Greater Resume: Lewis or Holmes?

[cross_trainer]

Thoughts?

[Dostoevsky]

Lewis.

Holmes never unified the title or became undisputed.
Lewis also beat better competition.

[Bill1234]

Lewis.

Holmes never unified the title or became undisputed.
Lewis also beat better competition.

Lewis didn't beat better comp. Also, its not Larry's fault he didn't unify, it was politics and as usual, Don King.

[Dostoevsky]

Lewis:
Mercer
Tyson
Holyfield
Ruddock
Weaver
Biggs
Tucker
Bruno
McCall
Tua
Morrison
Golota
Klitschko

Holmes:
Ali
Norton
Shavers
Cooney
Berbick
Witherspoon
Smith



I think Lewis takes it in terms of competition.

[Sonny's jab]

Lewis:
Mercer
Tyson
Holyfield
Ruddock
Weaver
Biggs
Tucker
Bruno
McCall
Tua
Morrison
Golota
Klitschko

Holmes:
Ali
Norton
Shavers
Cooney
Berbick
Witherspoon
Smith



I think Lewis takes it in terms of competition.

Wait a second.
You include Weaver on Lewis's resume but not on Holmes' ??
And Mercer ? 42 year old Holmes beat him CONVINCINGLY when Mercer was young and hyped.

[Dostoevsky]

ok ok, include Mercer on Holmes list.
Still, i think Lennox beat the better competition.

[Sonny's jab]

ok ok, include Mercer on Holmes list.
Still, i think Lennox beat the better competition.

It's a close call.

[Raggamuffin]

Lewis has better resume but Holmes is a ATG and a better fighter

[Jack]

Klitschko and Holyfield would be the two greatest fighters if you joined both resumes, so by that, Lewis.

[mr. magoo]

[[quote=Iron Duke]Lewis:
Mercer
Tyson
Holyfield
Ruddock
Weaver
Biggs
Tucker
Bruno
McCall
Tua
Morrison
Golota
Klitschko


This list has some flaws. Mercer was past his prime and hadn't won a fight in over two years, yet he lost a close controversial decision to Lewis. Holmes, was on the comeback trail at 42, and beat a prime Mercer in far more convincing fashion. Mike Weaver was also in his prime while fighting Holmes, and was well past it against Lewis. Biggs, Tucker, Bruno and Tyson were all over the hill as well. Mccall was only known for being a good fighter, because he beat Lewis. In the rematch, Oliver quit in a sobbing stuper. This fight saga is not exactly a compliment to Lewis's legacy. Klitschko, Golata, and Morrison were very good fighters, but not great. Ruddock, quite possibly never fully recovered from his two poundings at the hands of Tyson.

Although larry's resume is not exactly pretty per say, I firmly believe that it had more substance. He remained undefeated through 48 pro fights, including 21 title bouts. His first loss, came 2 months shy of his 36th birthday, and against a man who was far more talented than Oliver Mccall or Hasim Rahman. Many of his opponents were less than talented, but at least a lot of them were undefeated and in their 20's. What's more, he beat a better myriad of competition overall. While Cooney, Shavers, Norton, Snipes, Frank, Jones, Witherspoon, Mercer, Williams, and Berbick were not spectacular, they were at least better than past prime versions of Mercer, Bruno, Tucker, Biggs, Weaver, Morrision and Ruddock.

[Doppleganger]

Lewis did.

[Bad_Intentions]

holmes.:good

[Mook]

Lewis - better resume and arguably more dominant. Holmes, I feel, has gone from underappreciated to overrated these past few years.

As for this:

Lewis has better resume but Holmes is a ATG and a better fighter

Lewis had greater variety and is also and ATG.

[Sonny's jab]

Klitschko and Holyfield would be the two greatest fighters if you joined both resumes, so by that, Lewis.

Norton and Holyfield are the greatest fighters there, in my opinion.

Vitali Klitschko is almost completely unproven against top heavyweight fighters. Seriously, the best win on his resume is some guy that Hasim Rahman had already knocked out, with little or no fanfare I might add.
Corrie Sanders, Kirk Johnson, Larry Donald - that's not enough to be rated above Ken Norton, IMO, who beat Muhammad Ali once and arguably twice.

[ChrisPontius]

Lewis has an all-round better resume and his best win (dominated a 36 year old Holyfield) is better than Holmes' best win (close win over an aging Norton).

If there was any doubt, the fact that Lewis actually took on dangerous fights and unified whereas Holmes didn't do so from 1982 should make the difference.

[mr. magoo]

Lewis had greater variety and is also and ATG.


I agree that Lewis also deserves to be considered an all time great, but not that he had greater variety to his resume. Most of the men he fought were past prime versions of good fighters, or just not that great to begin with. What's more, he either lost or looked horribly unimpressive against Oliver Mccall, Hasim Rahman, a 36 year old Holyfield and a 35 year old Mercer. Holmes defeated a slightly past prime Norton, who was an all time great, and still a very good fighter in 1978. Earnie Shavers was pretty close to being at his best, and was possibly the hardest hitter in history. Cooney was a 25-0 prospect, who stood 6'7" during a time when most fighters didn't. Witherspoon, Berbick, Weaver and Smith were all young hopefuls who would soon go on to winning titles and having long successful careers. Mercer was a 30 year old Olympic gold medalist, coming off of the two best wins of his career against Tommy Morrison ( 28-0-0-24 ) and Francesco Damiani ( 27-0-0-23. ) Holmes at 42, showed incredible ring saavy and talent in totally shutting out mercer over 12 rounds. In 1996, a 30 year old Lewis fought a 34 year old Mercer, who hadn't won a meaningful bout in nearly 3 years, and some felt Lewis was given a gift decision!!!!

You'll have to excuse my bluntness, but there ain't no fuckin' way Lennox Lewis had a better resume or career legacy than Larry Holmes.

[Sonny's jab]

Lewis has an all-round better resume and his best win (dominated a 36 year old Holyfield) is better than Holmes' best win (close win over an aging Norton).


That's highly debatable.

[Duodenum]

Holmes, in large part due to his extraordinary, and utterly unanticpated longevity. It should also be remembered that Holmes dominated Mercer over 12 rounds, nearly three years before Moorer was dethroned by Foreman (who needed a come from behind one-punch kayo to win the title).

