Jump to content

“The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes


WelshDevilRob
 Share

Recommended Posts

“The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

by Dave Wilcox

 

From the time Larry Holmes turned pro in 1973 at the age of 24, it was never easy. He started late and while he was fine tuning his craft, the likes of Ali, Frazier and Foreman were already in the midst of staking their claim on greatness.

 

Holmes would get the chance to step into the ring with these greats in their primes, unfortunately for us it was during sparring sessions. Those who saw Holmes in those early sessions knew that greatness was a possibility for the young “Easton Assassin”.

 

As the Ali era was coming to an end, the Larry Holmes era was ready to begin. In 1978, Ali retired after regaining his title in the rematch with Leon Spinks. The title was then handed over to Kenny Norton. At that point, Holmes had put together an impressive 26-0 record and was given the opportunity to fight “The Acorn” Ernie Shavers in the WBC Title Eliminator. The winner of that contest would be Ken Norton’s first title defense.

 

When describing Shavers’ punching power in later years, Holmes quipped, “I can still see flashes, like a camera flash when Shavers hit me”

 

During the title Eliminator, Holmes showed no signs that the thunderous power of Shavers affected him and came away with a lopsided decision over twelve rounds to set the table for a new era in the Heavyweight division.

 

Read more: “The Easton Assassin� Larry Holmes - - Boxing News - Ring News24

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

--- The new era of Lar split his WBC title into into the IBF by refusing to fight his mandatory.

 

WBA was the more competitive belt so he refused to fight them because they were dangerously knocking each other off. Never once beat a standing champ who actually won his belt in the ring, an 0-5 title record in that regard.

 

Lar was ok in his day and always game, but never seen such a touted champ with such a huge inferiority complex that he ultimately had to suffer the indignity of calling out Butterbean and getting knocked down.

 

His fight with past prime Norton was the best he had in him and that the sparest one pt split decision possible with no rematch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

Have you seen my avatar!. And still champion. For ever.

At his prime he was unbeatable. And after his comeback, i will always remember the way he changed punches with Holyfield, and the proof that he gave all was the threw up seconds after that fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

Holmes is one of those who will always be underrated by a cursory history of the sport but will get his credit from those who follow it closely enough. He's also an incredibly engaging character and a great interview when he gets going. Top 5 jab all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

Bert Sugar had him at No.10 (ESPN Best Heavyweights), which I think is a bit unfair, and yet Ezzard Charles much higher despite being best at light heavy (though never winning a title at LH). The opponents Holmes faced weren't of the same calibre but he still reigned as top dog for a long time and so I cannot criticise him for the lack of world class HW's of his time. Unfortunate to not get the recognition he deserved, or fortunate to reign for so long in the showpiece division devoid of quality fighters? Bit of both for me, and still a quality fighter and left jab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

--- Howdy do, APW, glad to see you out and about on our little forum.

 

Quality thoughts as he made quite the story approaching Rocky's record before it all imploded. Thing is Lar's title reign was filled with quality WBA champs fighting each other, but he never challenged them. Also, he's the same age as Foreman, yet missed out on Foreman's golden era and comeback. There are reasons, but I thought I'd give you something to reflect on as you work through the varied topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

Great boxer. Shame for judges for the robbery in rematch with Spinks. Holmes tottaly dominated

I didn't think so. In the first 6 rounds yes, but Spinks came on strong later on. It was actually a very even fight, but since so many like Holmes, they call it a Holmes-dominance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

There is always at least one hater who posts on threads that are started by an admirer. Sometimes it is because they like arguing, sometimes it is because they are jealous that the fighter in question may overshadow their hero, or may even have beaten him.

Regardless, Larry was an excellent boxer, with great heart, and people who want to mock an old man being knocked down by Butterbean, should remember that, he still got up to win, just like he did when he was younger and was floored by the hardest puncher in heavyweight history.

There is a VERY valid reason that there was no rematch with Norton. Norton and Shavers fought each other on the Holmes v Ocasio undercard, with the winner obviously getting a title shot, but when you get knocked out in 1rd, it is unlikely that you would get said title shot. Specially since in the following three fights, he had a draw, a split decision win and another 1rd ko loss.

