rights, but Holmes would cut up Rocky's face something terrible.

Larry Holmes RTD 12 (cuts) Rocky Marciano:good

[Russell]

How are LaStarza and Holmes comparable in the opinion of everyone here?

Roland was pretty slick and he gave Marciano some pretty serious problems. And Holmes is a bit bigger than him...

[mr. magoo]

How are LaStarza and Holmes comparable in the opinion of everyone here?

Roland was pretty slick and he gave Marciano some pretty serious problems. And Holmes is a bit bigger than him...

There really aren't many similarities between Lastarza and Holmes. lastarza was one of the greatest defensive fighters of his era, but not a particularly threatening offensive fighter.

[Russell]

They were both pretty savvy... What I was trying to edge towards, I guess.

I get the feeling Holmes could and would do a lot of the things Roland did to him in their first fight, what I've read of it, anyway.

[Bill1234]

How are LaStarza and Holmes comparable in the opinion of everyone here?

Roland was pretty slick and he gave Marciano some pretty serious problems. And Holmes is a bit bigger than him...


The problem with comparing Marciano and LaStarza's first fight is 1) Marciano wasn't expeirenced to a slick fighter like LaStarza, and 2) It was right after Marciano put Carmine Vingo into a coma, and almost killed him with 1 punch, so he was afraid to pull the trigger. In the rematch Marciano destroyed LaStarza.

[Russell]

Destroyed?

Fight still went 11 rounds...

[Dempsey1238]

If Broken arm vessles ant destory than I dont know what is. Also, Marciano Carried LarSarza, He held him up to cont the tenth round. Marciano was not on the mode to end it in a few rounds. He wanted to punish him.

[Bill1234]

Destroyed?

Fight still went 11 rounds...

11 rounds of pure punishment for LaStarza. He literaly couldn't lift his arms at the end of the fight. He said that he couldn't feel his arms, and he could barely lift them, and barely throw punches. LaStarza was knocked through the ropes, and he was very bloody. Here are some pics:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mr. magoo]

If Broken arm vessles ant destory than I dont know what is. Also, Marciano Carried LarSarza, He held him up to cont the tenth round. Marciano was not on the mode to end it in a few rounds. He wanted to punish him.

True,

Sadly, the second fight with Rocky Marciano pretty much ended Roland Lastarza's career. I think he fought for a bit longer, but was never the same. Following the Loss to Rocky, Roland underwent surgary on both of his arms. For most fighters, such an ordeal typically means that it's time to hang em' up.

[Dempsey1238]

As I said before and confirm on Rocky Marciano boxing best. Rocky's freind said that Marciano carried LarSarza.

"He could have dump him in 5 or 6, but he held him, He held him up to cont the tenth round".

Roland made comments that Marciano was punch drunk, and Marciano took that to heart. He relly did go over board in that fight.

[RockyJim]

Larry did NOT like the right hand....and Rock had the"Suzy Q".....if Renaldo Snipes could land his and almost KO Larry,..........

[Bummy Davis]

Thing with Marciano opponents none of them were ever the same after fighting a prime version, Vingo,Layne,Walcott,Lastarza(2nd)Charles,Louis,Matthews, Marciano ruined you mentally and ruined your body, he made you feel: is this worth it. Even Moore who was on a 22 bout win streak and if you include his avenged loss to Johnson by KO, was 44-1-1 going into the Marciano fight and 38 -3-2 afterward, with many wins over the top 3 heavyweights in the division, Archie was not the same fighter, he was a wounded fighter and took the worst beating of his life vs Rocky....Rocky(Bad Memory)Marciano...I like Holmes jab for a few rounds and I love Larry skills(I just dont think he fought the best of his era to be rated higher as an ATG) and I see the indominable will to win,stamina, and different version of one of the best right hands ever being too much for Holmes over the course of 15 rounds. Do I rate Marciano high yes,the only negative factor being his skin

[mr. magoo]

[quote=Bummy Davis]Thing with Marciano opponents none of them were ever the same after fighting a prime version,

Yeah but,

How many of them were in their prime? :D

[fists of fury]

Roland made comments that Marciano was punch drunk, and Marciano took that to heart. He relly did go over board in that fight.

This is true. Peter Marciano also said it was the only time he ever saw Marciano carry animosity into the ring.
The comments LaStarza made really incensed Marciano.

It's been pretty much established that LaStarza was finished by round 6, despite looking good in the opening few rounds.
In fact, it's been reported that he actually thanked the ref for eventually stepping in.

[janitor]

This is true. Peter Marciano also said it was the only time he ever saw Marciano carry animosity into the ring.
The comments LaStarza made really incensed Marciano.


Marciano was a little OCD, hence his thorough training regime.

He had an obsesive fear of becoming punch drunk and LaStraza really picked the wrong taunt that night.

[Duodenum]

Marciano was a little OCD, hence his thorough training regime.

He had an obsesive fear of becoming punch drunk and LaStraza really picked the wrong taunt that night.LaStarza sometimes contradicted himself when discussing Marciano. On one hand he'd say, "Rocky isn't as easy to hit as he looks. He uses that funny jab you laugh at, until you realize he's setting you up for the bad medicine, that right hand" (or words to that effect). LaStarza also observed that since their first match, "there's more coordination between mind and muscle." But when he said "He's taking so many hits that he's bound to get punchy one day," LaStarza gave Rocky all the bulletin board material he needed to get himself even more motivated than usual. (Perhaps he should have made a concerted effort to really get under Marciano's skin, and try inducing him to overtrain.)

I have little doubt that he would be diagnosed with OCD today, if he underwent an evaluation.

[Marciano Frazier]

They were both pretty savvy... What I was trying to edge towards, I guess.

I get the feeling Holmes could and would do a lot of the things Roland did to him in their first fight, what I've read of it, anyway. Marciano was very inexperienced at the time of the first LaStarza fight. He never put on boxing gloves until he was well into his 20s, had a very brief amateur career, had fought mainly weak opposition in the pros, and most of his fights had ended in the first two rounds. He was still a raw work in progress at that stage of his career.
In addition, he had just nearly killed a man in his last fight, and according to many accounts had strongly considered retiring as a result, which quite likely had an effect on his psyche. In fact, observer accounts of the fight do describe Marciano as having been unusually passive and tentative in the early rounds.

[Bill1234]

A 60 year old Larry Holmes would destroy a prime Marciano so lets stop being racist in 2007 and stop mention trash like Marciano's name?How about that.

How about we stop posting trash like your posts. How about that.

[mr. magoo]

A 60 year old Larry Holmes would destroy a prime Marciano so lets stop being racist in 2007 and stop mention trash like Marciano's name?How about that.

Although I'd pick a prime Holmes over Marciano, this is a very poor and misguided post. :-(

[Bill1234]

Although I'd pick a prime Holmes over Marciano, this is a very poor and misguided post. :-(

But then again, he is a very poor and misguided poster.:hey

[janitor]

A 60 year old Larry Holmes would destroy a prime Marciano so lets stop being racist in 2007 and stop mention trash like Marciano's name?How about that.

How about you take this offensive filth somwhere else you obnoxious little turd.

[Dempsey1238]

I would highly favor Marciano over a 60 year old Holmes. And Marciano vs Holmes prime for prime could go either way.

[Bummy Davis]

How about you take this offensive filth somwhere else you obnoxious little turd.


He is not even a TROLL, he is a little Troll TURD

[Robbi]

I'd take Holmes over Marciano. He's got the height and reach over Marciano, and his jab would dictate the fight. While Holmes doesn't have awesome power in his right hand, he could drop Marciano down the stretch. The biggest threat to Holmes would be when he tires a little bit during the late rounds, and has to stand and fight. But he proved his toughness so many times against Norton, Cooney, Shavers, Snipes, and Witherspoon among others. Marciano loaded up with his punches, usually wide hooks, and they are not going to hit Holmes regularly enough to have him in serious trouble.

Holmes on points.

[Irish Steel]

Marciano KO 9

[Stonehands89]

I don't quite see Holmes as the stylistic nightmare that many good posters out here see (JT, et al.). Holmes was a rythym fighter like his sytlistic blueprint was. (M.A. -the Master of the Arts, Muhammad Ali) I also think that he developed his own style with based on his different assets.

I think Frazier would beat him. I think Liston would beat him (and went into details on another thread). I think Marciano, given a little luck, had a damn good chance. Tyson too. All four of that crop have characteristics that would be problematic for Holmes and that would exploit his weaknesses.

Particularly Tyson.

[Street Lethal]

Holmes would win this fight in impressive fashion.

[JohnThomas1]

I don't quite see Holmes as the stylistic nightmare that many good posters out here see (JT, et al.).

I'd stop far short of nightmare, i actually said "He matches up well vs near anyone." I do believe that in that he could IMO fight well vs a variety of fighters. I think his style would be very awkward for Ali, and holds him in good stead vs most anyone else style wise. Frazier would be tough for Holmes as i agreed. Marciano is also tough, durable, superbly conditioned and has that great right hand Holmes was often found leaky against.

I think Frazier would beat him. I think Liston would beat him (and went into details on another thread). I think Marciano, given a little luck, had a damn good chance. Tyson too. All four of that crop have characteristics that would be problematic for Holmes and that would exploit his weaknesses.

Particularly Tyson.

Fully understand these picks, i've always been open and respectful to contrary opinions regarding Holmes, he did after all have a lot of trouble vs some pretty average (Compred to greats) fighters at times. He could be both found and put down at times, but did get thru this every time. There'in lay the eternal barometer per Holmes, could he rise to the occasion and survive rocky moments against much much better fighters. I think he mostly could, but would never enter heavy confident debate vs the opposing view. It has it's points, and a lot of angles.

[Stonehands89]

JT,

I just scrolled back and saw that Janitor used the term "stylistic nightmare" and Nick Hudson had him at least 50/50 against anyone. Sorry, if I misquoted you.

I agree that Larry was great and would be a live one for anyone, due to his talent, skill, and especially his will. That man's arrogance translated well in the ring! He could have earned a place among the "indomitables" on that other thread.

