Is Larry Holmes' 20 title defenses as GREAT as Joe Louis' 25?

Larry Holmes is one of the most underratred fighters period. He had the misfortune of following a legend, therefore, he never fully got the respect while champion; In some cases, time has not served him very well either. In overall talks, he does not get the coverage that a fighter who missed equalling Marciano's undefeated record by one fight should get.

He fought in the 80's, but also honed his skills in the tough heavyweight era of the 70's. He still fought some heavyweight holdovers from the '70's, like Norton, Shavers, Weaver, etc....

On the other hand, Joe Louis deserves the respect and hommage paid to him; however, I do believe he benefitted just as much from a crappy era as Holmes. I also believe the nostalgia factor is there for Joe. The pre-WWII fight against Schmeling; the close Billy Conn fight.

I'd take Larry Holmes' "Bums of the month" over Louis'.

Any thoughts?

 

Larry Holmes was a better fighter who fought better fighters.

 

That's what I WANTED to say! So why is Joe Louis either 1 or 2 when it comes to great heavyweight? What is it really based on? Dominating an era of stiffs or the nostalgia of being the second black heavyweight champ?

It almost sounds blasphemous to say anything other than "He was the GREATEST".

 

I don't think so.

Neither guy fought in an especially talented HW era. While Louis was the unified NBA/NYSAC champ for his reign, look at how many WBA titlists/#1 Ring rated contenders that Holmes failed to meet. Yes, Holmes was the real champ, but the WBA champs were better fighters than some of those guys he ended up facing.

Holmes did some pretty bad cherry-picking toward the end of his reign, while Louis fought the bigger perceived threats to his title. Louis also gave rematches to the fighters who gave him hell.

 

Yet another person to misconstrue, "Bum of the month." Louis was a better fighter, who beat better opposition (at a minimum, over the course of their full careers, if not their respective reigns).

Also, there is dispute over how many defenses Holmes made, on account of when he became the linear Champ. I'm not one to recognise his victory over Norton as the start of his reign. He made twenty defenses of the WBC belt, but not the linear crown.

 

Holmes ducked WBA champs while Louis ducked black guys

 

Holmes would have shown Louis what it felt like to be out-jabbed by somebody who weighed a bit more than Billy Conn.

 

There's little doubt that Holmes would have defeated Louis in the ring... still, I think Joe was the greater champion.

 

Ring Magazine used that philosophy when compiling their 20 Greatest Fighters of the 20th Century.

Unfortunately, it means peope like Stanley Ketchel, Terrible Terry McGovern and Benny Leonard got the nod over the likes of Monzon, Olivares, Tommy Hearns etc.

 

if you're going to do a thread like this, you should take the time to list their respective fights and their opponents' records at the time they fought

 

Thats what Boxrec is for. You better "open a new tab", Mike.:boring:

 

I look at Billy Conn and the Michael Spinks comparison; both light heavies

Carl Williams/Ezzard Charles; not exactly talentwise but the equivalent in terms of match up... In my opinion of course.

I couldn't find an Arturo Godoy equivalent for Holmes; maybe Ken Norton in terms of awkward style - I guess.

Joe Walcott/Bonecrusher Smith (Old Guys)

Lou Nova/Scott Ledoux

Tony Galento/David Bey.... at least Galento could punch.

Tim Witherspoon/Max Schmeling I (Tim battered Larry's eye prompting Larry use the "I had diarreah", excuse after the fight.)

Tex Cobb/Lou Nova- Not competitive and took a beating (doubled up on Lou Nova)

Tyson/Marciano - put both guys lights out respectively

 

Conn would have been a Light-Light-Heavy......for the Louis fight he came in 1lb under the Light-Heavyweight limit.

Ahhhhhhh, those were the days.ld:ld:

 

How many of Holmes' rivals had fifteen pro fights or fewer (in a wasteland era, no less)? Something like seven or eight of them.

I have always said Holmes doesn't get enough criticism for his title contenders. People acknolwedge the era was soft, but don't go into the details, which do not flatter Holmes. Either does the fact that, quite unlike Louis, Holmes dodged rematches with anyone who made him struggle.

 

I always hated this argument. It's not like Holmes chased a paper title because he was avoiding the lineal champ. Spinks rematched and lost to Ali, who sat out until facing Holmes two years later.