Larry came off the deck to stop Shavers and Snipes. Lewis couldn't do it against McCall and Rahman. As an undefeated boxer, Holmes won 20 consecutive championship matches, and successfully defended the title in eight consecutive calendar years. Like Lewis, Holmes sustained only two decisive losses on his resume: to Tyson and Holyfield. Against a peak Tyson, Holmes was noticably rusty, and with his timing off after nearly two years of retirement. Yet even at age 38, he was competitive against one of the fastest starting champions in HW history for nearly three and a half rounds. Against a peak undefeated Holyfield, at age 42, he lost a contact lens (!), yet still managed to defend himself well enough to go the distance.

Holmes was the de facto universal champion. He kayoed Weaver, and shut out Cobb, after Tex had narrowly lost a split decision to Dokes (who was considered the number two HW at the time). Insofar as Lewis and Holyfield enjoyed official recognition as undisputed HW Champions, the lion's share of that credit belongs to Tyson, for consolidating the title to begin with. (For his part, Holyfield consolidated the Cruiserweight Title, and established his 15 round pedigree against Qawi.)

Holmes recorded victories over the following world title claimants:

Norton
Ocasio (Eventual WBA Cruiserweight Champion)
Weaver (2X)
Ali
Berbick (By shutout)
Leon Spinks
Witherspoon
Smith (2X)
Mercer (WBO Heavyweight Champion and Olympic Gold medalist)

Holmes defeated five future champions (Ocasio, Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon and Smith).

Holmes eliminated the following from the unbeaten ranks:

Ocasio
Leroy Jones
Snipes
Cooney
Witherspoon
Frank
Marvis Frazier
Bey
Williams
Mercer

(Lewis defeated four unbeatens.)

Holmes won matches over a period of nearly thirty years, and when in his forties, was far more impressive against a peak McCall and Mercer than a prime Lennox was, also much more impressive against a young Ocasio than the young Lewis was against an aged Ocasio. Due to circumstances beyond Lewis's control, Holmes also has the 15 round pedigree Lennox never had the chance to establish for himself.

Finally, there's a saying that, "As goes the heavyweights, so goes boxing." The sport was never bigger than it was in the early 1980s, and Holmes was the HW Champion in Ali's wake during those heady halcyon days in its history. Lewis was one of those who presided over boxing's decline and fall as a mainstream attraction.

[Titan1]

Holmes, in large part due to his extraordinary, and utterly unanticpated longevity. It should also be remembered that Holmes dominated Mercer over 12 rounds, nearly three years before Moorer was dethroned by Foreman (who needed a come from behind one-punch kayo to win the title).

Larry came off the deck to stop Shavers and Snipes. Lewis couldn't do it against McCall and Rahman. As an undefeated boxer, Holmes won 20 consecutive championship matches, and successfully defended the title in eight consecutive calendar years. Like Lewis, Holmes sustained only two decisive losses on his resume: to Tyson and Holyfield. Against a peak Tyson, Holmes was noticably rusty, and with his timing off after nearly two years of retirement. Yet even at age 38, he was competitive against one of the fastest starting champions in HW history for nearly three and a half rounds. Against a peak undefeated Holyfield, at age 42, he lost a contact lens (!), yet still managed to defend himself well enough to go the distance.

Holmes was the de facto universal champion. He kayoed Weaver, and shut out Cobb, after Tex had narrowly lost a split decision to Dokes (who was considered the number two HW at the time). Insofar as Lewis and Holyfield enjoyed official recognition as undisputed HW Champions, the lion's share of that credit belongs to Tyson, for consolidating the title to begin with. (For his part, Holyfield consolidated the Cruiserweight Title, and established his 15 round pedigree against Qawi.)

Holmes recorded victories over the following world title claimants:

Norton
Ocasio (Eventual WBA Cruiserweight Champion)
Weaver (2X)
Ali
Berbick (By shutout)
Leon Spinks
Witherspoon
Smith (2X)
Mercer (WBO Heavyweight Champion and Olympic Gold medalist)

Holmes defeated five future champions (Ocasio, Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon and Smith).

Holmes eliminated the following from the unbeaten ranks:

Ocasio
Leroy Jones
Snipes
Cooney
Witherspoon
Frank
Marvis Frazier
Bey
Williams
Mercer

(Lewis defeated four unbeatens.)

Holmes won matches over a period of nearly thirty years, and when in his forties, was far more impressive against a peak McCall and Mercer than a prime Lennox was, also much more impressive against a young Ocasio than the young Lewis was against an aged Ocasio. Due to circumstances beyond Lewis's control, Holmes also has the 15 round pedigree Lennox never had the chance to establish for himself.

Finally, there's a saying that, "As goes the heavyweights, so goes boxing." The sport was never bigger than it was in the early 1980s, and Holmes was the HW Champion in Ali's wake during those heady halcyon days in its history. Lewis was one of those who presided over boxing's decline and fall as a mainstream attraction.

Didn't he fight Cobb about a year and a half after Dokes?

[ChrisPontius]

That's highly debatable.

1)
Holyfield is the greater fighter.
Norton usually ranks anywhere between top30 and top15.
Holyfield ranks between top15 and top7.

2)
Holyfield had more left as a fighter.
He went on to have a good showing against Lewis in the rematch and after that beat two high ranked contenders (Rahman & Ruiz) and may beat another one in the future, although i highly doubt that.

Norton, after the Holmes fight, got KO'd in one round by Shavers, drew with Ledoux, barely beat Cobb and then got brutally KO'd in one round again, by Cooney.


So Holyfield is greater all-round AND had more left in the tank.
I don't see how it's debatable which was the better win. Not that a resume should defined by the best win, but still.

[Bill1234]

Lewis:
Mercer
Tyson
Holyfield
Ruddock
Weaver
Biggs
Tucker
Bruno
McCall
Tua
Morrison
Golota
Klitschko

Holmes:
Ali
Norton
Shavers
Cooney
Berbick
Witherspoon
Smith



I think Lewis takes it in terms of competition.