I'll never understand how he got up from that Shaver's overhand. I thought he got shot by a terrorist.

I would however, go so far as to proclaim Tyson and Frazier as stylistic nightmares for him. I also think, as you know that Liston was simply too strong and had skills that compared well with Holmes.

[miamite]

Holmes UD 15 Marciano

I don't like Frazier's chances against Larry, because Holmes wasn't particularly susceptible to the hook, or a body attack From my recolection Cooney's wide left hooks to the body, when they landed, appeared to hurt Larry. And those were just one big one every couple of rounds, sometimes a bit more often. Frazier would put a serious body attack on Holmes, and I think it would most defenitelly take it's toll. Didn't Frazier break Larry's rib in sparring?

[miamite]

I'm comfortably taking Holmes by UD in a 12 round fight. In a 15 round fight I wouldn't take Holmes with such confidence, because although he finished strongly in most fights, he did look extremely winded towards the end of them. I think Marciano would be that much stronger, which would give him a much greater chance.

[JohnThomas1]

JT,

I just scrolled back and saw that Janitor used the term "stylistic nightmare" and Nick Hudson had him at least 50/50 against anyone. Sorry, if I misquoted you.

I agree that Larry was great and would be a live one for anyone, due to his talent, skill, and especially his will. That man's arrogance translated well in the ring! He could have earned a place among the "indomitables" on that other thread.

I'll never understand how he got up from that Shaver's overhand. I thought he got shot by a terrorist.

I would however, go so far as to proclaim Tyson and Frazier as stylistic nightmares for him. I also think, as you know that Liston was simply too strong and had skills that compared well with Holmes.

Hey, fair enough for sure. I think he would prevail over both in utterly gruelling fights won by sheer will and determination as much as by skill and ability. A totally crap Larry lasting as long as he did with Tyson with no offensive skill whatsoever gives me a little hope. Peak Larry, firing that jab often, lateral movement, the odd sizzling cross or uppercut to keep his man honest and either tying Tyson up or dancing away when at midrange.Holmes, cautious early and not engaging unless he has to notices Tyson tiring as early as round 5 or 6. If Tyson didn't get you with his early sabotages he oft didn't get you at all. I think Holmes guile gets him thru to the latter rounds where he gradually takes over the fight with Tyson's offense growing weaker by the round. Tyson, frustrated and lost succumbs late with Holmes superior stamina allowing him to mount a late barrage and seal the deal.

[janitor]

The question that nobody has yet asked is which of Holmses oponents was most like Marciano.

Thoughts?

[JohnThomas1]

The question that nobody has yet asked is which of Holmses oponents was most like Marciano.

Thoughts?

None of em, he's a substancially better fighter than the lot. Never fought anyone remotely like him IMO.

[Duodenum]

From my recolection Cooney's wide left hooks to the body, when they landed, appeared to hurt Larry. And those were just one big one every couple of rounds, sometimes a bit more often. Frazier would put a serious body attack on Holmes, and I think it would most defenitelly take it's toll. Didn't Frazier break Larry's rib in sparring?Yeah, but Larry hadn't cultivated his jab yet. Sparring isn't always a significant indicator of what a competitive outcome might be. Boogaloo Watts injured and decked Hagler with a body attack while sparring, after Marv kayoed him in competition.

As rusty and mistimed as Holmes was against Tyson, he still posed some problems with his height and reach. Marciano had shorter arms, probably slower fists, and certainly slower feet. It merits reminding that Holmes was dominant in the two title defenses where he was floored, both before and after those knockdowns against Snipes and Shavers. While Jersey Joe Walcott was getting fatigued by the end of his first tiff with Louis, he displayed no such slippage before Marciano's sudden knockout to win the title. Larry wasn't wiped out at the end of his 15 rounds against Berbick and Cobb, nor do I think he would be against Rocky. For most of the match, I doubt that Holmes would let him get close enough to pound away at the arms or any other part of his anatomy with any regularity. Seeing the visual of Marciano in the ring with Ali does sort of reinforce that impression in my mind.

If Walcott hadn't sustained a vision impairing cut against Rocky, he probably would have defended the title successfully. At his peak, Holmes's skin was far less likely to get cut than the 38 year old Walcott's was.

[Bill1234]

I'm comfortably taking Holmes by UD in a 12 round fight. In a 15 round fight I wouldn't take Holmes with such confidence, because although he finished strongly in most fights, he did look extremely winded towards the end of them. I think Marciano would be that much stronger, which would give him a much greater chance.


Extremely winded? He was that maybe twice in his career. And only once in his prime. He was winded against Norton at the middle of the 15th round, but, who wouldn't be besides Marciano? Larry was fine against Berbick and Cobb at the end of 15 rounds. He was all right at the end of 15 rounds against Williams and Spinks, and he was about 3 years past his prime by then.

[fists of fury]

When looking at Rocky stylistically, we need to be careful here.

Charley Goldman was continually refining Rocky's style. Up until (but not including) the first Charles fight, Marciano was a home run hitter, throwing nearly every punch with knockout force.
Goldman considered him too easy to counter that way, and he started to shorten Marciano's stance. He also started emphasising shorter punches inside instead of those big, looping rights.
Basically, he made a small sacrifice in terms of power, but made up for it in volume, and increased defensive positioning.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Bill1234]

From my recolection Cooney's wide left hooks to the body, when they landed, appeared to hurt Larry. And those were just one big one every couple of rounds, sometimes a bit more often. Frazier would put a serious body attack on Holmes, and I think it would most defenitelly take it's toll. Didn't Frazier break Larry's rib in sparring?

In 1973 Frazier broke Larry's rib in sparring yes. Larry hadn't devolped a jab yet, and had only been boxing for 4 years. But he was already on a high enough level to be sparring ATG's before he was pro, and on his pro debut. Cooney had one of the hardest, if not the hardest left hooks of all time, and his money punch was his left hook to the liver. Larry was only noticably hurt twice by those body shots, not including all of the low blows Cooney hit Larry with.

[nick wells jr]

holmes.but if rocky had the advancements in sports technology of today then what kind of fight is it?

[nick wells jr]

so with this are you saying holmes was more of a go the distance fighter instead of a power punchin ko artist?just curious.

[JohnThomas1]

holmes.but if rocky had the advancements in sports technology of today then what kind of fight is it?

What would you count as such advances (minus steroids say)

[nick wells jr]

What would you count as such advances (minus steroids say)
trainers,advancements in equipment and facilities,legal suppllements etc..

[mr. magoo]

holmes.but if rocky had the advancements in sports technology of today then what kind of fight is it?

A cruiserweight bout for Marciano.

[nick wells jr]

A cruiserweight bout for Marciano.
so then its a complete mismatch

[janitor]

trainers,advancements in equipment and facilities,legal suppllements etc..

That is one area where training methods has regresed substantialy since Rockys day.

There is not a trainer around today of the calibre of Charlie Goldman.

[mr. magoo]

That is one area where training methods has regresed substantialy since Rockys day

I don't know if I agree. How many champions did Emanuel Steward, Angelo Dundee, Gil Clancy and Lou Duva train? Besides, that's just to name a few.

[Dempsey1238]

Yeah, but Larry hadn't cultivated his jab yet. Sparring isn't always a significant indicator of what a competitive outcome might be. Boogaloo Watts injured and decked Hagler with a body attack while sparring, after Marv kayoed him in competition.

As rusty and mistimed as Holmes was against Tyson, he still posed some problems with his height and reach. Marciano had shorter arms, probably slower fists, and certainly slower feet. It merits reminding that Holmes was dominant in the two title defenses where he was floored, both before and after those knockdowns against Snipes and Shavers. While Jersey Joe Walcott was getting fatigued by the end of his first tiff with Louis, he displayed no such slippage before Marciano's sudden knockout to win the title. Larry wasn't wiped out at the end of his 15 rounds against Berbick and Cobb, nor do I think he would be against Rocky. For most of the match, I doubt that Holmes would let him get close enough to pound away at the arms or any other part of his anatomy with any regularity. Seeing the visual of Marciano in the ring with Ali does sort of reinforce that impression in my mind.

If Walcott hadn't sustained a vision impairing cut against Rocky, he probably would have defended the title successfully. At his peak, Holmes's skin was far less likely to get cut than the 38 year old Walcott's was.

Not sure I agree with that, The right hand was landed more and more in the later rounds, he did hurt Walcott a bit with the right in the ten round with the right. You may say Walcott was blind, but whats often forgoting is Rocky was blinded for about 5 rounds. Rocky was also cut on the scap with blood pouring in his eyes also. It was relly a drag out beat down affair. Walcott had shown great slipping abilty in that fight. Also againts Charles.

[janitor]

I don't know if I agree. How many champions did Emanuel Steward, Angelo Dundee, Gil Clancy and Lou Duva train? Besides, that's just to name a few.

There are trainers who produce a lot of champions and trainers who are good motivators in any era.

A real maestro's are the ones who can take a limited talent and polish them into a world beater.

[nick wells jr]

good point but that doesnt mean charlie goldman exceeds stewards or duvas status.i guess you apply the same advancements to goldman and then see what happens after all this a complete fictional fight neway.

[Duodenum]

Not sure I agree with that, The right hand was landed more and more in the later rounds, he did hurt Walcott a bit with the right in the ten round with the right. You may say Walcott was blind, but whats often forgoting is Rocky was blinded for about 5 rounds. Rocky was also cut on the scap with blood pouring in his eyes also. It was relly a drag out beat down affair. Walcott had shown great slipping abilty in that fight. Also againts Charles.It's perfectly feasible that Walcott might have suddenly wilted in the final three rounds. Jersey Joe admitted was going for a knockout, not a decision win, possibly a tacit indication that he had doubts about being able to go 15. He had been famously kayoed prior to that, and I'd imagine that Rocky was buoyed by that realization as the match dragged on.