Then when Holmes faced the "lineal" champion, he was criticized for beating a shell of Ali. No matter what, Holmes wasn't going to win an argument in the court of public appeal.

This is a case where I have no problem crowning a de facto champion.

 

Gimme Louis over Holmes, historically.

Louis would have had many more successful defenses had it not been for the war, IMO.

Secondly, Louis was more dominant, era for era. Also Louis proved his mettle in that defining fight against Schmeling in the rematch. Holmes never had a career defining victory.

Head to head...I'd probably pick Holmes, but Louis would be capable of knockout Larry out no doubt.

 

Oh, the fight where Schmeling was pelted with debris on the way to the ring and banned from the company of his Jewish manager before the fight?athetic:

You're crazy man.ointlaugh:

 

After Weaver KOed John Tate, I couldn't see any reason to dispute Holmes as the true champion in the division.

Before that, there was some debate as to who was the real champ. Prior to Tate's chin being exposed, a Holmes-Tate match seemed like a good fight as both were talented heavies and good boxers. But after Tate was stopped by Weaver, who was just stopped by Holmes...there was no doubt Holmes was the best heavy around at that point.

 

Holmes would have been crucified on the boxing message boards if they were around then.

 

agREED.

And some of the more difficult fights Holmes had were against opponents who were not expected to be stern challenges but then ended up being more difficult than Holmes expected...such as Weaver, Witherspoon, Smith and Williams. And of course...Michael Spinks.

Some of these fighters look better on a resume now than they did then, but none of them was considered a serious threat to unseat Holmes at the time the fight took place.

 

Little mention is also made of the fact that Schmeling should have got the crack against Braddock, and not Louis. The fact that Louis was getting a title shot against Braddock to the detriment of a man who had already beaten Louis was not lost on the pertinent NY "authorities". Louis did not amend this situation until he fought and beat Schmeling in a fairly wretched setting.

Just how Holmes conducted himself in a fashion that was any worse than any of this is beyond me.

 

I agree.

When you have multiple fighters with a claim to being the 'real' champ, one way a fighter can get a stronger claim is by having someone he has beaten, beat the other claimant. My qualifiers are:

1. A and B are the title holders with claims to being the real champ. Presumably because there isn't a true lineal claim in the weight class.
2. A beats C in a title fight.
3. C beats B in a title fight and wins B's belt.
4. A has not lost his title in a fight since he beat C. (A could now own a different title, but he must be a title holder who has either held a belt consecutively or reasonably. (example: A loses belt to fight megabuck fight with Z (no belt on line); A then fights D for D's belt and wins it--A still a claimant for strongest title lineage, imo)

 

Here's something I never realized, I guess I was too young to notice at the time... I knew that Weaver knocked out Tate on March 31, because it was Ace Miller's birthday - Miller was Tate's trainer and manager (he also trains current fringe heavyweight Alonzo Butler), and hates being reminded of his birthday for that very reason. What I never realized was that Holmes fought on the same day (against Leroy Jones).

Anyway, fair points that you make.

 

Your post, editor's version.

Don't you see how much neater it is without bringing titles into it?

 

hahaha.

Easier, but there are ways that I would disagree.

For example, in step 2, it could be at a different weight class or it could be a 10 rd non-title fight. To mE, that mucks it up and possibly mucks it up completely. Most would agree with your version, I concede.

 

Geez. It's not necessary to transform every situation into a math problem or apply the NFL playoff tiebreaker rules.

I prefer to look at each situation individually and just apply some common sense to it.

And sometimes there isn't enough difference between the two fighters to decide one is the real champ if there is no direct successor to an undisputed champ. Which is why we have unification fights.

 

Fair point... it being a heavyweight thread, that's what I had in mind.

 

Was Joe Louis ever an underdog during his title reign? Better yet, was he ever an underdog PERIOD? He was a favorite against Schmeling and Braddock! And Braddock was a title fight. He was even favored in the Schmeling re-match I suppose.

Is this a tribute to his talent, dominance or his, mostly putrid competition?

 

I don't get the comparision between Walcott and Smith. Smith was 4 years younger than Holmes and had only been fighting professionally for 3 years. I don't know that I would categorize Smith as an "old guy"...and I think i would find it difficult to find two less similar heavies than Walcott and Smith in the ring. Walcott was a tricky & slick "cutie" in the ring and Smith was a lumbering fighter with no skills outside of a solid chin and a big right hand.