Fights where two eras clashed

[janitor]

We spend a lot of time on this site speculating about the outcome of fights between fighters from diferent eras and we dont always agree on the respective strengths of diferent eras.

Ocasionaly however you get a situation where figfhters from two diferent eras do square off. This thread is to talk about them and what they might tell us.

Jem Mace
Mace continued to fight up to the age of 60 and was quite happy to mix it up with world class fighters at this age. He fought Charlie Mitchel at the age of 58 and aged 60 he fought a NC bout with Tommy Ryan.

Harold Johnson
Fought many of the same oponents as the fighters of the 70s and aquited himself well.

Floyd Patterson
Fought many top fighters of the 70s and only lost convincingly to the best.

Larry Holmes
Mixed it up at the top level in the 90s.

[mr. magoo]

Holyfield vs Foreman.

I don't know what this fight told us, given that Foreman was a different man when he fought Evander. The cross arm defensive style that he brought to his new game, was non-existant in the 1970's, as was his tactic of pacing himself early and picking shots rather than just hurling them in volume. My question would be, if a young Foreman had polished up his game in similar fashion to the way he did 15 years later, could he have beaten Holyfield or perhaps even Ali? My answer is maybe. I'm not so sure that an unpolished Foreman of 1973 would have beaten a 1991 Holyfield, by virtue of the fact that he could not outpoint him over 12 or 15 rounds, and nor do I see anyone stopping a peak Holy inside of 5 rounds.

[janitor]

Holyfield vs Foreman.

I don't what this fight told us, given that Foreman was a different man when he fought Evander. The cross arm defensive style that he brought to his new game, was non-existant in the 1970's, as was his tactic of pacing himself early and picking shots rather than just hurling them in volume. My question would be, if a young Foreman had polished up his game in similar fashion to the way he did 15 years later, could he have beaten Holyfield or perhaps even Ali? My answer is maybe. I'm not so sure that an unpolished Foreman of 1973 would have beaten a 1991 Holyfield, by virtue of the fact that he could not outpoint him over 12 or 15 rounds, and nor do I see anyone stopping a peak Hloy inside of 5 rounds.

More telling for my money was Holmes Mercer.

You have to think that if Holmes could beat Mercer at that age he would have had to be one of the absolute elite of that era at his peak. It rather calls into question the asertion that his own era was weaker.

[mr. magoo]

More telling for my money was Holmes Mercer.

You have to think that if Holmes could beat Mercer at that age he would have had to be one of the absolute elite of that era at his peak. It rather calls into question the asertion that his own era was weaker.


Agreed,

I think Holmes at his best would have beaten all of the top raters who were around in 1992. I see him outpointing Evander, Ruddock, and several others. Lewis and Bowe would have been tough fights, but I'm inclined to giving Larry the edge. He could not however, show up like he did in the Witherspoon fight against some of these men though.

[ChrisPontius]

More telling for my money was Holmes Mercer.

You have to think that if Holmes could beat Mercer at that age he would have had to be one of the absolute elite of that era at his peak. It rather calls into question the asertion that his own era was weaker.

Well anyone who doubt that Holmes would be anything less than the elite of his era would be deluded in the first place.



By the way, what about Holmes vs McCall and Holyfield? You can't look at the positives and ignore the negatives.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3052112]Well anyone who doubt that Holmes would be anything less than the elite of his era would be deluded in the first place.


I was being measured in what I said.

I conclude that he would probably have done as well as Lewis perhaps better.

By the way, what about Holmes vs McCall and Holyfield? You can't look at the positives and ignore the negatives.

I would hardly call those negatives given his age at the time. I have to conclude that both those fighters would have been roughly handeled by a prime Holmes.

[salsanchezfan]

...............Fenech-Zarate is a decent pick, I think, though few gave Zarate a realistic chance.


Olivares-Jose Luis Ramirez is interesting, especially because Olivares, who by that time was fighting strictly from memory, starched young Ramirez in 2.

[ChrisPontius]

I was being measured in what I said.

I conclude that he would probably have done as well as Lewis perhaps better.


Perhaps, but an equally important question here is: would Holmes have been as willing as Lewis to prove himself, given that he willfully avoided 8 big fights during his own era?