[Dempsey1238]

Well in round 13, Walcott was clearly trying to pull a DLH vs Tito. He was keeping space between him and Marciano, not hardly thowing punchings. First time Walcott did something like that for 12 rounds. Well Marciano back Walcott on the ropes, and Marciano feited a left, Walcott with on to try to counter the left with a right, and Marciano switch and thown in that right hand for the knockout. Walcott made a misjudgement leaded to the knockout. Marciano fool him with that left feit.

[Bill1234]

good point but that doesnt mean charlie goldman exceeds stewards or duvas status.i guess you apply the same advancements to goldman and then see what happens after all this a complete fictional fight neway.


Angelo Dunde seems to think that Charlie Goldman is the greatest trainer of all time. He took Rocky Marciano, who was a very late starter in boxing, and had next to no natural talent, and turned him into an ATG fighter who has the highest KO percentage out of any heavyweight champion.

[janitor]

good point but that doesnt mean charlie goldman exceeds stewards or duvas status.

Whether or not he dose there were a lot more boxing gyms in the 50s and a lot more quality trainers.

The main reason why you could not have another Mike Tyson today is because there are no Cus Damato's to teach him. It takes a lot more excelence in a trainer to polish a fighter like Marciano or even Tyson than it dose to polish a fighter like Klitschko.

[mr. magoo]

Whether or not he dose there were a lot more boxing gyms in the 50s and a lot more quality trainers.

The main reason why you could not have another Mike Tyson today is because there are no Cus Damato's to teach him. It takes a lot more excelence in a trainer to polish a fighter like Marciano or even Tyson than it dose to polish a fighter like Klitschko.

Okay,

Here's a question for you, and it might even be something worth starting a different thread for, along with perhaps getting some insite from other authors like Cross Trainer as well.

What qualities are trainers today lacking in, and what skills and fundamentals both basic and complex, are they not instilling in their fighters?

[JohnThomas1]

Angelo Dunde seems to think that Charlie Goldman is the greatest trainer of all time. He took Rocky Marciano, who was a very late starter in boxing, and had next to know natural talent, and turned him into an ATG fighter who has the highest KO percentage out of any heavyweight champion.

Well that's a surprise. Dundee of course worked with Goldman and learnt much of the ropes off him. Nothing like a bit of sneaky self praise.

Obviously the man could train tho.

[KTFO]

He took Rocky Marciano, who was a very late starter in boxing, and had next to know natural talent, and turned him into an ATG fighter who has the highest KO percentage out of any heavyweight champion.



Vitali Klitschko.

[Bill1234]

Vitali Klitschko.


Damn your right. BUT Marciano was tons better.

[KTFO]

Damn your right. BUT Marciano was tons better.





:spliff

[Dempsey1238]

VK was no real heavyweight champ though. He just had a alpha scrap. Forget that Ring Mag BS also.

[Bummy Davis]

Angelo Dunde seems to think that Charlie Goldman is the greatest trainer of all time. He took Rocky Marciano, who was a very late starter in boxing, and had next to no natural talent, and turned him into an ATG fighter who has the highest KO percentage out of any heavyweight champion.

Goldman was brilliant,one of the best ever,rates up there with Freddie Brown,Ray Arcel,Al Silvani,Chappie Blackburn,George Gainford,Angelo Dundee,he took lemons and turned them into Lemonade, he turned Rocky's weaknesses into strengths

[KTFO]

VK was no real heavyweight champ though.



You're on drugs too. :cannabis

[Ted Stickles]

Larry had a tough go with Norton( crouch fighter) and Tyson demolished him( crouch fighter) and Frazier beat him up regurlarly in sparring( crouch fighter)....So i tend to think that this fight would not have been as easy for Larry as some may think.....

[Executioner]

I think this is a TERRIBLE match up for Holmes. He is too vulnerable to right hands and Marciano would surely land his and drop him in similar fashion as did Shavers. Difference being Shavers is not as good as Rocky or good a finisher.

Marciano TKO10

[Ted Stickles]

I think this is a TERRIBLE match up for Holmes. He is too vulnerable to right hands and Marciano would surely land his and drop him in similar fashion as did Shavers. Difference being Shavers is not as good as Rocky or good a finisher.

Marciano TKO10

Good point he was very vulnerable to right hands

[miamite]

Extremely winded? He was that maybe twice in his career. And only once in his prime. He was winded against Norton at the middle of the 15th round, but, who wouldn't be besides Marciano? He looked ready to die at the end of the 15th round against Norton. In the Weaver fight he was looking tired, which led him to get start getting tagged by a number of shots, which I think is one of the reasons Larry seemed to be starting to sitting down on his punches. Now i'm grasping at straws here i'll admit, because he was looking fine towards the end of most fights. No doubt Larry had terrific stamina, but put him in there with Marciano and I think he'll come out of the bout the same way he looked against Norton, or worse.
Larry was fine against Berbick and Cobb at the end of 15 rounds. He was lookin fine because of the level of activity he had to sustain. Its completely different when you have a bull charging after you digging shots to your body. I have to tell you, in my own experience, well placed shots to the body take more out of me than anything else. This is what Holmes would experience with Marciano. Crushing shots that would surely take it's toll over the fight. Would it be enough to stop Larry in 15 rounds? I don't think so, but Larry would be in for a rough time.

[miamite]

In 1973 Frazier broke Larry's rib in sparring yes. Larry hadn't devolped a jab yet, and had only been boxing for 4 years. But he was already on a high enough level to be sparring ATG's before he was pro, and on his pro debut. What kind of inane statement is that? I guess any of Floyd's sparring partners must truly be great to be sparring at that kind of level. :nut

Cooney had one of the hardest, if not the hardest left hooks of all time, and his money punch was his left hook to the liver. Larry was only noticably hurt twice by those body shots, not including all of the low blows Cooney hit Larry with. Cooney had a monster of a left hook, but the fact is if those left hooks could catch him and do damage, Frazier would put a bad beating on that body. Larry was far from invulnerable to a body attack.

[miamite]

I think this is a TERRIBLE match up for Holmes. He is too vulnerable to right hands and Marciano would surely land his and drop him in similar fashion as did Shavers. Difference being Shavers is not as good as Rocky or good a finisher.

Marciano TKO10 I'm very impressed by Holmes survival skills though. Tyson was just as good a finisher as Rocky, if not better, and it took him nearly a whole round to stop him after he caught him with that first right hand. Consider his age and conditioning, and in my opinion that is a pretty impressive feat.

[apollack]

Tough style matchup for Rocky because Holmes had height, reach, speed, weight advantages. If 180-pound range Ezzard Charles gave Rocky a tough fight in their first contest, then Holmes would definitely do so. That said, a past his prime old Norton gave Larry a close fight, and Rocky would have applied a lot more pressure and have thrown a lot more punches, and really worked over Larry's body. Interesting fight.

[nick wells jr]

im not sure how to do this but would one of you computer savy guys start a thread on prime ali vs prime holmes.please.this is one i think would be a good one to get everyone going on.not to stray off this subject.

[Bill1234]

Larry had a tough go with Norton( crouch fighter) and Tyson demolished him( crouch fighter) and Frazier beat him up regurlarly in sparring( crouch fighter)....So i tend to think that this fight would not have been as easy for Larry as some may think.....

What is it with people bringing up the Tyson fight? Larry was out of shape, old and rusty. Counting his fight with Tyson is like counting Ali's fight with Holmes. Frazier didn't beat Larry up in sparring. Larry gave Joe hell. Larry had a torn tricept muscle going into the Norton fight, and its not Norton's crouch that troubled Larry, its where and how he blocked. His right hand was always in ready to catch a jab. Thats why Ali had so much trouble with him too.

[Bill1234]

I'm very impressed by Holmes survival skills though. Tyson was just as good a finisher as Rocky, if not better, and it took him nearly a whole round to stop him after he caught him with that first right hand. Consider his age and conditioning, and in my opinion that is a pretty impressive feat.

It did take him a whole round. There were 6 seconds left in the round when Cortez stopped it.

[Bill1234]

He looked ready to die at the end of the 15th round against Norton. In the Weaver fight he was looking tired, which led him to get start getting tagged by a number of shots, which I think is one of the reasons Larry seemed to be starting to sitting down on his punches. Now i'm grasping at straws here i'll admit, because he was looking fine towards the end of most fights. No doubt Larry had terrific stamina, but put him in there with Marciano and I think he'll come out of the bout the same way he looked against Norton, or worse.
He was lookin fine because of the level of activity he had to sustain. Its completely different when you have a bull charging after you digging shots to your body. I have to tell you, in my own experience, well placed shots to the body take more out of me than anything else. This is what Holmes would experience with Marciano. Crushing shots that would surely take it's toll over the fight. Would it be enough to stop Larry in 15 rounds? I don't think so, but Larry would be in for a rough time.


Norton also looked ready to die at the end of their fight too though. They were both hurt and tired. Larry almost dropped Norton with a left uppercut. Larry had the flu going into the Weaver fight, like Marciano did going into the Cockell fight.

[Bill1234]

I think this is a TERRIBLE match up for Holmes. He is too vulnerable to right hands and Marciano would surely land his and drop him in similar fashion as did Shavers. Difference being Shavers is not as good as Rocky or good a finisher.

Marciano TKO10

Everyone is saying how vulnerable Larry is to right hands. Only 4 people dropped him legit through out his whole career. One was a flash knock down (Isaac). If your throwing 50 jabs a round, chances are occasionaly someone is gonna catch you with a right hand. Out of 75 fights, 4 times isn't bad at all. With a prime Larry, you have one shot to get that right hand in, and its gonna take all hell to get it in. You have to take 5-6 shots to the face in a row before the oppurtunity will come.

[mr. magoo]

It takes a lot more excelence in a trainer to polish a fighter like Marciano or even Tyson than it dose to polish a fighter like Klitschko


I disagree,

In Tyson's book Bad intentions There is a reference made to the first time Cus D'amato ever layed eyes on a 13 year old Tyson, who was shadow boxing and never had any formal training. Cus looked at him and said, " That's the next heavyweight champ of the world " . That being said, I find it hard to believe that Tyson was never without the natural talent to become an all time great. Klitschko was a more manufactured champion if you ask me. Before training with Emmanuel Steward, he bore the resemblence of your typical eastern euro fighter, who utilized a very straight upright stance. Steward helped Klitschko to make drastic changes in his style, and at a rather late stage in his career. Personally, I think it's more difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, rather than to pottie train a puppy, who came from good stock to begin with

[JohnThomas1]

Norton also looked ready to die at the end of their fight too though. They were both hurt and tired. Larry almost dropped Norton with a left uppercut. Larry had the flu going into the Weaver fight, like Marciano did going into the Cockell fight.