Lets see now, Larry beat Weaver twice, the peak Weaver, and when they were both past it, a 42 year old Larry beat a prime Mercer very convincingly. Larry gave McCall all he could handle back in 95, when Holmes was 13 years past it, and McCall was in his prime. And why would you count a washed up Tyson on Lewis's record? If you do, then you would have to count Holmes on Tyson's record. Larry fought 5 of the guys on Lewis's resume, and gave most of them a handful, and beat 1 of them, when he was way past it. Lewis beat a lot of those guys when they were washed up or way past it, like Tyson and Holyfield. Lewis beat shells of those fighters.

[Bill1234]

Lewis has an all-round better resume and his best win (dominated a 36 year old Holyfield) is better than Holmes' best win (close win over an aging Norton).

If there was any doubt, the fact that Lewis actually took on dangerous fights and unified whereas Holmes didn't do so from 1982 should make the difference.

The Norton of the Holmes fight beats the Holyfield that fought Lewis 7 times out of 10. Also, if you really want to get into the thing post 82 title reign from Holmes, be my guest.

[ChrisPontius]

Finally, there's a saying that, "As goes the heavyweights, so goes boxing." The sport was never bigger than it was in the early 1980s, and Holmes was the HW Champion in Ali's wake during those heady halcyon days in its history. Lewis was one of those who presided over boxing's decline and fall as a mainstream attraction.

If this was the first time i got in contact with boxing, you'd actually make me believe that the late 70's and early 80's were a great period in heavyweight boxing. Get real, it was a very weak period with titles changing hands all the time, fighters coming in out of shape all the time, the challegers being ducked by the champion, every single close fight being ducked by the champion, the champion dropping his title to avoid a challenger and being given an (at that time) meaningless belt instead, etc.


Nice numerical ways you apply to dodge comparisons between actually beaten competition. Yeah, impressive that Holmes took away the undefeatedness of a a handful of 10 round pups. Wow, and nice that he had 20 consecutive title defenses...... against mostly undeserving challengers while ducking the dangerous fights (rematches & deserving challengers).

[ChrisPontius]

The Norton of the Holmes fight beats the Holyfield that fought Lewis 7 times out of 10.

When did that happen? I must have missed those fights.

[Duodenum]

Didn't he fight Cobb about a year and a half after Dokes?

Yes. Cobb had to generate a winning streak before getting his shot. Dokes was about to have his first controversial tiff with Weaver when Holmes shut Randy out. Until the Weaver rematch, Cobb and Ocasio had given Dokes his toughest matches. (Ocasio deserved the decision in their first match, but he wasn't going to get it over a kid who might as well have been Dong King's son at the time.)

[Duodenum]

If this was the first time i got in contact with boxing, you'd actually make me believe that the late 70's and early 80's were a great period in heavyweight boxing. Get real, it was a very weak period with titles changing hands all the time, fighters coming in out of shape all the time, the challegers being ducked by the champion, every single close fight being ducked by the champion, the champion dropping his title to avoid a challenger and being given an (at that time) meaningless belt instead, etc.


Nice numerical ways you apply to dodge comparisons between actually beaten competition. Yeah, impressive that Holmes took away the undefeatedness of a a handful of 10 round pups. Wow, and nice that he had 20 consecutive title defenses...... against mostly undeserving challengers while ducking the dangerous fights (rematches & deserving challengers).

If it wasn't for your welcome commentaries on my posts, I might feel invisibly insignificant. Thanks for the attention. (Please be kind enough to continue throwing peanuts my way!)

[mr. magoo]

If this was the first time i got in contact with boxing, you'd actually make me believe that the late 70's and early 80's were a great period in heavyweight boxing. Get real, it was a very weak period with titles changing hands all the time, fighters coming in out of shape all the time, the challegers being ducked by the champion, every single close fight being ducked by the champion, the champion dropping his title to avoid a challenger and being given an (at that time) meaningless belt instead, etc.


Nice numerical ways you apply to dodge comparisons between actually beaten competition. Yeah, impressive that Holmes took away the undefeatedness of a a handful of 10 round pups. Wow, and nice that he had 20 consecutive title defenses...... against mostly undeserving challengers while ducking the dangerous fights (rematches & deserving challengers).


Yeah,

The mid 90's through 2003, was certainly the golden age of the division with John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, James Toney, an aging Holyfield, a shot Tyson, Larry Donald, Hasim Rahman, Corrie Sanders and countless others. What's even better Chris, is that Lewis wasn't even capable of beating the best fighters of this period, losing to Mccall and Rahman, while drawing with a shot Holyfield, and getting a way with a close decision against a faded Mercer.

While the late 70's and early 80's was definately a weak period in the division's history, it was nothing like the 10 year time frame between 1994 and 2004. At one point, you had past prime middleweights like Roy Jones and James Toney winning belts for Christ's sake!!! Is this what you call a division worth unifying??? In Holmes day, the concept of having 3 titles was relatively new, and what's more, the idea of having one man holding them all was even more unusual. Holmes held the IBF title from 1983 to 1985. During that period, you had the WBC and WBA belts change hands between 6 men in just over two years. None of them could hold onto a title long enough to build momentum for a unification. Also, while Shavers, Cooney, Norton, Frank, Witherspoon, Boncrusher, and some of Holmes other challengers may not have been stellar per say, they were at least at a reasonable age, and had respectable records. Once again, Holmes also DEFEATED all of his oppnents when in his prime. Lewis couldn't even beat every man on his top list...

[Bill1234]

the champion dropping his title to avoid a challenger and being given an (at that time) meaningless belt instead, etc.


