Aaron Pryor

[ICB]

There are many strong points in your arguement Jaz and I liek how you put it together, but essentially my doubts are summarised in two points.

The first is the era. Fighters a were a lot less articulate in terms of boxing skill and conditioing was primitive and ineffectual.
I would expect SRL and Tommy to scythe through most of SRR's competition, with the exception of Gavilan, La Motta, HurricaneHank and perhaps Basilio/Fulmer. Fighting at the time was just that and SRR's concept of boxing was radical and new. Fighters didn't know how to deal with it. SRL and Tommy wer by far more equiped to deal with SRR's skill.

The second is the lack of evidence. I can't put blind faith in any fighter, particularly in an era notorious for fixed fights and jobbers.


Remeber Mike Tyson stated after he fought Holmes that he wouldn't have stood a chance against a Prime Larry. Few rate larry above Tyson, so SRL like many writers and fans may have been nostalgic.

Although I personally rate Tyson on a similar level to Holmes, a prime Holmes would've been a completely different proposition for Tyson & I'm not sure he could've got in under that jab in the way he was able to once Holmes was shot. I also notice that the majority of people with good boxing knowledge tend to rate Holmes above Tyson. It's not how I feel, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

On your notes on the eras, fighters were FAR hungrier in those days & you would get a lot more even fights. SRR was being matched with guys with positive solid records from early in his career. Yes skill was not on the same level, however the argument that they were more poorly conditioned always strikes me as odd as those guys would fight longer fights often in poor conditions, meaning that their conditioning had to be pretty top-class. Whilst skill levels & instruction has been improved, the fact is the methods used to condition a fighter have not significantly changed in the past 60 odd years. Yes, things were crooked back then, but can you honestly say that under influence of the likes of Arum & King that boxing has become honest.

In terms of competition, as well as those mentioned, Fritzie Zivic, Bobo Olson, Paul Pender & Rocky Graziano are also worthy of mention, certainly the equivalent of Kalule, Lalonde or Hutchings. I would expect SRR to deal with the competition of both men handily with the exception of Hagler & maybe Duran, although I think he still beats both of them.

I can understand not putting faith in what you haven't seen, but from what I HAVE seen, he stands head & shoulders above, & when those such as Leonard, Louis & Ali all rate him as the greatest I think I'll trust in what they say. We all know Ali wouldn't say that if he didn't mean it.

Well i for certain rate Larry Holmes above Mike Tyson, i've seen most of Larry Holmes's fights and he is one of my favorites. But i still wouldn't be biased i truly believe he is better and achieved more.

He beat fighters like Ken Norton, Tim Witherspoon, Earnie Shavers x2, Gerry Cooney, ETC. Those names are much better than anything on Mike Tyson's resume, except for obviously Larry Holmes himself.

But Larry Holmes was ring rusty, and he was coming off a bad stretch. Where he hadn't looked good in quite awhile. I think the early 40's version was better than the faded late 30s version. Plus he only had a few weeks to train for the Mike Tyson fight.

Just watch a prime Larry Holmes at work against Earnie Shavers, in there 1st and tell me that version of Larry Holmes wouldn't of beat Mike Tyson. He was simply superb and looked like one of the best Heavyweights of all time in that fight, which he already is but im on about all the greatest Heavyweights on there best night. That night he was probably top 3 easily.

He could also comeback from near defeat something Mike Tyson never did, which is another reason i rate him above Mike Tyson. He was in deep trouble against Earnie Shavers 2, Mike Weaver, Renaldo Snipes, yet he would comeback brilliantly like a true champion does.

Larry Holmes was the complete package he had the greatest Heavyweight jab of all time IMO, a heart on a similar level to Muhammad Ali. Good chin, Athletic, Fast, Underrated power, Good footwork, Excellent technical skills. Just really all the attributes a great fighter needs.

20 title defenses in 7 years ducking nobody, and was very unlucky in his 2nd career not to win the world title at 45. Because i think he beat Oliver McCall, and he almost beat a prime Evander Holyfield, plus his amazing display giving a prime Ray Mercer a boxing lesson aswell.