Norton was all but 35 years old. Larry was a full 6 years younger and a lot less ringworn.

[Bill1234]

What kind of inane statement is that? I guess any of Floyd's sparring partners must truly be great to be sparring at that kind of level. :nut

Cooney had a monster of a left hook, but the fact is if those left hooks could catch him and do damage, Frazier would put a bad beating on that body. Larry was far from invulnerable to a body attack.


No, Larry was their top sparring partners. When your the top sparring partner, the person your sparring, in Holmes case it was Frazier and Ali, they are gonna go all out on you. Fight you like they would in a real fight, and just as hard. Larry held his own with both of them. Holding your own against 2 ATG's before you go pro is very impressive.


No duh Larry's isn't invulnerable to body shots, no one is. Larry could take body shots very well, and was barely ever noticably bothered by them. The only guy would have been Cooney, and Larry only showed it twice. Twice out of many of Cooney's hardest left hooks to the body.

[Bill1234]

Norton was all but 35 years old. Larry was a full 6 years younger and a lot less ringworn.

I know. But that was Norton's last peak performance. That took A LOT out of him. It didn't take much out of Larry because he wasn't ring worn. Norton was never the same after that fight.

[mr. magoo]

I've always been a big fan of Holmes, but after an entire year of going back and forth on these issues, I'm begining to agree with John Thomas and some of the other critics who point out, that Holmes fought inordinately weak competition for a man holding a lineal title. I'm not going to say that all his fights were against bums, but let's not sugar coat things anymore. Norton, was past his prime and gave Holmes fits. Some people even think the fight was a robbery. I don't of course, but I'll still say that it was close. Shavers was also past his prime, and not even a terrific fighter when he was, yet he nearly knocked Holmes to kingdom come. Ali had no business fighting anyone, let alone the heavyweight champion, yet he got a shot at Larry. Mike Weaver was a 19-8 journeyman, who managed to nearly upset Holmes. Renaldo Snipes had all but 11 KO's in 22 wins, and he dropped Holmes. Randall Tex Cobb was a bum as was Scott Ledoux, David Bey, L. Spinks, Ossie Ocasio, Lucien Rodriguez ,and Alfredo Evangelista. Marvis Frazier was talented and had beaten some decent fighters, but 10 pro bouts? Carl Williams had 16 fights, and his best win was decision over Tillis, who every guy and his brother had beaten, yet he lost a split decision, and gave Holmes one of the ugliest shiners I've ever seen on a reighning champ. Tim Witherspoon had 15 bouts, and his only good win was a close decision over Renaldo Snipes, yet Holmes couldn't beat Witherspoon with any reasonable degree of decisivness. Scott Frank and Leroy Jones had nice looking records, but no one beneath the numbers to really give their resumes any substance. Gerry Cooney is commonly listed as Holmes best title defense, yet he hadn't fought in 13 months, and had never beaten a world class fighter in his prime. The Norton and Lyle wins don't impress me much. Both of those men were way out of prime, and were suseptible to getting beaten by punchers even on their best days.

Some say Holmes should have fought the likes of Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Michael Dokes and perhaps Gerrie Coetzee. While I agree, I'm not even so sure that I would have given him much credit even if he had. Those guys in my opinion were'nt much better than the bums that Holmes actually faced. I suppose his later win over Ray Mercer was OK given Larry's advanced age, however Mercer was not a particularly talented fighter. he was nearly outpointed by Francesco Damiani and following the Holmes bout, was upset by Jesse Ferguson in a most disgraceful way, as Mercer was cought on camera trying to bribe Ferguson to lose.

I still like Holmes but if quality of competition determines the greatness of a champion, then I think Holmes falls drastically short when being compared to most of history's greatest fighters....

.....The End......

[JohnThomas1]

I know. But that was Norton's last peak performance. That took A LOT out of him. It didn't take much out of Larry because he wasn't ring worn. Norton was never the same after that fight.

Bill, i sincerely doubt Norton still had a peak performance in him. You mean his last top performance, his peak was gone. As for never the same, he lost a gruelling title fight at the age of some 35 after a substancial career, it's understandable it was curtains for him. None the less a great effort, it would have been interesting if he was say 28.

[apollack]

I think Holmes is a vastly underrated champion, and although I disagree with what you just said, I think this was the most cogently and eloquently stated, nonpersonal critique of Holmes that I have read (mr. magoo's critique).

[JohnThomas1]

I've always been a big fan of Holmes, but after an entire year of going back and forth on these issues, I'm begining to agree with John Thomas and some of the other critics who point out, that Holmes fought inordinately weak competition for a man holding a lineal title. I'm not going to say that all his fights were against bums, but let's not sugar coat things anymore. Norton, was past his prime and gave Holmes fits. Some people even think the fight was a robbery. I don't of course, but I'll still say that it was close. Shavers was also past his prime, and not even a terrific fighter when he was, yet he nearly knocked Holmes to kingdom come. Ali had no business fighting anyone, let alone the heavyweight champion, yet he got a shot at Larry. Mike Weaver was a 19-8 journeyman, who managed to nearly upset Holmes. Renaldo Snipes had all but 11 KO's in 22 wins, and he dropped Holmes. Randall Tex Cobb was a bum as was Scott Ledoux, David Bey, L. Spinks, Ossie Ocasio, Lucien Rodriguez ,and Alfredo Evangelista. Marvis Frazier was talented and had beaten some decent fighters, but 10 pro bouts? Carl Williams had 16 fights, and his best win was decision over Tillis, who every guy and his brother had beaten, yet he lost a split decision, and gave Holmes one of the ugliest shiners I've ever seen on a reighning champ. Tim Witherspoon had 15 bouts, and his only good win was a close decision over Renaldo Snipes, yet Holmes couldn't beat Witherspoon with any reasonable degree of decisivness. Scott Frank and Leroy Jones had nice looking records, but no one beneath the numbers to really give their resumes any substance. Gerry Cooney is commonly listed as Holmes best title defense, yet he hadn't fought in 13 months, and had never beaten a world class fighter in his prime. The Norton and Lyle wins don't impress me much. Both of those men were way out of prime, and were suseptible to getting beaten by punchers even on their best days.

Some say Holmes should have fought the likes of Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Michael Dokes and perhaps Gerrie Coetzee. While I agree, I'm not even so sure that I would have given him much credit even if he had. Those guys in my opinion were'nt much better than the bums that Holmes actually faced. I suppose his later win over Ray Mercer was OK given Larry's advanced age, however Mercer was not a particularly talented fighter. he was nearly outpointed by Francesco Damiani and following the Holmes bout, was upset by Jesse Ferguson in a most disgraceful way, as Mercer was cought on camera trying to bribe Ferguson to lose.

I still like Holmes but if quality of competition determines the greatness of a champion, then I think Holmes falls drastically short when being compared to most of history's greatest fighters....

.....The End......

Jeez i can't believe you turned around so much. I guess we had some cold hard facts after all.

Somewhere out there Dr.Z. is crying!

[mr. magoo]

Jeez i can't believe you turned around so much. I guess we had some cold hard facts after all.

Somewhere out there Dr.Z. is crying!

After years and years of defending Holmes legacy, I finally realize that I must concede to the cold hard facts about his reign. His oposition was absolutely horrible in contrast to Ali, Tyson, Holyfield, Liston and Lewis. I mean seriously, can you imagine Gerry Cooney being listed as Muhammad Ali's best win? I can't either. Tyson's victories over Spinks, Thomas, Tucker and Ruddock were in all likelyhood better than anything Holmes did in the course of 20 title defenses. Even some of Tyson's post prison fights against Mcneeley, Mathis, Seldon, Bruno, Golata, Botha and Savarese weren't much different than some of the guys Holmes defended his title against. And did Holmes ever have rivalries with other great talented fighters the way Holyfield did with Bowe, Lewis, Moorer and Tyson? outside of fighting Shavers twice, I think not. Sonny liston crippled his division in a most dominant and violent fashion between 1958 and 1961, before getting a title shot. Holmes on the otherhand, was the benificiary of being in the right place at the right time, with his great big win over Roy Williams.

I used to rank Holmes in the top 3, but I seriously have to drop him down significantly. Based on his reevaluated credentials, I'm not so sure that I can have him ranked very high anymore.

[Bill1234]

Tyson and Lewis's comp? Tyson fought some of the guys that Larry did, just they were older and not as good. Tyson didn't face good comp. Lewis fought all right comp, but he fought some guys that were way past it like Tyson and Holyfield. Larry's comp IMO is underrated. Witherspoon went on to win a title, same with Weaver. When Larry fought Weaver, he had the flu, which explains the lack of movement and unusal slowness and bad stamina. Cooney was still a very good fighter, he just couldn't beat great fighters like Holmes, Spinks, and Foreman. I'll admit that Holmes's comp wasn't the best, but its not his fault. You can't blame him for not fighting Coetzee, because he was going to. The fight got called off a month or 2 before fight night. Page, that subject is iffy. Instead of legacy, Larry took the buisness route, and you can't blame him for it. He said it him self, if there wasn't money in boxing, then he wouldn't do it, and he will always choose the fight that he will make more money with. He made more money fighting Frazier than he would have fighting Page. Tyson never had any rivalries, neither did Lewis. Larry proved that he could fight in the 90's, and that was Holyfield, Lewis, and Bowe's time. Larry proved that he could stay competive, and even beat Ray Mercer in a far more decisive and better fashion than Lewis. Why would Larry have fought Dokes??? Dokes was on drugs and all, and would prove nothing once he beat him. Larry was simply in the wrong era, much like Marciano, and for some reason or another, will be condemed for it, just because he didn't fight in an era like Ali's.

