Aaron Pryor

[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.

[JazMerkin]

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.

I am not saying he was prime against Spinks, however I don't feel he was shot either. I think the years he took out after the Spinks fight meant he was shot when he came back against Tyson.

I've watched the Norton fight a few times, & every time I give it to Norton by a round. I do remember Holmes dominating the middle rounds, but I thought Norton dominated the latter stage of the fight.

On the eras, I feel as well as Ali, both Jack Dempsey & Jack Johnson ruled in strong eras, although that might not put them above Holmes. I also rank Frazier above Holmes personally although I know most rank him lower. If I had to an all-time Top 10, Holmes would definitely be up there, but I don't think he makes my Top 3.