I know your talking about the Page thing. I will type what is in Larry's book, and what is the truth. (Against the Odds by Larry Holmes, copyright 1998 by Larry Holmes with Phil Berger------------Page 222-224)

(Starting at the end of the 1st full paragraph on pg 222)

I began thinking of retirement.
But that changed abruptly when a pair of promoters, Murad Muhammmad and Bob Andreoli, offered me $5 million for a two fight deal --Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier. That was, I thought, practically like a white collar crime. Easy money. Found money. I couldn't imagine either Frank, a White kid from New Jersey, or Frazier, the son of Smokin' Joe, lasting more than a few rounds with me.
The hitch here was convincing King to butt out so I could sock away these easy paydays without his getting a taste. What's more, I had promised King that I would fight another heavyweight of his, Greg Page.(its not really bolded or anything) Both Page and King were concerned that at my age, who knows--maybe the worst would happen and either Frank or Frazier would knock me off.
I was able to convince Page that the wait was worth it...and don't worry, neither Frank or Frazier would lay a glove on me. Besides, I told him, he wasn;t going to make better money fighting any other heavyweight. Page went along with it.
But King...well, he was his usual greedhead self, reluctant to cut a fighter of his--even one who, like me, had made him millions of dollars--a little slack. That really angered me. And when I get angry, I either laugh or cry. I couldn't hold the tears back when King and I began arguing and cursing one another. Finally, I looked him in the eye and told him that if he tried to stop these fights, that I would retire--and that he would have a cut of a fight that would never happen. He looked at me and saw I meant what I said...and backed off.
Scott Frank was a wild swinger who had no style whatsoever. I stopped him in 5 roundsin September 83' in Atlantic City.
A week before the Frazier fight, the WBC held its annual convention in Vegas, where Holmes-Frazier was to take place. Earlier, Sig Rogich, the WBC's VP, told me his championship commitee would strip me of my title if I fought Frazier instead of taking my mandatory bout against Page. Rogich had once been the chairman of the Neveda boxing commision and was used to reamrodding his decisions through. Seemed to me he was still bugged about not being able to stop from fighting the Frenchman, Rodriguez. And who knows? Maybe he was acting on the urging of Donald King. King and the WBC--hell, they were tighter than canned sardines.
Anyway, I had hardly set my bags down in Vegas when here comes the little snor, Sulaiman, to give me a lecture on ingratitude. All that the WBC had done for me...why wasn't I greatful?
I told him "Jose, what about all I did for the WBC? What about my staying in it and being its champion all these years? And what about the damn kickbacks I paid?"
He said, real deadpan--as only Jose could--"Kickbacks? Whats a kickback?"
It was an oscarwinning performance.
At the convention, the WBC boys were still threatening to strip my title if I went ahead and fought Frazier. I had brought a young Vegas attorney, Mark Risman, with me to speak on my behalf. The WBC boys treated him like dirt. Next day, I showed up with Oscar Goodman, one o fthe most important lawyers in Vegas, a man who defended some of the biggest moneyme out there. The tone was completely different. It was, "Yes Nr. Goodman. Of course Mr. Goodman."
Toward the end of the convention, Rogich was still making noise about the mandatory defense against Page, and eventually proposing that the matter be put to arbitration. Maybe I didn't go to school that much, but I'm not stupid. I wasn't going to let them do that. There was no arbitrationg Larry Holmes's independence. On the last day of the convention, I stepped to the microphone and told them how disapointed I was with the orginization, how after all my years of loyalty, they weren't giving me any consideration. I guess they thought I wasn't. I called their bluff. I said, "You don't have to strip me of my title. I don't want to be your champion anymore. I resign."
Well, that shook them big. You could hear gasps in the room, and some of the WBC members shouting no, no, I wasn't allowd to resign. Not allowd? Hell, didn't they hear? I just did it. Rogich said his comittee "would take it underadvisement." Fine, you do that, Sig, but I'm out of hear. (ended on the 3rd-last paragraph on page 224)

[My dinner with Conteh]

That's from Larry's point of view. He's hardly going to say "I am the mallard, I ducked Super Greg" is he? The man had no class at the best of times.

[mr. magoo]

That's from Larry's point of view. He's hardly going to say "I am the mallard, I ducked Super Greg" is he? The man had no class at the best of times.

Super Greg, was a super putz. The man wasn't ducked by anybody. Get your head out of your ass dinner.

[Bill1234]

That's from Larry's point of view. He's hardly going to say "I am the mallard, I ducked Super Greg" is he? The man had no class at the best of times.

Were you there? How could he lie using cold hard evidence and facts?

[mr. magoo]

Lennox is better IMO.


And like everyone else, you're entitled to your opinion :grouphug

[Bill1234]

Lennox is an ATG as well, and a better fighter IMO. What makes you say Homes is better? Because he's been retired longer and is thought of higher as years pass? Lennox is better IMO.

Why do you think Lennox is better? Larry has more speed, stamina, agility, a better jab (a key factor), better chin, more heart and durability, and better recuporative powers. Lennox only has power, size/reach, and variety of punches on Larry. And the only reason he had more of a variety was because he threw them more.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Were you there? How could he lie using cold hard evidence and facts?


Cold hard facts: King wanted him to fight Page, he didn't complain when King wanted him to fight Zanon, Cobb or Ocasio did he.

The WBC wanted him to fight his mandatory, which is supposedly a champion's duty.

[Bill1234]

Cold hard facts: King wanted him to fight Page, he didn't complain when King wanted him to fight Zanon, Cobb or Ocasio did he.

The WBC wanted him to fight his mandatory, which is supposedly a champion's duty.

The only reason King wanted him to fight Page is because he would get a cut out of both purses, and Larry wasn't going to have that. Also, isn't a week before another fight a bit short notice for a championship fight?

[My dinner with Conteh]

The only reason King wanted him to fight Page is because he would get a cut out of both purses, and Larry wasn't going to have that. Also, isn't a week before another fight a bit short notice for a championship fight?


Didn't King get a cut of both purses for the Witherspoon fight- The Mallard had no qualms about taking that. :good


Oh, and that doesn't mean he had a 'week' to fight Page. If it did, Holmes, in training for Frazier would be at an advantage anyway. It entails that he could cancel the Fraizer fight and sign for a Page fight- it doesn't mean it'd have to happen the same night. :nut

[Doppleganger]

Why do you think Lennox is better? Larry has more speed, stamina, agility, a better jab (a key factor), better chin, more heart and durability, and better recuporative powers. Lennox only has power, size/reach, and variety of punches on Larry. And the only reason he had more of a variety was because he threw them more.
Speed debatable. Agility debatable. When it comes to the jab I think this is debatable too. Heart is debatable. Larry did have the better chin and recuparative powers though but Lennox never got the breaks in the McCall I fight that Larry got against Shavers and Snipes. Both ATGs of course but Holmes did squeak by Witherspoon and was beaten twice by Michael Spinx, something that I wouldnt ever see happening with Lewis even on a sloppy day. Lewis has those 2 early losses of course which although avenged do show a certain vulnerability. If they ever fought it would be a pick 'em fight as I see both as very nearly the toughest match-up for each other.