[mr. magoo]

Tyson fought some of the guys that Larry did, just they were older and not as good.


How many guys are we honestly talking about here Bill, and were they really better when they fought Holmes? Berbick was a little up there in age, but then Tyson was a 20 year old kid, and he dusted Berbick in only two rounds. Besides Trevor was coming off of his biggest win against Pinklon Thomas, therfore I wouldn't say that he was any worse then when he fought Holmes. Marvis Frazier had 10 pro fights against Holmes. He was far more seasoned against Tyson, and lost in even less time. Spinks upset an aging Holmes, then fought Tyson slightly past his prime, but come on. 90 seconds? Same story with Williams. How many fighters can you say that Holmes beat who were better than Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, or Tony Tucker? Or for that matter Lewis's best wins against Gary Mason, Razor Ruddock, Vitali Klitschko, Andrew Golata, Michael Grant and Olive Mccall? Holmes fought Gerry Cooney and an aging Shavers, who are commonly listed as his best opponents. These are terrible wins to have as your best performances in 20 title fights.



Tyson didn't face good comp. Lewis fought all right comp, but he fought some guys that were way past it like Tyson and Holyfield.

I'm not saying that Tyson or Lewis fought outstanding opposition, but it was noticeably better than Holmes'. Besides, would you rank even a past prime Holyfield lower than maybe 17 or 18 of the guys who Holmes beat?


Witherspoon went on to win a title,

What he did in hindsite doesn't justify Holmes giving him a shot with 15 bouts.


same with Weaver. When Larry fought Weaver, he had the flu, which explains the lack of movement and unusal slowness and bad stamina.

Whatever the reason for Holmes weak performance against Weaver is irrelevant. The fact that Weaver got a title shot with a journeyman's record is.
Cooney was still a very good fighter, he just couldn't beat great fighters like Holmes, Spinks, and Foreman.

Yes, Cooney was good, but not exactly good enough to where you'd want to have him listed as your best win. Cooney was very inexperienced against Holmes. He had never been beyond 8 rounds in his career, and who in fact only boxed 2 rounds in the previous two years before fighting Holmes. That's to say nothing about his self confidence problem, drug/alcohol use and of course his crap for management.



I'll admit that Holmes's comp wasn't the best, but its not his fault. You can't blame him for not fighting Coetzee, because he was going to. The fight got called off a month or 2 before fight night. Page, that subject is iffy. Instead of legacy, Larry took the buisness route, and you can't blame him for it.


I won't disagree that politics had a role in Holmes not facing some of the division's other talents, but the fact is that we can only rate him for who he actually did fight, and frankly Bill, I'd say Holmes' reign was a pretty big disapointment considering that he was supposed to be the protege of Muhammad Ali....

Tyson never had any rivalries, neither did Lewis.


Yeah because Tyson kicked the shit out of nearly everyone he fought in his prime. Larry wouldn't even give rematches to fighters who practicly smoked his ass.

Larry proved that he could fight in the 90's, and that was Holyfield, Lewis, and Bowe's time.

Yeah, but Holmes didn't beat any of those guys did he?

Larry proved that he could stay competive, and even beat Ray Mercer in a far more decisive and better fashion than Lewis.

Ferguson beat Mercer more decisively than Lewis. So what?

Why would Larry have fought Dokes??? Dokes was on drugs and all, and would prove nothing once he beat him.

Uh maybe because he was better than Scott Frank and Lucien Rodriguez? :huh


Larry was simply in the wrong era, much like Marciano, and for some reason or another, will be condemed for it, just because he didn't fight in an era like Ali's.


Fair enough, however he didn't exactly do everything he could to make the best of his era did he?

[Bill1234]

Michael Dokes and Larry wouldn't have had any buisness fighting each other, and even then, Larry would be critiqued for fight Dokes. They would say "Larry didn't fight a prime Dokes" or "Dokes was on drugs" stuff like that. I don't see what the big deal is with Larry not fighting 2-3 guys, when he would only get bashed for it anyway. Tyson didn't bash everyone into the ground. Greg Page gave Tyson a good fight. Holmes still fought some good fighters. Were they the best? No. Were they decent? Yes. People praise Michael Spinks for KOing Cooney, but Cooney was in even worse shape then when he fought Larry. The only reason Cooney didn't have very many rounds under his belt is because he knocked everyone out before it. Gerry only had 2 more fights after Larry, so I guess he wasn't very expeirence his whole career. The best guys Larry fought were Witherspoon, Cooney, Snipes Shavers (just 1 year past his prime), Norton, Spinks (both), and Weaver. Thats not that bad its a lot better than what it is now a days.

[mr. magoo]

Michael Dokes and Larry wouldn't have had any buisness fighting each other, and even then, Larry would be critiqued for fight Dokes. They would say "Larry didn't fight a prime Dokes" or "Dokes was on drugs" stuff like that. I don't see what the big deal is with Larry not fighting 2-3 guys, when he would only get bashed for it anyway. Tyson didn't bash everyone into the ground. Greg Page gave Tyson a good fight. Holmes still fought some good fighters. Were they the best? No. Were they decent? Yes. People praise Michael Spinks for KOing Cooney, but Cooney was in even worse shape then when he fought Larry. The only reason Cooney didn't have very many rounds under his belt is because he knocked everyone out before it. Gerry only had 2 more fights after Larry, so I guess he wasn't very expeirence his whole career. The best guys Larry fought were Witherspoon, Cooney, Snipes Shavers (just 1 year past his prime), Norton, Spinks (both), and Weaver. Thats not that bad its a lot better than what it is now a days.

I don't consider Page, Dokes, Coetzee or Thomas as great fighters either. The four of them at best, had maybe 3 quality wins a piece, and came from a generation of fighters, many of whom had drug abuse problems, poor training habits and were generally washed up by the time they were in their late 20's. The unfortunate fact of the matter is however, that they were rated among the top of the crop during the ill faded 80's. I agree with you that even if Holmes had beaten them he would still be subject to scrutiny for fighting in a weak era, and looking unimpressive against mediocre competition. Another problem that Holmes suffered from was a bad public image, which he helped create himself. Although I don't blame all of the critics attacks on Holmes', the fact still stands that we can only rate fighters based on who they fought and what they accomplished during their perspective eras.

Here are the biggest issues that I see with Holmes' title reign:

A. He fought in a weak era

B. Despite fighting in a weak era, he did not always fight the best men in it.

C. At times looked unimpressive against the men he did actually face.

D. Did not establish himself as the one dominant champ.

E. Did not give rematches to fighters who probably deserved them. ( although I often think that this criticism is blown a bit out of proportion by some of the haters ).

F. Established a rather poor public image, which left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths ( of course he wasn't the only one to do this, as we later saw with Tyson, and previously saw with Liston. )

That said, I still rank Holmes in my top ten, and hold him in high regard. I can no longer however, have him rated as a top 5 heavyweight champion, as I had previously done for so many years....

[True Writer]

I don't consider Page, Dokes, Coetzee or Thomas as great fighters either. The four of them at best, had maybe 3 quality wins a piece, and came from a generation of fighters, many of whom had drug abuse problems, poor training habits and were generally washed up by the time they were in their late 20's. The unfortunate fact of the matter is however, that they were rated among the top of the crop during the ill faded 80's. I agree with you that even if Holmes had beaten them he would still be subject to scrutiny for fighting in a weak era, and looking unimpressive against mediocre competition. Another problem that Holmes suffered from was a bad public image, which he helped create himself. Although I don't blame all of the critics attacks on Holmes', the fact still stands that we can only rate fighters based on who they fought and what they accomplished during their perspective eras.

Here are the biggest issues that I see with Holmes' title reign:

A. He fought in a weak era

B. Despite fighting in a weak era, he did not always fight the best men in it.

C. At times looked unimpressive against the men he did actually face.

D. Did not establish himself as the one dominant champ.

E. Did not give rematches to fighters who probably deserved them. ( although I often think that this criticism is blown a bit out of proportion by some of the haters ).

F. Established a rather poor public image, which left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths ( of course he wasn't the only one to do this, as we later saw with Tyson, and previously saw with Liston. )

That said, I still rank Holmes in my top ten, and hold him in high regard. I can no longer however, have him rated as a top 5 heavyweight champion, as I had previously done for so many years....


Agreed well said!!! Also Holmes was like watching paint dry!:happy

[Bill1234]

Agreed well said!!! Also Holmes was like watching paint dry!:happy


How so? He was always throwing punches, and he would usually get into a slug fest or another. If you are refering to his fight with Lucien Rodriguez, then that is not the real Larry. Larry said it him self...he knew that was a terrible fight, and he did his best to turn it into one.

[JohnThomas1]

Jeez Magoo, it's different seeing you shoot down pro Holmes boys lol. I moved him from 3 to 4 very recently but he's there to stay now i'd say. I actually have Lewis at 3. TBH i am ranking from Louis forward.

[mr. magoo]

Jeez Magoo, it's different seeing you shoot down pro Holmes boys lol. I moved him from 3 to 4 very recently but he's there to stay now i'd say. I actually have Lewis at 3. TBH i am ranking from Louis forward.

In all fairness, Cooney, Witherspoon, Norton and Shavers weren't bad. They were pretty good fighters, although Kenny and Earnie were getting a bit long in the tooth. On the otherhand, Lucien Rodiriguez, Lorenzo Zanon, Alfredo Evangelista, Ossie Ocasio, Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb, Scott Ledoux and David Bey were pretty goddamn piss poor fighters if I say so mysel. Frank, Marvis Frazier, James Smith, and Carl Williams were decent but in a lot of eras, probably wouldn't be top contenders. Leroy Jones was Ok I guess. For whatever it's worth, he was a large heavyweight by the standards of the day, and was unbeaten in 25 fights, with no great names in particular, but at least defeated some of the division's tougher journeyman and trial hoarses.

