Was Larry Holmes's HW Era ''Weak''?

[Scott9945]

He would also lose 2 straight to Spinks which would never happen to a true ATG heavyweight. Spinks was never a great heavyweight and was made a household name as a HW for his win's over Holmes.

Holmes was way past his prime when he lost to Spinks, and he didn't lose by much either time.

[Greatest1942]

Louis' era is not comparable to Ali's. In fact Louis' era is IMO very weak as well as Holmes era.

The total winning percentage of Louis opponents are 78% and that of Ali is a bit over 80%. So its not very different. I have to go and calculate Holmes but it is not even 60 if I remember correctly. Louis was 30-3 against ranked contenders and Ali was 32-5. Ali fought in a better era no doubt but Louis fought good opponents as well. Max Schemlling, Max Baer , Jack Sharkey (shot I know), Walcott, Conn or Ezzard Charles (Louis lost to him) are not just any other boxers. Most of the heavies he fought still make to the top 30 in all lists.
of Holmes sorry can't say the same.
Don't get into a mindset, if you see the careers of Louis's opponents they had decent win/loss records were very experienced most of the times and were mostly ranked contenders. Only Ali fought better competition. Quite unlike Holmes I may say.You can consult this with Henry Hascup, he can give you better stats than I can, but overall I think he will agree with me.

[forget]

Compared to the last ten years LOL
It was the Golden Era!

[JAB5239]

The total winning percentage of Louis opponents are 78% and that of Ali is a bit over 80%. So its not very different. I have to go and calculate Holmes but it is not even 60 if I remember correctly. Louis was 30-3 against ranked contenders and Ali was 32-5. Ali fought in a better era no doubt but Louis fought good opponents as well. Max Schemlling, Max Baer , Jack Sharkey (shot I know), Walcott, Conn or Ezzard Charles (Louis lost to him) are not just any other boxers. Most of the heavies he fought still make to the top 30 in all lists.
of Holmes sorry can't say the same.
Don't get into a mindset, if you see the careers of Louis's opponents they had decent win/loss records were very experienced most of the times and were mostly ranked contenders. Only Ali fought better competition. Quite unlike Holmes I may say.You can consult this with Henry Hascup, he can give you better stats than I can, but overall I think he will agree with me.

Good post!

[mickey malone]

It wasn't the best era, but it i wouldn't call it particularly weak either.
Although the quality may have been lacking a bit, there was never any shortage of above average quantity with a wealth of notable B listers.
A lot of it reflects on Holmes himself. Had he fought prime versions of Dokes, Thomas, Page, Coetzee, Tate instead of taking on non-en****** like Scott Frank, Scott LeDeux, Marvis Frazier etc, I think the era would have been viewed a whole lot differently.
What also doesn't do Holmes's cause any favours is that his era fell inbetween two particularly good ones.
I'd say the 20's, 30's, 50's and 10's were all weaker than the 80's.

[Tyson.]

The total winning percentage of Louis opponents are 78% and that of Ali is a bit over 80%. So its not very different. I have to go and calculate Holmes but it is not even 60 if I remember correctly. Louis was 30-3 against ranked contenders and Ali was 32-5. Ali fought in a better era no doubt but Louis fought good opponents as well. Max Schemlling, Max Baer , Jack Sharkey (shot I know), Walcott, Conn or Ezzard Charles (Louis lost to him) are not just any other boxers. Most of the heavies he fought still make to the top 30 in all lists.
of Holmes sorry can't say the same.
Don't get into a mindset, if you see the careers of Louis's opponents they had decent win/loss records were very experienced most of the times and were mostly ranked contenders. Only Ali fought better competition. Quite unlike Holmes I may say.You can consult this with Henry Hascup, he can give you better stats than I can, but overall I think he will agree with me.

Walcott started of as a middleweight and Louis got a controversial decison over him.

Conn fought at 174lbs and many had him leading on the cards before Louis got the KO in the 13th.

Charles started of as a middleweight and was outweighed on fight night by over 34lbs yet he picked up a wide UD win over Louis.

Sharkey like you say was a shot fighter. Louis did beat Shemlling but in their first fight he was KOed. Baer was coming of a loss to Cinderella man.