Anyway, Lewis still has the better resume. Although he fought Holyfield and Tyson later than was desired, the only real major contender he never fought and beat was of course Riddick Bowe. And perhaps Witherspoon if we are being picky.

[Titan1]

lennox never seemed to be the fastest of fighters IMHO.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Lennox never got the breaks in the McCall I fight that Larry got against Shavers and Snipes.


Very true.

[Sonny's jab]

1)
Holyfield is the greater fighter.
Norton usually ranks anywhere between top30 and top15.
Holyfield ranks between top15 and top7.

2)
Holyfield had more left as a fighter.
He went on to have a good showing against Lewis in the rematch and after that beat two high ranked contenders (Rahman & Ruiz) and may beat another one in the future, although i highly doubt that.

Norton, after the Holmes fight, got KO'd in one round by Shavers, drew with Ledoux, barely beat Cobb and then got brutally KO'd in one round again, by Cooney.


So Holyfield is greater all-round AND had more left in the tank.
I don't see how it's debatable which was the better win. Not that a resume should defined by the best win, but still.

I disagree with point 2.
Norton was fresh off win over Jimmy Young, was considered the best active heavyweight out there by many, and the uncrowned champ, and his form over the previous two years was impressive.
He showed good form versus Holmes, in quite a hard fight.
Regardless of how he performed in subsequent fights, he looked near his best in the 15 rounds with Holmes and entered the fight with solid recent performances.

Norton's form going in easily matches Holyfield's triumvirate of a DQ win over Tyson, a TKO of Moorer and a pedestrian UD over Vaugh Bean in the 2 years prior to fighting Lewis.

Point 1 I agree with. Holyfield rates higher on an all-time list but the gulf in overall ability isn't massive.

[robert ungurean]

Holmes Withoutb question.
I cant understand why so many people hold Lewis in such high regard.

[ChrisPontius]

I disagree with point 2.
Norton was fresh off win over Jimmy Young, was considered the best active heavyweight out there by many, and the uncrowned champ, and his form over the previous two years was impressive.
He showed good form versus Holmes, in quite a hard fight.
Regardless of how he performed in subsequent fights, he looked near his best in the 15 rounds with Holmes and entered the fight with solid recent performances.

Norton's form going in easily matches Holyfield's triumvirate of a DQ win over Tyson, a TKO of Moorer and a pedestrian UD over Vaugh Bean in the 2 years prior to fighting Lewis.

Point 1 I agree with. Holyfield rates higher on an all-time list but the gulf in overall ability isn't massive.

Norton's recent win over Young was controversial; many saw it as yet another robbery for Young. Of course, Young was a very skilled fighter so there's no shame in losing there.

I think that many would agree that Holyfield was the better win.

[ChrisPontius]

Yeah,

The mid 90's through 2003, was certainly the golden age of the division with John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, James Toney, an aging Holyfield, a shot Tyson, Larry Donald, Hasim Rahman, Corrie Sanders and countless others. What's even better Chris, is that Lewis wasn't even capable of beating the best fighters of this period, losing to Mccall and Rahman, while drawing with a shot Holyfield, and getting a way with a close decision against a faded Mercer.

While the late 70's and early 80's was definately a weak period in the division's history, it was nothing like the 10 year time frame between 1994 and 2004. At one point, you had past prime middleweights like Roy Jones and James Toney winning belts for Christ's sake!!! Is this what you call a division worth unifying??? In Holmes day, the concept of having 3 titles was relatively new, and what's more, the idea of having one man holding them all was even more unusual. Holmes held the IBF title from 1983 to 1985. During that period, you had the WBC and WBA belts change hands between 6 men in just over two years. None of them could hold onto a title long enough to build momentum for a unification. Also, while Shavers, Cooney, Norton, Frank, Witherspoon, Boncrusher, and some of Holmes other challengers may not have been stellar per say, they were at least at a reasonable age, and had respectable records. Once again, Holmes also DEFEATED all of his oppnents when in his prime. Lewis couldn't even beat every man on his top list...

Between mid 90's and 2003 you had Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko.
Between the late 70's during Holmes' reign untill the mid 80's you had Holmes........................ and a lot of contenders who hardly remained consistent for a long period. Thomas and Witherspoon are probably the best of them. Holmes ducked Thomas and barely beat a green thomas, ducked the rematch.

I think even most of the people who were born around 1960-1970, who saw the late 70's and early 80's during lifeyears when they form their favorites (17-24 y.o.), will agree that the 90's was a better period for heavyweights than the late 70's/early 80's.

And yes, in Holmes' time the titles meant a lot less. And Holmes at one point was stripped of his only meaningful title to duck Page. Was gifted a belt which didn't mean shit at the time. You can't ignore these things.

[Zakman]

Holmes, no question. Lewis is incredibly overrated. And Larry never got blasted out in a few rounds by B-level fighters. No, he actually got up off the canvas to win a few!!

[hobgoblin]

Lennox never got the breaks in the McCall I fight that Larry got against Shavers and Snipes.

I don't entirely agree here. I don't call it much of a "break" to get up in the middle of the round (not saved by the bell) while you are really hurt and have to face a murderous puncher like Shavers. Some will say at least he had a chance, that is better than being outright stopped but I'm not sure how well Lewis would have done in the situation. You can make a weak case for Lewis' stoppages not being legitimate but I do believe that if he was allowed to continue - he would have been stopped shortly. He seemsed to indicate overwise against Vitali at the twilight of his career - but that is my opinion anyway.

Usually I don't like it when someone says that Lewis had a glass chin or "if McCall could KO Lewis with 1 punch than so can..." or stuff like "those two losses forever tarnish him as an ATG." I don't entertain such arguments. However, in COMPARISON to Larry Holmes, RELATIVELY, those two losses to ordinary contenders really do look bad when comparing against a guy that was 48-0 near the end of his career and even if he did get knocked down, he fixed it up right there and then in amazing display. I don't really hold much water to the controversial losses to Spinks in 1985 but clearly a controversial decision loss to Spinks during the twlight of your career isn't nearly as bad as 2 KO losses to ordinary contenders during your prime - one of them that Holmes would go on to school later.