I also noticed that you said you were ranking from Louis forward. I don't know if you mean that you have him in front of Muhammad. Personally, I can't see Louis's reign being much different from Holmes in terms of competition quality. Although, in fairness Louis fought whatever guys were available. A fair argument can be made However, that Both Holmes and Louis had rather padded records, which may explain why they had the two longest reigns and most defenses. Think about it, together they had 44 defenses combined. Of these 44, though how many of them do you think were against shit? Of course the opposite could be said by combining the quality wins that each man had. Between Louis and Holmes you had victories over Schmeling, B. Baer, M. Baer, Norton, Conn, Shavers, Braddock, Cooney, Walcott, Witherspoon, Nova, Weaver, Carnera, and Mercer. Not a bad list if all these names belonged to just one champion. The problem is that it simply isn't the case. Louis fought a lot more guys who were like Jack Roper than Max Schmeling, while Holmes fought a lot more men like tex Cobb than than Ken Norton.

[Bummy Davis]

I've always been a big fan of Holmes, but after an entire year of going back and forth on these issues, I'm begining to agree with John Thomas and some of the other critics who point out, that Holmes fought inordinately weak competition for a man holding a lineal title. I'm not going to say that all his fights were against bums, but let's not sugar coat things anymore. Norton, was past his prime and gave Holmes fits. Some people even think the fight was a robbery. I don't of course, but I'll still say that it was close. Shavers was also past his prime, and not even a terrific fighter when he was, yet he nearly knocked Holmes to kingdom come. Ali had no business fighting anyone, let alone the heavyweight champion, yet he got a shot at Larry. Mike Weaver was a 19-8 journeyman, who managed to nearly upset Holmes. Renaldo Snipes had all but 11 KO's in 22 wins, and he dropped Holmes. Randall Tex Cobb was a bum as was Scott Ledoux, David Bey, L. Spinks, Ossie Ocasio, Lucien Rodriguez ,and Alfredo Evangelista. Marvis Frazier was talented and had beaten some decent fighters, but 10 pro bouts? Carl Williams had 16 fights, and his best win was decision over Tillis, who every guy and his brother had beaten, yet he lost a split decision, and gave Holmes one of the ugliest shiners I've ever seen on a reighning champ. Tim Witherspoon had 15 bouts, and his only good win was a close decision over Renaldo Snipes, yet Holmes couldn't beat Witherspoon with any reasonable degree of decisivness. Scott Frank and Leroy Jones had nice looking records, but no one beneath the numbers to really give their resumes any substance. Gerry Cooney is commonly listed as Holmes best title defense, yet he hadn't fought in 13 months, and had never beaten a world class fighter in his prime. The Norton and Lyle wins don't impress me much. Both of those men were way out of prime, and were suseptible to getting beaten by punchers even on their best days.

Some say Holmes should have fought the likes of Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Michael Dokes and perhaps Gerrie Coetzee. While I agree, I'm not even so sure that I would have given him much credit even if he had. Those guys in my opinion were'nt much better than the bums that Holmes actually faced. I suppose his later win over Ray Mercer was OK given Larry's advanced age, however Mercer was not a particularly talented fighter. he was nearly outpointed by Francesco Damiani and following the Holmes bout, was upset by Jesse Ferguson in a most disgraceful way, as Mercer was cought on camera trying to bribe Ferguson to lose.

I still like Holmes but if quality of competition determines the greatness of a champion, then I think Holmes falls drastically short when being compared to most of history's greatest fighters....

.....The End......

:good :good Good Post, People think I have a personal dislike for Larry but I liked Larry and enjoyed his fights but was fustrated that he did not unify, stayed clear of tough rematches, and avoided many of the tougher contenders,Don King was caught paying John Ort to raise Larry up in the rating and Raise his opponent,TOM PRATER, for the elimination. I think Larry may have beaten a lot of the guys he avoided but we will never know, I love a champ that fights the best even if he loses(Floyd fought Liston)(Vito A fought Hagler) Back in the days of one Champ in each division you had to fight the best and BE the real champ. I agree with everything you said :good

[JohnThomas1]

In all fairness, Cooney, Witherspoon, Norton and Shavers weren't bad. They were pretty good fighters, although Kenny and Earnie were getting a bit long in the tooth. On the otherhand, Lucien Rodiriguez, Lorenzo Zanon, Alfredo Evangelista, Ossie Ocasio, Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb, Scott Ledoux and David Bey were pretty goddamn piss poor fighters if I say so mysel. Frank, Marvis Frazier, James Smith, and Carl Williams were decent but in a lot of eras, probably wouldn't be top contenders. Leroy Jones was Ok I guess. For whatever it's worth, he was a large heavyweight by the standards of the day, and was unbeaten in 25 fights, with no great names in particular, but at least defeated some of the division's tougher journeyman and trial hoarses.

I also noticed that you said you were ranking from Louis forward. I don't know if you mean that you have him in front of Muhammad. Personally, I can't see Louis's reign being much different from Holmes in terms of competition quality. Although, in fairness Louis fought whatever guys were available. A fair argument can be made However, that Both Holmes and Louis had rather padded records, which may explain why they had the two longest reigns and most defenses. Think about it, together they had 44 defenses combined. Of these 44, though how many of them do you think were against shit? Of course the opposite could be said by combining the quality wins that each man had. Between Louis and Holmes you had victories over Schmeling, B. Baer, M. Baer, Norton, Conn, Shavers, Braddock, Cooney, Walcott, Witherspoon, Nova, Weaver, Carnera, and Mercer. Not a bad list if all these names belonged to just one champion. The problem is that it simply isn't the case. Louis fought a lot more guys who were like Jack Roper than Max Schmeling, while Holmes fought a lot more men like tex Cobb than than Ken Norton.

Sorry, meant era. Louis' term and domination has me impressed.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Holmes

[Bill1234]

Sorry, meant era. Louis' term and domination has me impressed.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Holmes


Now I'm confused...Ive always seen you bashing and shooting Larry down, and yet...you have him at #4 like I do.

[mr. magoo]

Now I'm confused...Ive always seen you bashing and shooting Larry down, and yet...you have him at #4 like I do.

#4 is probably a fair rating, although if I were to take the time to sit down and redo a list, I'd probably have him somewhere around 6 or 7, which is still a very good and generous rating.

[Bill1234]

#4 is probably a fair rating, although if I were to take the time to sit down and redo a list, I'd probably have him somewhere around 6 or 7, which is still a very good and generous rating.

IMO 6-3 is a goos spot for Larry.

[Dempsey1238]

4 is a bit high.

Marciano, Jeffires, and even pre title rein Jack Johnson beat better fighters than Holmes. Sure Marciano or Jeff may not have 20 plus title dfenses. But MOST of that rein is stock up with David Beys. Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, Jim Corbett, Bob Fitz, Tom Sharkey are better than ANY one Holmes beat in his rein imo.

[Bill1234]

4 is a bit high.

Marciano, Jeffires, and even pre title rein Jack Johnson beat better fighters than Holmes. Sure Marciano or Jeff may not have 20 plus title dfenses. But MOST of that rein is stock up with David Beys. Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, Jim Corbett, Bob Fitz, Tom Sharkey are better than ANY one Holmes beat in his rein imo.


Where would you have him?

[JohnThomas1]

Now I'm confused...Ive always seen you bashing and shooting Larry down, and yet...you have him at #4 like I do.

You see that's because you were only seeing my criticism of Larry Bill and not reading my whole post. It wasn't bashing at all, it was simply stating the facts, facts that turned Magoo, who used to debate against us, into one now debating from the whole other side. If you took more notice you would have seen me mention often in chats with you and Z and co that i had Holmes at 3 ATG Heavyweight, now 4. I "criticise" Larry ONLY for his weal as piss choice of challengers in the latter half of his title reign. I think Holmes is a damn fantastic fighter with as much heart and downright determination as i have ever seen in the square ring mate.

[JohnThomas1]

4 is a bit high.

Marciano, Jeffires, and even pre title rein Jack Johnson beat better fighters than Holmes. Sure Marciano or Jeff may not have 20 plus title dfenses. But MOST of that rein is stock up with David Beys. Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, Jim Corbett, Bob Fitz, Tom Sharkey are better than ANY one Holmes beat in his rein imo.

The thing is i don't yet factor Jeffries, Dempsey and Johnson in my ratings, so if these are excluded you might agree with my #4.

[Mendoza]

Holmes was a bigger and better version of Ezzard Charels. I can’t think of one thing Charles did better than Holmes as a heavyweight. Holmes was taller, had more reach, hit harder, had better footwork, more punch variety, threw more punches, fought smarter, had better hand speed, better stamina, and better durability.

It took Marciano’s best efforts to beat a slightly past his prime Ezzard Charles. This to me suggests that Holmes would defeat Marciano quite possibly scoring a late round stoppage on cuts or swelling.

[Bummy Davis]

4 is a bit high.

Marciano, Jeffires, and even pre title rein Jack Johnson beat better fighters than Holmes. Sure Marciano or Jeff may not have 20 plus title dfenses. But MOST of that rein is stock up with David Beys. Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, Jim Corbett, Bob Fitz, Tom Sharkey are better than ANY one Holmes beat in his rein imo.

:good

[Dempsey1238]

Where would you have him?

About 7 or 8.

[Dempsey1238]

Holmes was a bigger and better version of Ezzard Charels. I can’t think of one thing Charles did better than Holmes as a heavyweight. Holmes was taller, had more reach, hit harder, had better footwork, more punch variety, threw more punches, fought smarter, had better hand speed, better stamina, and better durability.

It took Marciano’s best efforts to beat a slightly past his prime Ezzard Charles. This to me suggests that Holmes would defeat Marciano quite possibly scoring a late round stoppage on cuts or swelling.

Bigger sure but Better?? Charles has beating a LOT of better fighters than Holmes has, both in the heavyweights and lightheavyweight.

[Mendoza]

Bigger sure but Better?? Charles has beating a LOT of better fighters than Holmes has, both in the heavyweights and lightheavyweight.

Holmes was easily better than Charles. While Charles might have beaten and lost to better “ pound for pound “ fighters, Holmes beat better heavyweights, and in the context of this discussion that is what matters most.