I would hardly call those negatives given his age at the time. I have to conclude that both those fighters would have been roughly handeled by a prime Holmes.

So the negatives at his age don't count, but the positives do? Hardly fair is it?

[janitor]

So the negatives at his age don't count, but the positives do? Hardly fair is it?

Well what exactly is a negative?

If these guys were of the same calibre as Holmes they should have destroyed him at this stage.

When Louis, Marciano, Ali and Holmes were put in with ageing former greats they didnt edge them they destroyed them.

[ChrisPontius]

Well what exactly is a negative?

If these guys were of the same calibre as Holmes they should have destroyed him at this stage.

When Louis, Marciano, Ali and Holmes were put in with ageing former greats they didnt edge them they destroyed them.

No they didn't. Marciano needed 13 rounds to KO Walcott when slightly behind on points (according to your reasoning, Walcott would've destroyed Marciano if he was younger) and Joe Louis was in fact knocked out by the former champion in Schmeling (though he did destroy Carnera and Sharkey).

Holyfield-Holmes and Holyfield-Foreman weren't competitive. Great efforts for their age, but neither looked like they were winning at any point in the fights.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3052695]No they didn't. Marciano needed 13 rounds to KO Walcott when slightly behind on points (according to your reasoning, Walcott would've destroyed Marciano if he was younger) and Joe Louis was in fact knocked out by the former champion in Schmeling (though he did destroy Carnera and Sharkey).


The crucial diference is that Walcott and Schmeling were close to their peaks when they fought Marciano and Louis respectivley.

The Holmes or indeed Forteman that Holyfield fought clearly compares more closley with the Louis that Marciano fought or the Sharkey that Louis fought.

Holyfield should have done better.

[Minotauro]

Archie Moore vs Ali
Giardello vs Ray Robinson

[salsanchezfan]

[quote]


The crucial diference is that Walcott and Schmeling were close to their peaks when they fought Marciano and Louis respectivley.

The Holmes or indeed Forteman that Holyfield fought clearly compares more closley with the Louis that Marciano fought or the Sharkey that Louis fought.

Holyfield should have done better.



...............And how, precisely, would Holyfield have done better?

[janitor]

[quote=janitor;3052934]



...............And how, precisely, would Holyfield have done better?

He should not have been taken the distance.

[salsanchezfan]

[quote=salsanchezfan;3053239]

He should not have been taken the distance.



..............No. Precisely. What could he have done differently?

[ChrisPontius]

The crucial diference is that Walcott and Schmeling were close to their peaks when they fought Marciano and Louis respectivley.

The Holmes or indeed Forteman that Holyfield fought clearly compares more closley with the Louis that Marciano fought or the Sharkey that Louis fought.

Holyfield should have done better.Holyfield dominated both of them. Foreman during his comeback was nearly impossible to stop and Holmes always was a tough bastard, only stopped by a peak Tyson. Holyfield is not a big hitter, what do you want him to do?








On a sidenote, you're still screwing up the quote-system. Just have a [ / q u o t e] for each [ q u o t e ] and things are fine.

[salsanchezfan]

Holyfield dominated both of them. Foreman during his comeback was nearly impossible to stop and Holmes always was a tough bastard, only stopped by a peak Tyson. Holyfield is not a big hitter, what do you want him to do?








On a sidenote, you're still screwing up the quote-system. Just have a [ / q u o t e] for each [ q u o t e ] and things are fine.




..............Precisely. Holyfield did absolutely nothing wrong with Foreman; he went to the aged man's body, he threw in combination, he did every single thing one could do to wear down a 42 year old man and it just didn't work. At some point you have to let reason into the mix and give credit to the other guy. Holyfield fought a very good fight.

Against Holmes, what the hell else was he supposed to do? He pressured the older legs, but Holmes was cagey, and leaned on the ropes and counterpunched. Few in history have been as savvy as him in picking off punches and he was tough in addition to that. Its very easy to say he should have stopped him fom our standpoint, but an unrealistic expectation otherwise.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3053378]Holyfield dominated both of them. Foreman during his comeback was nearly impossible to stop and Holmes always was a tough bastard, only stopped by a peak Tyson. Holyfield is not a big hitter, what do you want him to do?