Whether they were ranked contenders or not their quality wasnt very good.

Louis' opposition was poor. Tyson, Ali, Holyfield, Foreman, Holmes Frazier, Bowe, Lewis, Liston and Patterson all fought better opposition.

Louis' resume has noone as good as Witherspoon, Norton, Tyson or Holyfield. No question that Holmes fought the better opposition.

[Greatest1942]

Walcott started of as a middleweight and Louis got a controversial decison over him.

Conn fought at 174lbs and many had him leading on the cards before Louis got the KO in the 13th.

Charles started of as a middleweight and was outweighed on fight night by over 34lbs yet he picked up a wide UD win over Louis.

Sharkey like you say was a shot fighter. Louis did beat Shemlling but in their first fight he was KOed. Baer was coming of a loss to Cinderella man.

Whether they were ranked contenders or not their quality wasnt very good.

Louis' opposition was poor. Tyson, Ali, Holyfield, Foreman, Holmes Frazier, Bowe, Lewis, Liston and Patterson all fought better opposition.

Louis' resume has noone as good as Witherspoon, Norton, Tyson or Holyfield. No question that Holmes fought the better opposition.

"Louis' resume has noone as good as Witherspoon, Norton, Tyson or Holyfield. No question that Holmes fought the better opposition."

"Louis' resume has noone as good as Witherspoon, Norton, Tyson or Holyfield. No question that Holmes fought the better opposition."


Ali got beat by Frazier then beat him..meaningless win, Lewis got knocked by a journey man McCall then beat him meaningless win; okay moving on Tyson actually never beat anyone who atleast knocked him down once leave aside winning in rematches,can't apply it hereNorton wow wow Smoked by conney so bad never had a return same with George ... (I am apllying your dumb logic since you discard his win over Max,Walcott etc),

Yes, even Wlad, Dempsey,Johnson,wait anyone in thecoming ten years fought better competition.

And sir,Patterson was nothing but a blown up middle weight, Holmes lost to natural Light heavy weight, Holyfield to a middle Toney ,Leon Spinks was nothing but a natural Light heavy weight.

And what did you say Walcott was a middle weight , don't kid yourself okay....Walcott never fought as a middle weigh and weghed almost 190 when he 20...Ali fought as a light heavy in Olympics sir, so he was a light heavy naturally. Neon Leon how much was he outweighed by Ali when he beat him, you have any idea. ...And unlike you most guys would have actually preferred Louis fighting a good 10 pounds less heavier.

Conn was a natural light heavy same as Michael Spinks....Spinks could weigh 300 but he will remain a lightheavy for all I care...Its your bone structure that determines weight...Not how much bulk you put on.

Baer was undiscliped trainer and very inconstitent. He was never dropped before Louis, had a granite chin Louis smoked him. When Ali met Frazier for Manilla...Frazier had been twice smoked by Foreman, so that makes ALi's win meaningless???? Max is top 20 heavy in IBRO's list still while Withersppon wets his pant thinking of coming in top 150. Walcott,Charles,Max,Schelling,Sharkey all top 30 heavy Tyson's only win against a top 30 heavy Holmes and Holmes's over Ali who was not even a shell of himself.

Louis had trouble with Walcott, he gave him a rematch and knocked him out in the 11th round , unlike Holmes chickening out each time he had any trouble...As for Tyson etc etc fighting better competition...I have better stuff to do than answer your ill informed garbage...I dont want to insult anyone but sorry you need to read up a bit on boxing history...I can break up all of their carrers and show you the results but after reading "Louis' resume has noone as good as Witherspoon, Norton, Tyson or Holyfield. No question that Holmes fought the better opposition.", I dont need to bother, go and read up a bit or wallow in self pity or keep posting more garbage...The more you post anyone who knows a-b-c of boxing will see that you are an ignorant fool nad keep ignoring you...keep the trash coming.