[Dempsey1238]

Better than Joe Walcott?? Joe Louis?? Jimmy Bivis?? Bob Satterfield??? Holmes only had old Norton, and perhaps Mercer to even sort of compares to this talent.

[SevenSamurai]

As much as I admire Marciano's record I think that Holmes would UD him.

[Luigi1985]

Holmes was easily better than Charles. While Charles might have beaten and lost to better “ pound for pound “ fighters, Holmes beat better heavyweights, and in the context of this discussion that is what matters most.


He had a very close fight against an old Norton, in which Norton IMO deserved at least a draw, beating guys like Jones, Snipes, Witherspoon (with 15 fights only), etc. isn´t that impressive like you try to make it, Mendoza...

[DocDevil]

Always felt the big, devasting hitting champions like Foreman,Liston etc woulda been too much for the Rock.But Marciano aginst the Ali, Holmes type,he would fare much better.Marciano would probably be playing catch up after the first round,but always boring in.Rock was a helluva finisher,if he got to Holmes like Shavers and Snipes did,he doesn't let him off the hook.

[mr. magoo]

You see that's because you were only seeing my criticism of Larry Bill and not reading my whole post. It wasn't bashing at all, it was simply stating the facts, facts that turned Magoo, who used to debate against us, into one now debating from the whole other side. If you took more notice you would have seen me mention often in chats with you and Z and co that i had Holmes at 3 ATG Heavyweight, now 4. I "criticise" Larry ONLY for his weal as piss choice of challengers in the latter half of his title reign. I think Holmes is a damn fantastic fighter with as much heart and downright determination as i have ever seen in the square ring mate.

Good post,

I want to clearify that I still hold Holmes in very high regard, and in fact will always have him in my top 6 or 7. He had one of the best jabs in history, along with incredible heart, guts, stamina, footwork, and even power that is commonly unacknowledeged. My only critcism coincides greatly with yours, and that is the long string of underqualified contenders who in many eras, probably wouldn't be elevated much higher than journeyman or fringe contender status. For the life of me, I never saw the justification in giving men like Scott Ledoux, David Bey, Tex Cobb, Ossie Ocasio, or Lucien Rodriguez title shots. I find it comparable to giving a Mercedes Benz to an underage driver, who can't even ride a bicycle.

I disagree however, with the previous poster's claim that Jack Johnson, James Jeffries or Jack Dempsey should be ranked higher than Holmes. Jeffries had but 17 victories in his whole career, and not all of his wins came against great fighters. Plus he had 2 draws. Jack Johnson's legacy of winning the colored title followed by his winning the lineal title, and his seemingly eternal career, buy him a top slot. His competition however, was no different than that of Holmes, and in fact often fought men who were worse. For example, he took the crown from Tommy Burns, who was 5'7" and weighed 168 Lbs. What the hell was this guy doing with the heavyweight title? I doubt this feat surpasses that of Holmes taking the belt from Norton, despite Ken being slightly past it. Jack Dempsey defended his title 6 times in 7 years, and failed to defend against challenger Harry Wills because he was black. In fact, Dempsey only fought 4 black fighters in his entire career, none of whom were rated. Marciano had a tremendous reign and great legacy, but 6 title defenses against past prime versions of Walcott, Moore, and Charles, along with Don Cockell, does not earn a top five spot on my watch.

I haven't done a top ten list in quite some time, and for all I know may never actually do one again. If I were to create such a list however, I'm guessing that Larry would probably fall in at about #6.

[Mendoza]

He had a very close fight against an old Norton, in which Norton IMO deserved at least a draw, beating guys like Jones, Snipes, Witherspoon (with 15 fights only), etc. isn´t that impressive like you try to make it, Mendoza...

Norton did not look old in the Holmes fight. He was more alive than any of Marciano’s opponents that night, and you could quote me on that one. Norton did not win that fight. It was close, partly because Holmes entered the match with a torn muscle in his arm.

Rocky didn’t sniff a puncher as good as Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon, or Smith. We know Holmes could take their best and beat them. Whether Rocky could is speculative. What is not speculative is he could not hope to out box Holmes. Did Rocky hit any harder than Shavers, or Cooney? I don’t think so, because if he did he would not have had to fight a shade over 9 rounds on average to win his title matches. Yes, Rocky knocked out Charles, Walcott, and Moore, but these guys were all knocked out by lesser punchers. Holmes was far more durable than any man Maricano meet.

Old age is what defeated Holmes, not his first 48 opponents. Rocky never had to fight past 33, fought many easy marks prior to becoming champion, and defended his crown far less in terms of frequency of fighter per year and # of title defenses.

[mr. magoo]

Norton did not look old in the Holmes fight. He was more alive than any of Marciano’s opponents that night, and you could quote me on that one. Norton did not win that fight. It was close, partly because Holmes entered the match with a torn muscle in his arm.

Rocky didn’t sniff a puncher as good as Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon, or Smith. We know Holmes could take their best and beat them. Whether Rocky could is speculative. What is not speculative is he could not hope to out box Holmes. Did Rocky hit any harder than Shavers, or Cooney? I don’t think so, because if he did he would not have had to fight a shade over 9 rounds on average to win his title matches. Yes, Rocky knocked out Charles, Walcott, and Moore, but these guys were all knocked out by lesser punchers. Holmes was far more durable than any man Maricano meet.

Old age is what defeated Holmes, not his first 48 opponents. Rocky never had to fight past 33, fought many easy marks prior to becoming champion, and defended his crown far less in terms of frequency of fighter per year and # of title defenses.


Good post, and frankly I agree with all of it. Cooney, Shavers and Smith were not very talented per say, but in the power department, they possesed every bit of sting as Rocky. Marciano had a style that could have given Holmes trouble, but not the physical tools. He never faced a 6'3" 215 Pound fighter in his prime. Charles, Walcott and Moore were great fighters, but up there in age, and two of them began their careers at lower weight classes. Sure, Holmes was floored by Shavers, Weaver and Snipes, but getting decked by Jersey Joe, wasn't much more flattering if even at all. You also had a good point, that Rocky's record in his first 40 fights was a bit padded, and in fact may have gotten a gift decision in his first meeting with Roland Lastarza.

[Executioner]

Who gives a flying fuck about them being black?Seriously..wtf does it matter?

[Dempsey1238]

Norton did not look old in the Holmes fight. He was more alive than any of Marciano’s opponents that night, and you could quote me on that one. Norton did not win that fight. It was close, partly because Holmes entered the match with a torn muscle in his arm.
Not as alive as Walcott, Moore or Charles the first time. Walcott fought a great fight vs Marciano. So did Charles. Both show great speed and foot work in there bouts with Marciano. Only Cockell was a coprse in title fights. Most of the guys Holmes beat hardly got in 20 fights.

Rocky didn’t sniff a puncher as good as Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon, or Smith. We know Holmes could take their best and beat them. Whether Rocky could is speculative. What is not speculative is he could not hope to out box Holmes. Did Rocky hit any harder than Shavers, or Cooney? I don’t think so, because if he did he would not have had to fight a shade over 9 rounds on average to win his title matches. Yes, Rocky knocked out Charles, Walcott, and Moore, but these guys were all knocked out by lesser punchers. Holmes was far more durable than any man Maricano meet.
Rex Layne was a pretty hard puncher, As was Walcott. I think the Rock's chin is proven. And so what if he had to fight over 9 rounds in title matchs?? He was not fighting David Bey or Joe Smoe. Charles, Walcott, and even Archie Moore are hard men to knockout. And in order to do so, you need to pound on em for a series of Rounds. Shavers is not going to walk in and blast Moore or Charles out in 1 or 2 rounds. I pretty sure Marciano can look impressive vs the Harry Kid Matthews of the world, knocking em out in 1 or 2 rounds. But he went after the top fighters in his rein. I cant say the same for Holmes.

Old age is what defeated Holmes, not his first 48 opponents. Rocky never had to fight past 33, fought many easy marks prior to becoming champion, and defended his crown far less in terms of frequency of fighter per year and # of title defenses.

So what?? Fraizer made 6 title defense, Dempsey 5. Hardly any one made it to 20 or so. Only a few fighters made it pass the 7th mark, Burns, Louis, Ali, Holmes, and Lewis. The thing is do we want few title fights vs Top fighters, Or a LOT of title fights vs never was??

[Luigi1985]

Norton did not look old in the Holmes fight. He was more alive than any of Marciano’s opponents that night, and you could quote me on that one. Norton did not win that fight. It was close, partly because Holmes entered the match with a torn muscle in his arm.

Rocky didn’t sniff a puncher as good as Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon, or Smith. We know Holmes could take their best and beat them. Whether Rocky could is speculative. What is not speculative is he could not hope to out box Holmes. Did Rocky hit any harder than Shavers, or Cooney? I don’t think so, because if he did he would not have had to fight a shade over 9 rounds on average to win his title matches. Yes, Rocky knocked out Charles, Walcott, and Moore, but these guys were all knocked out by lesser punchers. Holmes was far more durable than any man Maricano meet.

Old age is what defeated Holmes, not his first 48 opponents. Rocky never had to fight past 33, fought many easy marks prior to becoming champion, and defended his crown far less in terms of frequency of fighter per year and # of title defenses.



Dempsey1238 responded very good, I answer now only with some points:

Norton looked good in this fight, no doubt, but you can´t honestly say better than the Charles and Walcott for example in their 1st encounter with Marciano. Shavers and Cooney were/ are both very overrated punchers, especially Gerry, they KO´d almost only bums or old washed up contenders, Marciano KO´d almost everyone he faced, incl. great opponents. Holmes was undefeated in 48 fights, correct, and I really respect that, but he never faced anyone nearly as good as Walcott for example.

[Bill1234]

You see that's because you were only seeing my criticism of Larry Bill and not reading my whole post. It wasn't bashing at all, it was simply stating the facts, facts that turned Magoo, who used to debate against us, into one now debating from the whole other side. If you took more notice you would have seen me mention often in chats with you and Z and co that i had Holmes at 3 ATG Heavyweight, now 4. I "criticise" Larry ONLY for his weal as piss choice of challengers in the latter half of his title reign. I think Holmes is a damn fantastic fighter with as much heart and downright determination as i have ever seen in the square ring mate.