To be perfectly honest, I have one of the worlds biggest fight collections, and have obviously seen many thousands of bouts, but I simply do not see, what some see, when I watch Holmes v Norton, I see a very clear Holmes win, and I am no Norton hater. I have met him at the NEC Birmingham, and he is a lovely guy, plus I tell everyone that imo, he beat Ali in three out of three fights.

Edited by chaconfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

For those that accuse Holmes of not giving Norton a rematch. Norton was on the undercard of Holmes v Ocasio, fighting Shavers for the chance of a shot at the title. Do you think a guy getting blasted out in one round deserved a title shot? If Holmes didn't give rematches, why would he give one to a guy considered the hardest puncher to have ever stepped in a ring? For those that don't know, I am referring to Shavers.

Norton's record post Holmes was 2 wins 2 losses and a draw. One of those two wins was by a split decision, and the two losses were by first round ko.

He didn't even truly win the title, he was handed the title because Leon Spinks gave Ali an immediate rematch instead of fighting Ken, so because Ken had beaten Young (by split decision) in an eliminator, the WBC gave him the title.

It seems I am not allowed an opinion on this forum, without making enemies or being criticized personally. However, I will continue to try to defend boxers who I think are being unfairly criticized, regardless of the outcome. Peace to all fair people.

Now with these facts in place,does anyone still think Holmes was at fault for not giving him a rematch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

It seems I am not allowed an opinion on this forum, without making enemies or being criticized personally.

You haven't made any enemies, merely irritated some people a little through some initial misunderstandings and then this quest for martyrdom. This is a criticism, but a friendly one, and the last time I'll give you any unsolicited advice.

 

People disagree on here all the time, it's not a big deal, we move on to other things. Christ, LRR and I have spent about a decade openly despising each other and yet we're both still here.

 

If someone criticises you, either ignore it or report it, just don't carry it around with you pointing out the injustice every 5 minutes. Don't get abusive and the worst that will happen is you'll get into a seven-page heated discussion about why Larry Holmes was or wasn't a great champion. If someone wants to take that personally, sod 'em.

 

Now with these facts in place,does anyone still think Holmes was at fault for not giving him a rematch?

I confess to being largely ignorant of the 1970s and 80s heavyweight scene, but why on Earth was it Holmes's decision to make? I know he was a key fgure in the IBF's history for whatever reason, but the champion should fight the best available contender or vacate the title. How come Holmes got to decide rematching was beneath him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: “The Easton Assassin” Larry Holmes

 

I don't think Holmes got to decide that re matching was beneath him Gav. I was responding to a criticism by your nemesis, that he had never re matched anyone, and simply pointed out that he re matched the hardest puncher in history, and also that Norton lost his chance at a rematch by getting ko'd in the first rd.

How you described the situation on here, is nothing like how it happened with me. I have no problem with people disagreeing at all, but my quest for fairness has nothing to do with disagreeing.

I was simply having a polite debate with Dave, he then said I was a pain in the ass, but then an admin said I was causing arguments with everyone! I clearly showed that I was not at fault, and had not fallen out with ANYONE, but instead of an apology, I was then accused of turning boxing debates into stories about myself. Again I showed this person that HE actually asked ME questions, which required a response, plus also talked about himself, which is exactly what you would expect on a forum and on threads such as "which title fights have you attended?" Or would it be preferable to answer, yes or no, when possible?

Contrary to your views, I do not seek martyrdom, or any special treatment, I just want to show that what I am accused of is not the case.

Me giving examples of unfair treatment or hypocrisy, is a way of showing people that despite what any of you say, I am a really honest and fair person, and I am right in defending myself.

If anyone wants to disagree on anything, fine, but I don't expect to be criticized for defending myself or any boxers that are also unfairly singled out.

I got criticized for requesting a fight on a request thread.

Criticized for starting a thread, asking for peoples opinions as to whether they agreed Marciano was overrated or not.

Criticized for adding the word "peace" at the end of my post.

Criticized for apparently starting arguments with everyone, despite not arguing with anyone.

Banned for arguing back with a guy who winds everyone up... u might say, I used abusive language, but I was asking said wind up merchant to argue by private message, which admin knew about, yet HE still he wasn't spoken to.

All I want is to be able to join in debates without being accused of arguing, not accepting anything unless it comes out of my mouth, or to be accused of starting arguments, or trying to be a martyr, or on an ego trip etc etc etc.

I will gladly just download fights, if that is preferable.

Thanks for reading and peace to you my friend.

Edited by chaconfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...