[JazMerkin]

Well i for certain rate Larry Holmes above Mike Tyson, i've seen most of Larry Holmes's fights and he is one of my favorites. But i still wouldn't be biased i truly believe he is better and achieved more.

He beat fighters like Ken Norton, Tim Witherspoon, Earnie Shavers x2, Gerry Cooney, ETC. Those names are much better than anything on Mike Tyson's resume, except for obviously Larry Holmes himself.

But Larry Holmes was ring rusty, and he was coming off a bad stretch. Where he hadn't looked good in quite awhile. I think the early 40's version was better than the faded late 30s version. Plus he only had a few weeks to train for the Mike Tyson fight.

Just watch a prime Larry Holmes at work against Earnie Shavers, in there 1st and tell me that version of Larry Holmes wouldn't of beat Mike Tyson. He was simply superb and looked like one of the best Heavyweights of all time in that fight, which he already is but im on about all the greatest Heavyweights on there best night. That night he was probably top 3 easily.

He could also comeback from near defeat something Mike Tyson never did, which is another reason i rate him above Mike Tyson. He was in deep trouble against Earnie Shavers 2, Mike Weaver, Renaldo Snipes, yet he would comeback brilliant like a true champion does.

Larry Holmes was the complete package he had the greatest jab of all time IMO, a heart on a similar level to Muhammad Ali. Good chin, Athletic, Fast, Underrated power, Good footwork, Excellent technical skills. Just really all the attributes a great fighter needs.

20 title defenses in 7 years ducking nobody, and was very unlucky in his 2nd career not to win the world title at 45. Because i think he beat Oliver McCall, and he almost beat a prime Evander Holyfield, plus his amazing display giving a prime Ray Mercer a boxing lesson aswell.

I dunno if you think I was trying to say Tyson was better, I consider them on a similar level, but I accept Holmes as a great HW, certainly in or around the top 5 of all time

[donnydarkoIRL]

Have to disagree with your last comment, i can't see how anyone don't rate Larry Holmes above Mike Tyson. He dominated the division for years and made 20 title defenses, aswell as having a good career past 40+.

Mike Tyson dominated only briefly and after he was beaten, he hardly done anything and was embarrassed numerous times. Prime Larry Holmes would beat Mike Tyson no doubt in my mind.

In honesty Ice I believe that larry was greater than Tyson.
I for one feel that his jab was the perfect offset to tysons aggression and during his prime he would have handled Tyson easier than many other greats.

However, few will acknowledge Larry above Tyson.
This is as much down to the hype surrounding the man and the aura of his legacy.
IMO not disimilar form the case of SRR

Although I personally rate Tyson on a similar level to Holmes, a prime Holmes would've been a completely different proposition for Tyson & I'm not sure he could've got in under that jab in the way he was able to once Holmes was shot. I also notice that the majority of people with good boxing knowledge tend to rate Holmes above Tyson. It's not how I feel, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

On your notes on the eras, fighters were FAR hungrier in those days & you would get a lot more even fights. SRR was being matched with guys with positive solid records from early in his career. Yes skill was not on the same level, however the argument that they were more poorly conditioned always strikes me as odd as those guys would fight longer fights often in poor conditions, meaning that their conditioning had to be pretty top-class. Whilst skill levels & instruction has been improved, the fact is the methods used to condition a fighter have not significantly changed in the past 60 odd years. Yes, things were crooked back then, but can you honestly say that under influence of the likes of Arum & King that boxing has become honest.

In terms of competition, as well as those mentioned, Fritzie Zivic, Bobo Olson, Paul Pender & Rocky Graziano are also worthy of mention, certainly the equivalent of Kalule, Lalonde or Hutchings. I would expect SRR to deal with the competition of both men handily with the exception of Hagler & maybe Duran, although I think he still beats both of them.

I can understand not putting faith in what you haven't seen, but from what I HAVE seen, he stands head & shoulders above, & when those such as Leonard, Louis & Ali all rate him as the greatest I think I'll trust in what they say. We all know Ali wouldn't say that if he didn't mean it.