Good point and all, but so far you have yet to say much good about Holmes in our debates. I might just not remember or notice it though. I will read the whole post 95% of the time.

[Bill1234]

Sure, Holmes was floored by Shavers, Weaver and Snipes, but getting decked by Jersey Joe, wasn't much more flattering if even at all. You also had a good point, that Rocky's record in his first 40 fights was a bit padded, and in fact may have gotten a gift decision in his first meeting with Roland Lastarza.


Weaver didn't drop Holmes, but had him hurt a few times. The only reason Marciano won the LaStarza fight was because he knocked him down. No knock down, LaStarza wins.

[mr. magoo]

Weaver didn't drop Holmes, but had him hurt a few times. The only reason Marciano won the LaStarza fight was because he knocked him down. No knock down, LaStarza wins.

Okay,

I seem to remember Holmes falling and preventing himself from going all the way down by grabbing the ropes with his right hand. It was pretty close though, and I don't remember if he took a standing eight or not. I haven't seen the fight in a lot of years.

[JohnThomas1]

Good point and all, but so far you have yet to say much good about Holmes in our debates. I might just not remember or notice it though. I will read the whole post 95% of the time.

Our debates have all been about Holmes ducking fighters and taking easy options latter career Bill, that's why. On that point no, i don't have much good to say at all. I'd be a fool (Not to mention not in possession of the facts) to deny it.

[Ted Stickles]

This is what makes the marciano debate fascinating because he was undefeated and small,but had tremendous heart,power,stamina,and durability, so this will be debated for a long time to come because people will always try to figure out how they could beat who wasnt beaten.

[Bummy Davis]

Weaver didn't drop Holmes, but had him hurt a few times. The only reason Marciano won the LaStarza fight was because he knocked him down. No knock down, LaStarza wins.

The knock down sealed it but Lastarza was 37-0 and Marciano DID indeed Knock him down. The thing about Rocky is he always found a way to win and in this case an undefeated man who never lost and the rematch against the 53-3 Lastarza who beat every man that ever beat him except Marciano was a beatdown

[Bummy Davis]

Dempsey1238 responded very good, I answer now only with some points:

Norton looked good in this fight, no doubt, but you can´t honestly say better than the Charles and Walcott for example in their 1st encounter with Marciano. Shavers and Cooney were/ are both very overrated punchers, especially Gerry, they KO´d almost only bums or old washed up contenders, Marciano KO´d almost everyone he faced, incl. great opponents. Holmes was undefeated in 48 fights, correct, and I really respect that, but he never faced anyone nearly as good as Walcott for example.

Exactly, the Walcott that defended vs Rocky or the 1st fight Charles were better fighter than any of Holmes opponents, who was his best opponent, an old Norton, Cooney,Spinks,Tyson,Weaver,Shavers,Snipes

[JIm Broughton]

Try as I might, I just can't see Marciano beating a prime Holmes. The Holmes that boxed circles around Shavers the first time would probably due the same to Marciano. Rocky was no faster than Earnie and was probably slower and certainly smaller. How then is he going to get to Larry with a 69" reach? Larry had a 79"-80" reach with one of the best jabs in HW history and excellent lateral movement. Larry was also much faster both with hands and feet which is why I can't envision how Rocky would win. Larry would have the luxury of boxing from quite a distance from Rocky and dancing out of the way if and when Rocky got close, all the while pumping a hard fast jab in his face all night. Make both fighters the same size and it's a different story but otherwise it's Holmes all the way, at least a prime Holmes anyway. Put two good fighters in the ring and the bigger one wins nine times out of ten. Rocky has the power to hurt or KO Holmes but he just does'nt have the right sized body to deliver that power properly. Holmes by UD or late round stoppage due to cuts.

[Dempsey1238]

Shavers didnt have the punch out put as Marciano did though. I relly have a hard time seeing Holmes out boxing Marciano like he did Shavers. And unlike Shavers, Marciano has plenty of stimia to spare for 15 rounds.
I see Marciano slipping and ducking the jab more often than not as he did with Charles, Moore and Walcott. Sure some will get though. But I think Holmes misses a good number of jabs.

[fists of fury]

Try as I might, I just can't see Marciano beating a prime Holmes. The Holmes that boxed circles around Shavers the first time would probably due the same to Marciano. Rocky was no faster than Earnie and was probably slower and certainly smaller. How then is he going to get to Larry with a 69" reach? Larry had a 79"-80" reach with one of the best jabs in HW history and excellent lateral movement. Larry was also much faster both with hands and feet which is why I can't envision how Rocky would win. Larry would have the luxury of boxing from quite a distance from Rocky and dancing out of the way if and when Rocky got close, all the while pumping a hard fast jab in his face all night. Make both fighters the same size and it's a different story but otherwise it's Holmes all the way, at least a prime Holmes anyway. Put two good fighters in the ring and the bigger one wins nine times out of ten. Rocky has the power to hurt or KO Holmes but he just does'nt have the right sized body to deliver that power properly. Holmes by UD or late round stoppage due to cuts.

It's possible the fight plays out as you have seen it, but I dont think it's fair comparing Shavers and Marciano. Shavers didn't have the tenacity or drive of a Marciano, nor his killer instinct.
Rocky made his small size an advantage. It wasn't the handicap everyone thought it would be in his career.

Like most of Maricano's fights, he'd turn it into a war of wills.

[ChrisPontius]

Try as I might, I just can't see Marciano beating a prime Holmes. The Holmes that boxed circles around Shavers the first time would probably due the same to Marciano. Rocky was no faster than Earnie and was probably slower and certainly smaller. How then is he going to get to Larry with a 69" reach? Larry had a 79"-80" reach with one of the best jabs in HW history and excellent lateral movement. Larry was also much faster both with hands and feet which is why I can't envision how Rocky would win. Larry would have the luxury of boxing from quite a distance from Rocky and dancing out of the way if and when Rocky got close, all the while pumping a hard fast jab in his face all night. Make both fighters the same size and it's a different story but otherwise it's Holmes all the way, at least a prime Holmes anyway. Put two good fighters in the ring and the bigger one wins nine times out of ten. Rocky has the power to hurt or KO Holmes but he just does'nt have the right sized body to deliver that power properly. Holmes by UD or late round stoppage due to cuts.

Fair enough if you see it that way, but do remember that outside of a huge punch, Shavers and Marciano have next to nothing in common. Shavers lost nearly everytime he stepped up and sometimes when he didn't step up. Marciano always won and nearly always by KO. Besides a big punch he also has great stamina, chin, strength, and maybe most important, he knew how to impose his will on his opponent. Moore, Charles, Walcott, all master boxers, were taken out of their game.

Shavers had bad stamina, mediocre chin, horrible ability to get punches in, didn't apply Marciano's pressure and was a bad ring general in the sense that Holmes and other opponents had an easy time doing what they wanted to do. Even a dead version of Ali beat him.

[Bummy Davis]

Fair enough if you see it that way, but do remember that outside of a huge punch, Shavers and Marciano have next to nothing in common. Shavers lost nearly everytime he stepped up and sometimes when he didn't step up. Marciano always won and nearly always by KO. Besides a big punch he also has great stamina, chin, strength, and maybe most important, he knew how to impose his will on his opponent. Moore, Charles, Walcott, all master boxers, were taken out of their game.

Shavers had bad stamina, mediocre chin, horrible ability to get punches in, didn't apply Marciano's pressure and was a bad ring general in the sense that Holmes and other opponents had an easy time doing what they wanted to do. Even a dead version of Ali beat him.

:good

[Luigi1985]

rsTry as I might, I just can't see Marciano beating a prime Holmes. The Holmes that boxed circles around Shavers the first time would probably due the same to Marciano. Rocky was no faster than Earnie and was probably slower and certainly smaller. How then is he going to get to Larry with a 69" reach? Larry had a 79"-80" reach with one of the best jabs in HW history and excellent lateral movement. Larry was also much faster both with hands and feet which is why I can't envision how Rocky would win. Larry would have the luxury of boxing from quite a distance from Rocky and dancing out of the way if and when Rocky got close, all the while pumping a hard fast jab in his face all night. Make both fighters the same size and it's a different story but otherwise it's Holmes all the way, at least a prime Holmes anyway. Put two good fighters in the ring and the bigger one wins nine times out of ten. Rocky has the power to hurt or KO Holmes but he just does'nt have the right sized body to deliver that power properly. Holmes by UD or late round stoppage due to cuts.


Some posters wrote it already, but I really don´t know why you compare Marciano with Shavers, Earnie KO´d only bums and washed up former contenders whether Marciano KO´d the best opponents in his era, big difference... and from where comes always the myth that Marciano cuts so easily, I often read a "cut stoppage" :patsch, when did Marciano cut beside against Charles, where Ezzard´s ellbow made this accident?

[JohnThomas1]

Fair enough if you see it that way, but do remember that outside of a huge punch, Shavers and Marciano have next to nothing in common. Shavers lost nearly everytime he stepped up and sometimes when he didn't step up. Marciano always won and nearly always by KO. Besides a big punch he also has great stamina, chin, strength, and maybe most important, he knew how to impose his will on his opponent. Moore, Charles, Walcott, all master boxers, were taken out of their game.

Shavers had bad stamina, mediocre chin, horrible ability to get punches in, didn't apply Marciano's pressure and was a bad ring general in the sense that Holmes and other opponents had an easy time doing what they wanted to do. Even a dead version of Ali beat him.

Exactly. Shavers is basically a clubfighter with totally unbelievable power, which of course takes him above clubfighter status, but i'm sure i make my point. If the guy had average power we would never have heard of him.

Great guy tho and a totally lovable boxer, i'm a big fan of the man and would have been pleased for him to jag the title at any point. Earnie and his power have some real cult status, and plenty still believe him to be the hardest hitter ever, which is certainly possible.