I definitely say Holmes had the better record.

[prime]

If it wasn't for your welcome commentaries on my posts, I might feel invisibly insignificant. Thanks for the attention. (Please be kind enough to continue throwing peanuts my way!)

Duo, that the squeaking poster gets the peanuts does not in any way diminish your knowledge or bright-eyed, fun style.

[Duodenum]

Duo, that the squeaking poster gets the peanuts does not in any way diminish your knowledge or bright-eyed, fun style.

Thanks. I consider those posts somewhat boorish and pompous myself, but ChrisPontius seems to like them.

[achillesthegreat]

I think I'd have to go with Lewis but it is a toughie.

[Cojimar 1945]

Is this even up for debate. Holmes failed to face many of his best contemporaries. Lewis missed a few but seems to have faced more of the best heavyweights of his era.

Holmes oppossition in 1975-1977 was not spectacular. He should have stepped up in competition much earlier than he did.

[rekcutnevets]

I would have to say that their resumes are on par with each other's. I don't want to be a fence sitter, but that is really how I feel.

I don't think that Holmes missed out on any more fights than Lewis did. Holmes missed Thomas, Page, Coetzee, and Dokes.

Lewis missed Bowe, W. Klitschko, Byrd, Moorer, and Foreman.

I don't fault them entirely for their missed opposition. Foreman speaks like he wanted no part of Lewis. Moorer may have never been thought of by Lewis. Bowe just ducked Lewis.

Promoters, money, timing may have effected Holmes ability to fight the four I named for him.

I really don't think an edge can be given to either fighter in terms of their competition. Some of Lewis' look better on film, but that was only because they had better cameras in his era.

[Bill1234]

Speed debatable. Agility debatable. When it comes to the jab I think this is debatable too. Heart is debatable. Larry did have the better chin and recuparative powers though but Lennox never got the breaks in the McCall I fight that Larry got against Shavers and Snipes. Both ATGs of course but Holmes did squeak by Witherspoon and was beaten twice by Michael Spinx, something that I wouldnt ever see happening with Lewis even on a sloppy day. Lewis has those 2 early losses of course which although avenged do show a certain vulnerability. If they ever fought it would be a pick 'em fight as I see both as very nearly the toughest match-up for each other.

Anyway, Lewis still has the better resume. Although he fought Holyfield and Tyson later than was desired, the only real major contender he never fought and beat was of course Riddick Bowe. And perhaps Witherspoon if we are being picky.

Speed, not debatable, unless you are talking about the Holmes from the Tyson fight and after. Agility, again, not debatable, Holmes could get on his bike and get around like Ali did at times, Lewis couldn't. Jab, not even close. Larry KO'd a guy with a jab, and he knocked Ocasio down with one. Also, his jab was a stinging dart that most guys didn't see coming, or did, just it was too late. Heart, again, not debateable. Larry never gave a reason to stop a fight. If he was knocked down, he would get up swinging and slugging. Except against Shaver, but he got on his bike and stuck his jab in Shavers face until his head was cleared. Larry lost in a very disputed decision in the rematch with Spinks, and in the first fight, Ive heard mixed results. IMO Larry won it by about a round. Yeah, Witherspoon gave Larry some trouble, but Mercer gave Lewis a lot of trouble, and a 42 year old Holmes beat Mercer convincingly.

[Bill1234]

I don't entirely agree here. I don't call it much of a "break" to get up in the middle of the round (not saved by the bell) while you are really hurt and have to face a murderous puncher like Shavers. Some will say at least he had a chance, that is better than being outright stopped but I'm not sure how well Lewis would have done in the situation. You can make a weak case for Lewis' stoppages not being legitimate but I do believe that if he was allowed to continue - he would have been stopped shortly. He seemsed to indicate overwise against Vitali at the twilight of his career - but that is my opinion anyway.

Usually I don't like it when someone says that Lewis had a glass chin or "if McCall could KO Lewis with 1 punch than so can..." or stuff like "those two losses forever tarnish him as an ATG." I don't entertain such arguments. However, in COMPARISON to Larry Holmes, RELATIVELY, those two losses to ordinary contenders really do look bad when comparing against a guy that was 48-0 near the end of his career and even if he did get knocked down, he fixed it up right there and then in amazing display. I don't really hold much water to the controversial losses to Spinks in 1985 but clearly a controversial decision loss to Spinks during the twlight of your career isn't nearly as bad as 2 KO losses to ordinary contenders during your prime - one of them that Holmes would go on to school later.

I definitely say Holmes had the better record.

Great post.:good

[Bill1234]

Lennox had way more power and even more size. Both had great jabs, it wouldn't be a one-sided affair in that department at all. I wouldn't say he had more heart neccessarily, what makes you say that? Better chin yes. And the main reason of course being he had the better resume.

Watch the Weaver and Tyson fights. In the Weaver fight, Larry had a cold, took a beating, but made it a point to rally back, badly hurt Weaver with a great uppercut that dropped him, then land a great combo that put Weaver onto queer street to finish it. In the Tyson fight, Larry took a beating, but wasn't shy about hitting Tyson, or getting up to fight on. Lennox was about a level above Holmes in power, thats not "way more" Larry had some pretty good 1 punch KO's, like against Curt Sheppard or his rematch with Weaver. Larry's jab was faster, stronger, and way more effective than Lewis's, although Lewis had a great jab too.

[Bill1234]

Between mid 90's and 2003 you had Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko.
Between the late 70's during Holmes' reign untill the mid 80's you had Holmes........................ and a lot of contenders who hardly remained consistent for a long period. Thomas and Witherspoon are probably the best of them. Holmes ducked Thomas and barely beat a green thomas, ducked the rematch.

I think even most of the people who were born around 1960-1970, who saw the late 70's and early 80's during lifeyears when they form their favorites (17-24 y.o.), will agree that the 90's was a better period for heavyweights than the late 70's/early 80's.

And yes, in Holmes' time the titles meant a lot less. And Holmes at one point was stripped of his only meaningful title to duck Page. Was gifted a belt which didn't mean shit at the time. You can't ignore these things.