Agred on Holmes, would've loved to have seen it.
It would have been excellent to see young Mike vs. Prime Larry as for me it would have given the young Mike that opportunity to truely prove himself.
As we know Mikes opposition at his peak was less that stellar.

Its an age old debate; old vs. new methods.
However, although fighters were extremely hungry back then, conditioning was simply not on the same level.
In other sports we see sprinters shattering records, jumpers going higher and longer, seconds peeled off old distance runs.
Modern athletes avail of a much greater knowledge on how to train the body and as a result competition is heightened.
Boxing has really only revolutionised in the past 20 years, but even in the amateurs, fitness is far more scientific nowthan in the days of Armstrong, pep and SRR.

That competition was commendable, certainly huge merit to his record.

We actually seriously differ here....I see Hagler take SRR out. Hagler in his prime...simply a force!
Duran may have been undersized for SRR, I'm not sure.

Ali's word is actually a viable arguement. He had a great respect for the man, which was representative of the huge respect and adoration that was held for SRR within the boxing fraternity.
Unfortunately my doubt lingers.

For me.....GOAT would be Pep

[JazMerkin]

Agred on Holmes, would've loved to have seen it.
It would have been excellent to see young Mike vs. Prime Larry as for me it would have given the young Mike that opportunity to truely prove himself.
As we know Mikes opposition at his peak was less that stellar.

Its an age old debate; old vs. new methods.
However, although fighters were extremely hungry back then, conditioning was simply not on the same level.
In other sports we see sprinters shattering records, jumpers going higher and longer, seconds peeled off old distance runs.
Modern athletes avail of a much greater knowledge on how to train the body and as a result competition is heightened.
Boxing has really only revolutionised in the past 20 years, but even in the amateurs, fitness is far more scientific nowthan in the days of Armstrong, pep and SRR.

That competition was commendable, certainly huge merit to his record.

We actually seriously differ here....I see Hagler take SRR out. Hagler in his prime...simply a force!
Duran may have been undersized for SRR, I'm not sure.

Ali's word is actually a viable arguement. He had a great respect for the man, which was representative of the huge respect and adoration that was held for SRR within the boxing fraternity.
Unfortunately my doubt lingers.

For me.....GOAT would be Pep

I think in their respective primes, I think Holmes is the better technical fighter & I think he outpoints Tyson in a fairly close fight, as if you can take a Shavers punch you can take Tyson's. However, I've often thought that he struggled with guys that maybe he should have dealt with better & quicker, perhaps because of a loss of concentration. Thinking particularly of the Weaver fight, & as high as I rate him, I felt that he lost to the only 2 real prime & elite boxers he fought in Norton & Spinks (although I think he won the rematch).

I don't think conditioning was on the same level, especially as they had less preparation time. I agree on the basis of scientific improvements to an extent, however, I think boxing has probably seen the least 'improvement' in conditioning in that it was always superior in most respects to other sports (not saying there hasn't been any, but skipping, padwork, bagwork, roadwork have all been mainstays for nearly a century). There were also of course no 'supplements' to aid their training back then

I certainly don't see Hagler taking SRR out, he had a solid chin & heart to get up when dropped, his only loss being as a result of dehydration in a fight in which the ref retired before he did. He was winning btw. I think Hagler would have given him a lot of trouble, but I see Robinson just edging it on the scorecards. I think he would have disposed of Duran handily as long as he's focused, the biggest problem he seemed to face in his prime was himself. Also I've remembered on the corruption, I believe the reason SRR struggled to get shots at the title was because he didn't co-operate with the mafia. Makes his record all the more impressive.

Have you seen more of Pep than SRR? Because I've found him difficult to find any footage of. I have heard the 2 of them fought in the amateurs. Nowadays that fight would get made at catchweight

[ICB]

Agred on Holmes, would've loved to have seen it.
It would have been excellent to see young Mike vs. Prime Larry as for me it would have given the young Mike that opportunity to truely prove himself.
As we know Mikes opposition at his peak was less that stellar.