[BattlingNelson]

The total winning percentage of Louis opponents are 78% and that of Ali is a bit over 80%. So its not very different. I have to go and calculate Holmes but it is not even 60 if I remember correctly. Louis was 30-3 against ranked contenders and Ali was 32-5. Ali fought in a better era no doubt but Louis fought good opponents as well. Max Schemlling, Max Baer , Jack Sharkey (shot I know), Walcott, Conn or Ezzard Charles (Louis lost to him) are not just any other boxers. Most of the heavies he fought still make to the top 30 in all lists.
of Holmes sorry can't say the same.
Don't get into a mindset, if you see the careers of Louis's opponents they had decent win/loss records were very experienced most of the times and were mostly ranked contenders. Only Ali fought better competition. Quite unlike Holmes I may say.You can consult this with Henry Hascup, he can give you better stats than I can, but overall I think he will agree with me.

I'd compare Louis pre-championship days to Tyson's quest for unification. Louis fought and beat a string of less than stellar former champions with Schmeling being the best. After Louis became champion the qualitylevel of opposition fell quite clearly.

[Greatest1942]

I'd compare Louis pre-championship days to Tyson's quest for unification. Louis fought and beat a string of less than stellar former champions with Schmeling being the best. After Louis became champion the qualitylevel of opposition fell quite clearly.

Bat, the percentages I gave are of Louis's title reign you know. And as I said only Ali fought better competition statistically. I will take that vs your opinion. But ultimately this is my opinion. See ranked contenders are no bums, in those days there was a larger talent pool than there was ever for Tyson. and larger the talent pool the better the athlete, right? There were more fighters then than in 1970 leave aside today. I hope you can appreciate that being ranked top 10 out of 1000 is a bit harder than ranking top 10 out of 400.

Billiy Con was a ATG light Heavy. Max Schelling is a very good boxer too. Walcott is an ATG too. Tommy farr I beliveis very underrated as was the very tough Godoy man if you are not knocked out in over 70 fights you are good. I sincerely believe Buddy Baer would have given fighters liek Ken Norton a fit and would have posed serious trouble today. Just his size and punch power will I think give him an excellent chance against most heavies.Buddy had a good chin too. I agree with Mike Casey when he states that he thinks Buddy has an excellent chance of capturing a belt today. Make as much fun of Tony Galento as you wish but he had a left hook like a mule's kick and when I see him I see a better version of Peter Samuels who could fight of the crouch. Nat actually voted him to have the best left hook ever and he did see a lot of goodleft hookers.Anyways these are the rankings for you and as I said in an era where oppoenets don't hide, are not protected and emerge from a very large talent pool this does matter.

These are the stats for you :-

1934
Lee Rampage - No. 10

1935
Patsy Perroni - No. 6
Natie Brown - No. 10
Primo Carnera - No. 4
King Levinsky - No. 10
Max Baer - No. 1

1936
Charley Retzlaff - No. 4
Max Schmeling - No. 2 - LOSS
Jack Sharkey - No. 4
Al Ettore - No. 3
James Braddock - World Champion
Tommy Farr - No. 3

1938
Nathan Mann - No. 3
Max Schmeling - No. 1

1939
John Henry Lewis - World Champion at Light-Heavyweight
Tony Galento - No. 3
Bob Pastor - No. 2

1940
Johnny Paychek - No. 5
Arturo Godoy (2) - No. 1

1941
Red Burman - No. 4
Buddy Baer - No. 5
Billy Conn - World Champion at Light-Heavyweight
Lou Nova - No. 1

1942
Buddy Baer - No. 4
Abe Simon - No. 6

1946
Billy Conn - No. 1
Tami Mauriello - No. 1

1947
Jersey Joe Walcott - No. 1

1948
Jersey Joe Walcott - No. 1

1950
Ezzard Charles - World Champion - LOSS

1951
Lee Savold - No. 4
Cesar Brion - No. 8
Rocky Marciano - No. 3 - LOSS


Overall record vs. top 10 opposition (incl. 2 light-heavyweight champs): 30-3

You can disagree with me and thats fine, but as I stated earlier I consider Louis's reign second to Ali only.

[American_Ninja]

it was no different from todays era.a solid champ and a bunch of contenders

What solid champ? The Klits? There is no solid champ today. We had Ali, then Holmes, then Tyson. Then what? Nothing!!