You seem to forget that 2 men in their 40's and lasted, and beat most of the guys of the 90's. Both of them went 12 rounds with Holyfield, each picking up about 4 rounds in the process. Larry went 12 rounds with McCall, only losing by 1 point on 2 scorecards, he beat Mercer convincingly, he beat Jesse Ferguson, he lost a controversial decision to "Dane" Brian Neilson in Denmark. Foreman went on to win the title by a come from behind KO, and lost it in a controversial decision. Most of the guys they beat/gave good fights, gave Lewis hell. Like Mercer.

[Bill1234]

Is this even up for debate. Holmes failed to face many of his best contemporaries. Lewis missed a few but seems to have faced more of the best heavyweights of his era.

Holmes oppossition in 1975-1977 was not spectacular. He should have stepped up in competition much earlier than he did.

He fought Roy Williams in 76, broke his hand on his head, so he wasn't able to fight for the rest of that year. He tried to get a fight with Foreman, but Foreman ducked him, and later ducked him in the 90's. Larry failed to face 2 of the best contemporaries, and 1 of them was pretty much all politics. He almost got a fight with Coetzee, but the fight was cancled a few weeks before fightnight.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Between mid 90's and 2003 you had Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko.
Between the late 70's during Holmes' reign untill the mid 80's you had Holmes........................ and a lot of contenders who hardly remained consistent for a long period. Thomas and Witherspoon are probably the best of them. Holmes ducked Thomas and barely beat a green thomas, ducked the rematch.


Tyson was gone for most of the early 90's, and was basically done by the time he came back. Holyfield was past it by 1995 as well. Bowe never did much, and retired around 1997, after being manhandled twice by Golata.. The Klitschko bros. feasted on the dying remains of the 80's and 90's, and were beaten by a 38 year old Lewis, a 38 year old Sanders, Journeyman Ross Purity, Lamon Brewster and Chris Byrd.


I think even most of the people who were born around 1960-1970, who saw the late 70's and early 80's during lifeyears when they form their favorites (17-24 y.o.), will agree that the 90's was a better period for heavyweights than the late 70's/early 80's.


When most people refer to the 90's as being a great era for the heavyweight division, they typically are illuding to the early to mid 90's. This period started around 1988, and ran until maybe 1993. Tyson was gone, and would never be himself again. Foreman and Holmes had both seen the best of their comeback days. Holyfield was past it. Lewis was getting beaten by Mccall. Bowe was good in the Holyfield trilogy, but failed to do anything else there after.


And yes, in Holmes' time the titles meant a lot less. And Holmes at one point was stripped of his only meaningful title to duck Page. Was gifted a belt which didn't mean shit at the time. You can't ignore these things


I've explained this to you before on a multitude of occassions, as have others, yet you still chose to stick with your limited and unproven convictions. Perhaps it's you are ignoring " things"......

[JohnThomas1]

Lewis has an all-round better resume and his best win (dominated a 36 year old Holyfield) is better than Holmes' best win (close win over an aging Norton).

If there was any doubt, the fact that Lewis actually took on dangerous fights and unified whereas Holmes didn't do so from 1982 should make the difference.

Good points. I have these two absolutely neck and neck for my number 3 and 4 spots. I've always had trouble separating the pair. Lewis has the two losses but he also took on all comers. Neither is in danger of dropping to 5. Good points.

[JohnThomas1]

The Norton of the Holmes fight beats the Holyfield that fought Lewis 7 times out of 10.

I'd love to see that. Personally i highly doubt it.

[Holmes' Jab]

Lewis has better resume but Holmes is a ATG and a better fighter

I too think Lewis' resume has the slight edge. Both fighters are ATG Heavyweights, for me Holmes ranks higher than Lewis regarding prime-from-prime greatness.

Not much in it at all, though ....

[ChrisPontius]

You seem to forget that 2 men in their 40's and lasted, and beat most of the guys of the 90's.


Beat most of the guys of the 90's? That's a strong claim.
Let's have a look.
The 12 best fighters of the 90's: (in no order)

Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Bowe
McCall
Holmes or Foreman (roughly equal i think)
Douglas
Golota
Bruno
Mercer
Morrison
Tua


You say they beat most of the best guys of 90's. Of this list, they only beat Mercer. That's a grand total of 2 out of the 12 best. How is that "most of the guys in the 90's"?


Both of them went 12 rounds with Holyfield, each picking up about 4 rounds in the process.

That fact that they lasted the distance was impressive, especially in Foremans case because Holyfield was beating him up badly. They won at best 3 rounds a piece. So what? 3 rounds out of 12 is nothing. It's being dominated, unless the other rounds were close, but they were not.


Larry went 12 rounds with McCall, only losing by 1 point on 2 scorecards, he beat Mercer convincingly, he beat Jesse Ferguson, he lost a controversial decision to "Dane" Brian Neilson in Denmark. Foreman went on to win the title by a come from behind KO, and lost it in a controversial decision. Most of the guys they beat/gave good fights, gave Lewis hell. Like Mercer.

Holyfield, who gave Holmes & Foreman a little more than a 'good fight' didn't give Lewis that much hell though. Not in the ring, anyway.

They did extremely well for their age, but let's be honest here. Both had one good win and outside of that, they lost when they stepped up or struggled with mediocre opposition.

[ChrisPontius]

Tyson was gone for most of the early 90's, and was basically done by the time he came back. Holyfield was past it by 1995 as well. Bowe never did much, and retired around 1997, after being manhandled twice by Golata.. The Klitschko bros. feasted on the dying remains of the 80's and 90's, and were beaten by a 38 year old Lewis, a 38 year old Sanders, Journeyman Ross Purity, Lamon Brewster and Chris Byrd.


When most people refer to the 90's as being a great era for the heavyweight division, they typically are illuding to the early to mid 90's. This period started around 1988, and ran until maybe 1993. Tyson was gone, and would never be himself again. Foreman and Holmes had both seen the best of their comeback days. Holyfield was past it. Lewis was getting beaten by Mccall. Bowe was good in the Holyfield trilogy, but failed to do anything else there after.


Okay, so you think the period 1977-1985 was more interesting than any 8 year period of the 90's for heavyweight boxing?


I've explained this to you before on a multitude of occassions, as have others, yet you still chose to stick with your limited and unproven convictions. Perhaps it's you are ignoring " things"......