Its an age old debate; old vs. new methods.
However, although fighters were extremely hungry back then, conditioning was simply not on the same level.
In other sports we see sprinters shattering records, jumpers going higher and longer, seconds peeled off old distance runs.
Modern athletes avail of a much greater knowledge on how to train the body and as a result competition is heightened.
Boxing has really only revolutionised in the past 20 years, but even in the amateurs, fitness is far more scientific nowthan in the days of Armstrong, pep and SRR.

That competition was commendable, certainly huge merit to his record.

We actually seriously differ here....I see Hagler take SRR out. Hagler in his prime...simply a force!
Duran may have been undersized for SRR, I'm not sure.

Ali's word is actually a viable arguement. He had a great respect for the man, which was representative of the huge respect and adoration that was held for SRR within the boxing fraternity.
Unfortunately my doubt lingers.

For me.....GOAT would be Pep

I think in their respective primes, I think Holmes is the better technical fighter & I think he outpoints Tyson in a fairly close fight, as if you can take a Shavers punch you can take Tyson's. However, I've often thought that he struggled with guys that maybe he should have dealt with better & quicker, perhaps because of a loss of concentration. Thinking particularly of the Weaver fight, & as high as I rate him, I felt that he lost to the only 2 real prime & elite boxers he fought in Norton & Spinks (although I think he won the rematch).

I don't think conditioning was on the same level, especially as they had less preparation time. I agree on the basis of scientific improvements to an extent, however, I think boxing has probably seen the least 'improvement' in conditioning in that it was always superior in most respects to other sports (not saying there hasn't been any, but skipping, padwork, bagwork, roadwork have all been mainstays for nearly a century). There were also of course no 'supplements' to aid their training back then

I certainly don't see Hagler taking SRR out, he had a solid chin & heart to get up when dropped, his only loss being as a result of dehydration in a fight in which the ref retired before he did. He was winning btw. I think Hagler would have given him a lot of trouble, but I see Robinson just edging it on the scorecards. I think he would have disposed of Duran handily as long as he's focused, the biggest problem he seemed to face in his prime was himself. Also I've remembered on the corruption, I believe the reason SRR struggled to get shots at the title was because he didn't co-operate with the mafia. Makes his record all the more impressive.

Have you seen more of Pep than SRR? Because I've found him difficult to find any footage of. I have heard the 2 of them fought in the amateurs. Nowadays that fight would get made at catchweight

Larry Holmes struggled a few times with some oppositio, he should of beaten more clearly. But i don't think that takes away how great Larry Holmes was. Because even great fighters struggle against lesser opposition, Muhammad Ali did many times Doug Jones comes to mind straight away. A fight i felt he just about got, yet he is still considered the GOAT at Heavyweight.

Larry Holmes was actually poorly conditioned against Mike Weaver, as he expected Mike Weaver to be an easy fight, and that fight was similar to Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson. Where Mike Weaver fought the fight of his life, yet Larry Holmes despite not being anywhere near his best. Managed to win in a true test of wills and find that uppercut to pull out the win unlike Mike Tyson. Which is why Larry Holmes is greater clearly IMO.

Not trying to be picky but i don't know how anyone, had Ken Norton beating Larry Holmes. After the 1st round Ken Norotn clearly lost 7 rounds in a row, then Ken Norton comeback well and won a majority of the rounds. But Larry Holmes still managed to win atleast 2 more rounds winning clearly by a few rounds IMO.

Michael Spinks probably did just enough in the 1st fight, but Larry Holmes was faded by that time like i said earlier. The early 40s version was probably better than the later 30's faded version. He looked like a shot fighter against Carl Williams, and only just about won. But in the rematch he clearly beat Michael Spinks, and was robbed. He used the right hand well and was the aggressor and he won 9-6 IMO.

[JazMerkin]

Larry Holmes struggled a few times with some oppositio, he should of beaten more clearly. But i don't think that takes away how great Larry Holmes was. Because even great fighters struggle against lesser opposition, Muhammad Ali did many times Doug Jones comes to mind straight away. A fight i felt he just about got, yet he is still considered the GOAT at Heavyweight.