While Holyfield was as you say not a puncher he was generaly stopping his contemporary heavyweight oponents. Tyson couldnt last the distance against him in two outings. I would have thought he would have TKOd Holmes and Foreman.






On a sidenote, you're still screwing up the quote-system. Just have a [ / q u o t e] for each [ q u o t e ] and things are fine.


Thankyou. Obviously me and technology dont mix.

[TBooze]

Duran/Barkley probably shows you how good Duran was rather than to damn the late 80s Middleweights.

By schooling Nate Miller, Tommy showed that even in his late 30s and being 30+ lbs over his best weight, he would of competed with any Cruiserweight of the 90s.

Joe Bugner showed he could still be a fringe heavyweight contender in his late 30s.

Bennie Briscoe only lost to top fighters in the late 70s, despite being in his mid 30s.

Ray Robinson still gave Middleweights of the 60s an argument, in his 40s.

[OLD FOGEY]

Holyfield dominated both of them. Foreman during his comeback was nearly impossible to stop and Holmes always was a tough bastard, only stopped by a peak Tyson. Holyfield is not a big hitter, what do you want him to do?








"/On a sidenote, you're still screwing up the quote-system. Just have a [ / q u o t e] for each [ q u o t e ] and things are fine.

Mistake

[mr. magoo]

Although both Janitor and Chris are making good points, I have always had a different theory that goes back to the very first time I saw those fights live. I don't think it had all that much to do with either man being too terribly difficult for Holy to stop, nor Holy being incompetent against aging fighters for that matter. I seriously think that he prepared for those fights with the distance in mind. When I watch his other matches against rated contenders in their primes around that period, he his aggressively going after them and landing monsterous shots that are sending them all over the place. We did not see this in the Holmes or Foreman fights. Part of it I believe, had to do with the fact that In order for Evander to become dangerous, he needs to be drawn into a war before he usually knocks anyone out. Holmes for one, certainly did not do this, and in fact their were times when he fought lazily off the ropes, while Evander took his time picking and chosing shots without much conviction. Foreman was a man who I think Holy prefered to box rather than slug with...

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

...............Fenech-Zarate is a decent pick, I think, though few gave Zarate a realistic chance.....

These two champs did overlap, but probably shouldn't have. Zarate took about 7 years off after losing a close one, and his title, to Pintor. His comeback started with a string of wins but ended in disappointments against Fenech & Zarazoga.

Would have been interesting if they'd clashed earlier. IMO Zarate would have been much tougher (and perhaps too good?).

[ChrisPontius]

Although both Janitor and Chris are making good points, I have always had a different theory that goes back to the very first time I saw those fights live. I don't think it had all that much to do with either man being too terribly difficult for Holy to stop, nor Holy being incompetent against aging fighters for that matter. I seriously think that he prepared for those fights with the distance in mind. When I watch his other matches against rated contenders in their primes around that period, he his aggressively going after them and landing monsterous shots that are sending them all over the place. We did not see this in the Holmes or Foreman fights. Part of it I believe, had to do with the fact that In order for Evander to become dangerous, he needs to be drawn into a war before he usually knocks anyone out. Holmes for one, certainly did not do this, and in fact their were times when he fought lazily off the ropes, while Evander took his time picking and chosing shots without much conviction. Foreman was a man who I think Holy prefered to box rather than slug with...


I don't want to go into detail as we've discussed it into depths far too deep before, but i would like to make three remarks:

1. How long ago has it been since you saw Holyfield vs Foreman/Holmes?

2. As for Holyfield not being aggressive, i'm sure you remember the sequence where "Commander Evander" landed something like 25 punches in a row with Foreman covering up but shipping at least half of them flush. He threw 49 punches a round which is more than heavyweight average, and landed a whopping 61% of them - even Bowe's opponents didn't have that high percentages. As for Holmes, he was a bit of a spoiler when laying on the ropes. Holyfield watched the Mercer fight and didn't fall for the trap. Intelligent fighting, but not something that makes one popular.