Larry Holmes was actually poorly conditioned against Mike Weaver, as he expected Mike Weaver to be an easy fight, and that fight was similar to Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson. Where Mike Weaver fought the fight of his life, yet Larry Holmes despite not being anywhere near his best. Managed to win in a true test of wills and find that uppercut to pull out the win unlike Mike Tyson. Which is why Larry Holmes is greater clearly IMO.

Not trying to be picky but i don't know how anyone, had Ken Norton beating Larry Holmes. After the 1st round Ken Norotn clearly lost 7 rounds in a row, then Ken Norton comeback well and won a majority of the rounds. But Larry Holmes still managed to win atleast 2 more rounds winning clearly by a few rounds IMO.

Michael Spinks probably did just enough in the 1st fight, but Larry Holmes was faded by that time like i said earlier. The early 40s version was probably better than the later 30's faded version. He looked like a shot fighter against Carl Williams, and only just about won. But in the rematch he clearly beat Michael Spinks, and was robbed. He used the right hand well and was the aggressor and he won 9-6 IMO.

I'm not sure how faded he was against Spinks, because to me the Williams fight could just be him not being properly prepared like against Weaver & the fact he was up for the 2nd fight, tells me that was still a Holmes not too far removed from his prime.

I know most feel that Holmes beat Norton, but I felt he edged it by a round, although I can't remember RBR scoring. I'm certainly not claiming a robbery, as I can see how someone would have Holmes winning. I can see why you could have Holmes above Tyson, although I think for me he will always be stuck with that problem of just missing out on the great HW era by a year or 2. The irony being that he might have had a few more losses but probably greater credit among your average fan.

[donnydarkoIRL]

I think in their respective primes, I think Holmes is the better technical fighter & I think he outpoints Tyson in a fairly close fight, as if you can take a Shavers punch you can take Tyson's. However, I've often thought that he struggled with guys that maybe he should have dealt with better & quicker, perhaps because of a loss of concentration. Thinking particularly of the Weaver fight, & as high as I rate him, I felt that he lost to the only 2 real prime & elite boxers he fought in Norton & Spinks (although I think he won the rematch).

I don't think conditioning was on the same level, especially as they had less preparation time. I agree on the basis of scientific improvements to an extent, however, I think boxing has probably seen the least 'improvement' in conditioning in that it was always superior in most respects to other sports (not saying there hasn't been any, but skipping, padwork, bagwork, roadwork have all been mainstays for nearly a century). There were also of course no 'supplements' to aid their training back then

I certainly don't see Hagler taking SRR out, he had a solid chin & heart to get up when dropped, his only loss being as a result of dehydration in a fight in which the ref retired before he did. He was winning btw. I think Hagler would have given him a lot of trouble, but I see Robinson just edging it on the scorecards. I think he would have disposed of Duran handily as long as he's focused, the biggest problem he seemed to face in his prime was himself. Also I've remembered on the corruption, I believe the reason SRR struggled to get shots at the title was because he didn't co-operate with the mafia. Makes his record all the more impressive.

Have you seen more of Pep than SRR? Because I've found him difficult to find any footage of. I have heard the 2 of them fought in the amateurs. Nowadays that fight would get made at catchweight

Agreec with Tyson v Holmes.
On that point I think Holmes was a fighter that performed to the level of competition. To get the best from Holmes required the most difficult of fighters.


Surely the metghods remain the same skipping roadwork etc. But the method in which they are utilised have changed dramatically.
Aerobic fitness was seen as the key in the past, where as modern trainers recognise the duality of aerobic and anaerobic conditioning.
Supplementation is another advantage enjoyed by the modern fighter, although as all modern athletes utilse advanced nutrition it can't be seen as a huge advantage nowadays. More of a necessary training utensil.

The existing footage of SRR is primarily from his MW days. In this footage I've seen a fighter that moves primarily to the left, who does get clipped and who's primary advantge seemed to be his speed.
I saw none of the ring saavy that would suggest he could stay away from Hagler's constant power.
HagleR took out many MW's in brutal, attritional fashion, I see very few surviving SRR's constant barrage of educated punishment.

Yeah I've seen quite a bit of Pep. Obviously its impossible to get all of his fights which is tragic, but the newspaper reports, although in awe of him are fairly reliable.
I've done all I can to hunt down as much as I can on Pep.
I would kill to have seen him live!

[ICB]

Larry Holmes struggled a few times with some oppositio, he should of beaten more clearly. But i don't think that takes away how great Larry Holmes was. Because even great fighters struggle against lesser opposition, Muhammad Ali did many times Doug Jones comes to mind straight away. A fight i felt he just about got, yet he is still considered the GOAT at Heavyweight.

Larry Holmes was actually poorly conditioned against Mike Weaver, as he expected Mike Weaver to be an easy fight, and that fight was similar to Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson. Where Mike Weaver fought the fight of his life, yet Larry Holmes despite not being anywhere near his best. Managed to win in a true test of wills and find that uppercut to pull out the win unlike Mike Tyson. Which is why Larry Holmes is greater clearly IMO.

Not trying to be picky but i don't know how anyone, had Ken Norton beating Larry Holmes. After the 1st round Ken Norotn clearly lost 7 rounds in a row, then Ken Norton comeback well and won a majority of the rounds. But Larry Holmes still managed to win atleast 2 more rounds winning clearly by a few rounds IMO.

Michael Spinks probably did just enough in the 1st fight, but Larry Holmes was faded by that time like i said earlier. The early 40s version was probably better than the later 30's faded version. He looked like a shot fighter against Carl Williams, and only just about won. But in the rematch he clearly beat Michael Spinks, and was robbed. He used the right hand well and was the aggressor and he won 9-6 IMO.

I'm not sure how faded he was against Spinks, because to me the Williams fight could just be him not being properly prepared like against Weaver & the fact he was up for the 2nd fight, tells me that was still a Holmes not too far removed from his prime.

I know most feel that Holmes beat Norton, but I felt he edged it by a round, although I can't remember RBR scoring. I'm certainly not claiming a robbery, as I can see how someone would have Holmes winning. I can see why you could have Holmes above Tyson, although I think for me he will always be stuck with that problem of just missing out on the great HW era by a year or 2. The irony being that he might have had a few more losses but probably greater credit among your average fan.

I think his peak was between 1978-1982 when his prime weight was between 209-213. When you watch the Larry Holmes that fought Earnie Shavers 1, then watch him against Michael Spinks. You can see his skills and attributes had eroded.

And you can see this clearly in the Carl Williams fight aswell, even though Carl Williams was a pretty tall fighter, with some good skills and a good jab although his chin was pretty suspect.

I don't know if you know this but Larry Holmes actually had, a torn bicep going in his fight with Ken Norton. So he wasn't 100 percent but he still beat Ken Norton more convincingly points wise than Muhammad Ali IMO. I think you have to watch that again bro, because the fight wasn't as close as some people thought.

And i think the rounds were pretty easy to score except the last round, but Ken Norton clearly won the 1st round. Then he went on to lose 7 rounds in a row pretty clearly IMO, he comeback and won most of the rounds after that.

But i know he lost atleast another 2 rounds. One was the 13th round and there was another round but i can't remember. I had Larry Holmes a clear winning in a closish fight even if he lost the last round.

I understand what your saying about Larry Holmes, not ruling in a great HW era but except for Muhammad Ali. What other Heavyweight champion really ruled in a strong era ? Joe Louis's era wasn't that much better than Larry Holmes's.

Rocky Marciano's wasn't either. Mike Tyson's era was probably one of the weakest. And he just cleaned up on some of the 80's eroded stars aswell as old Larry Holmes victims.

No one really ruled in the 90s as the title went back and forth, and i don't really think much of Lennox Lewis's reign in late 90s early 2000s either. So thats why i think Larry Holmes is well up there, because except for Muhammad Ali no other real Heavyweight champion ruled in a really strong era.

But Larry Holmes has the 2nd longest reign in Heavyweight history, he is one of the most skilled Heavyweight champions of all time. Aswell as one of the bravest and in his 2nd career he should of been a world champion at 45, like George Foreman but was unlucky not to get the decision against Oliver McCall.