3. This was Foreman's first legitimate fight during his comeback. The fact that he was able to last the distance and stun Holyfield on one occasion was pretty dramatic. It's no secret that fighters who perform above the expected norm, often get more credit than deserved as emotional response. I think this is the case with Holyfield's fights against both aging legends. The crowd will always be on the underdog's side, especially with these already established icons.

:bbb

[mr. magoo]

I don't want to go into detail as we've discussed it into depths far too deep before, but i would like to make three remarks:

1. How long ago has it been since you saw Holyfield vs Foreman/Holmes?

2. As for Holyfield not being aggressive, i'm sure you remember the sequence where "Commander Evander" landed something like 25 punches in a row with Foreman covering up but shipping at least half of them flush. He threw 49 punches a round which is more than heavyweight average, and landed a whopping 61% of them - even Bowe's opponents didn't have that high percentages. As for Holmes, he was a bit of a spoiler when laying on the ropes. Holyfield watched the Mercer fight and didn't fall for the trap. Intelligent fighting, but not something that makes one popular.

3. This was Foreman's first legitimate fight during his comeback. The fact that he was able to last the distance and stun Holyfield on one occasion was pretty dramatic. It's no secret that fighters who perform above the expected norm, often get more credit than deserved as emotional response. I think this is the case with Holyfield's fights against both aging legends. The crowd will always be on the underdog's side, especially with these already established icons.

:bbb

Let me first clerify that I'm not making excuses for those men going the distance. In fact, it was refreshing to see that no one got badly hurt, and it did nothing to make me think any less of Evander.

Secondly, its been quite some time since I have seen either of those matches, but I clearly remember thinking that this was not the aggressive Holy that went after Dokes, Stewart, Qawi, etc. He fought a different kind of fight, against both men ( though I don't think he would have stopped Foreman anyway ). Against Holmes however, there were times when both men were playing with one another, and even giving off a smile or two. And who could ever forget seeing Holmes throwing up water all over himself after the final bell.

[la-califa]

1981 Joe Frazier coming back & holding contender Floyd"Jumbo"Cummings to a draw. A fighter Smokin' Joe would have put away in his prime. Not bad.

[radianttwilight]

Patterson-Liston I immediately comes to mind. The 1950s heavyweights meet the age of the superheavies.

It takes precedence over Holmes and Foremans' 90's fights because, unlike Holmes/Foreman, Liston and Patterson were both in their prime (or at least damn close to it).

Truly a case of two eras colliding... unfortunately for Floyd!

[AlFrancis]

Harry Wills - Jack Sharkey
Jack Sharkey - Joe Louis

[pmfan]

We spend a lot of time on this site speculating about the outcome of fights between fighters from diferent eras and we dont always agree on the respective strengths of diferent eras.

Ocasionaly however you get a situation where figfhters from two diferent eras do square off. This thread is to talk about them and what they might tell us.

Jem Mace
Mace continued to fight up to the age of 60 and was quite happy to mix it up with world class fighters at this age. He fought Charlie Mitchel at the age of 58 and aged 60 he fought a NC bout with Tommy Ryan.

Harold Johnson
Fought many of the same oponents as the fighters of the 70s and aquited himself well.

Floyd Patterson
Fought many top fighters of the 70s and only lost convincingly to the best.

Larry Holmes
Mixed it up at the top level in the 90s.

You left out the classic example of George Foreman! Didn't even need a time machine to win a heavyweight belt in 1994.

[Minotauro]

Jersey Joe Walcott beat Phil Johnson in 1936 and the later beat his son Harold Johnson in 1950.

[ChrisPontius]

Let me first clerify that I'm not making excuses for those men going the distance. In fact, it was refreshing to see that no one got badly hurt, and it did nothing to make me think any less of Evander.

Secondly, its been quite some time since I have seen either of those matches, but I clearly remember thinking that this was not the aggressive Holy that went after Dokes, Stewart, Qawi, etc. He fought a different kind of fight, against both men ( though I don't think he would have stopped Foreman anyway ). Against Holmes however, there were times when both men were playing with one another, and even giving off a smile or two. And who could ever forget seeing Holmes throwing up water all over himself after the final bell.

Fair enough.

Ironically, Holyfield finds himself in the same position as Foreman and Holmes did against him, in a few days against Valuev. Father time catches up with everyone, no matter how great.