What is there to explain?
I merely stated facts:
-Holmes rather dropped his WBC title belt than face Page.
-The other belts didn't mean shit in that time, so he dropped the ONLY belt that was worth anything.
-Instead of fighting Page, he fought fighters that were a joke.
-He was gifted the IBF belt which meant as much back then as the IBO belt does today.

Lewis also dropped a belt or two later in his career but he did it to make his legacy fights. And he already unified, something Holmes didn't do. Holmes dropped his only belt to fight a younglings who were no threat whatsover, Holmes even said this himself in his own book, but Bill1234's quote.

[jyuza]

Hey cross trainer,

I would like to bring your attention on something I noticed. You always begin interesting thread (like this one) but you never give your thought first on the subject !

[Sonny's jab]

Norton's recent win over Young was controversial; many saw it as yet another robbery for Young. Of course, Young was a very skilled fighter so there's no shame in losing there.

The Norton-Young fight was close. Could have gone either way, but as you say, Young was good - coming off win over Foreman (and maybe Lyle) and a controversial loss to Ali.
I thought Norton nicked it against Young.
But still, this fight means more than Holyfield coming in with the Bean fight his last outing, IMO.


I think that many would agree that Holyfield was the better win.


I'm sure many would.
I'm saying it's debatable, highly debatable. That's all.

[quintonjacksonfan]

I agree Holmes looked just as good against McCall and Mercer as Lewis did

Lewis fought Tyson 15 years past his prime and Holyfield 5 years past

his prime. Holyfield was never the same after the Bowe trilogy. People

give to much weight to his two wins against Tyson. I take both the 88 Tyson and 91 Holyfield

over a Prime Lewis

[mr. magoo]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Okay, so you think the period 1977-1985 was more interesting than any 8 year period of the 90's for heavyweight boxing?


No I didn't. The great era of the 90's spanned from 1988 to maybe 1994 or so. I'll agree that this was a greater era than the time frame which Holmes was champion. Keep in mind, however, that it wasn't exactly a perfect era either. Tyson was in jail for part of it. Lewis and Bowe never met. The trilogies between Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson didn't take place until later on when all three were past it.

[ChrisPontius]

Of course it wasn't the "perfect era", i never claimed that. Bowe ducking Lewis, Tyson & Ibeabuchi being fucked up mentally, Tyson not facing Lewis and other factors prevented it from reaching its potential.

But that's not the point. The point was that you claimed, or seemed to, that the late 70's/early 80's was a better era for heavyweight boxing than the 90's. Glad we cleared it out though.

[Bill1234]

I'd love to see that. Personally i highly doubt it.

1. You won't see it unless a time machine is made and we go back in time and get Norton and bring him to fight Holyfield and cancle the Lewis fight.

2. Why would you "highly doubt it"? Norton is a very underrated fighter. He had great defence, he had a nice jab, only lost to the elite compotition, and IMO beat Ali 2/3 times. He packed a good punch, and he had nice body shots. His ackward defence/style would be an advantage of his too.

[Bill1234]

Holmes dropped his only belt to fight a younglings who were no threat whatsover, Holmes even said this himself in his own book, but Bill1234's quote.

Read the whole thing. You are only reading what you want. Larry had already signed to fight Frank and Frazier long before the WBC thing happened. He was sick and tired of King taking his money, and he was sick and tired of being treated like complete shit by everyone. Hardly anyone gave him credit. In the early 2000's he started getting his just due, but now, people like you are taking it away from him...again. You wonder why he got miserable at times, or why he did certain things. Maybe if people gave him his just due it might have happened. Or if King and politics were fair and didn't try to steal his money, or make unreasonable offers, you may have seen him fight certain people. You are taking away from his legacy and his stature because he went about it from a buisness aproach, and wasn't sucking up to all of the orginaztions or promoters.

[Bill1234]

Good points. I have these two absolutely neck and neck for my number 3 and 4 spots. I've always had trouble separating the pair. Lewis has the two losses but he also took on all comers. Neither is in danger of dropping to 5. Good points.

In those situations I typicaly put who IMO was the better fighter.

[Doppleganger]

2. Why would you "highly doubt it"? Norton is a very underrated fighter. He had great defence, he had a nice jab, only lost to the elite compotition, and IMO beat Ali 2/3 times. He packed a good punch, and he had nice body shots. His ackward defence/style would be an advantage of his too.
Deleted

[Doppleganger]

2. Why would you "highly doubt it"? Norton is a very underrated fighter. He had great defence, he had a nice jab, only lost to the elite compotition, and IMO beat Ali 2/3 times. He packed a good punch, and he had nice body shots. His ackward defence/style would be an advantage of his too.

Deleted cos I can't read properly. :p

[Bill1234]

Deleted
??????????????????????????

[Duodenum]

("Hmmmmm....time to yank some chains!")

The reason the late seventies and early to mid eighties were so moribund in the heavyweight division was because of Holmes's ridiculous superiority to the rest of the heavyweights in boxing.

The two Scott's, Frank and LeDoux, would have easily kayoed Lewis, and have achieved enshrinement in Canastota by now. In Larry's heyday, Lennox would have labored as one of his exhibition partners.

Lewis bribed Big Daddy to toss one of his championship belts in the garbage, so he could go dumpster diving for a world title of his own. (Do you really think Lennox wanted to face Bowe again, after paying off the referee to stop their Olympic match in Lewis's favor?)

Marvis Frazier would have easily outboxed Lennox from long-range, just as he did James Broad in their pro rematch. Lewis would have never been alble to win the EBU HW title with Evangelista, Zanon, or Rodriguez in the way, yet Larry didn't forfeit a single round in toying with all of them. For Lewis, confronting Cobb would have been like trying to repell a zombie from Night of the Living Dead. Ditto Ali. Lennox would have knocked out Leon Spinks's mouthpiece, then run screaming from the ring in horror. As soon as Bonecrusher Smith exposed his Moon Mullins face to Lewis, Lennox would have collapsed to the canvas, laughing for the count.

It's just too bad that Page had to bribe Holmes to pretend to avoid him. Page could have made himself a part of history by helping Larry establish the IBF, but he took the easy way out.

Conteh and ChrisPontius, I know you secretly agree with me, but I promise not to tell! (As far as calling Holmes, The Mallard, watching him fly off that car roof to leap onto Berbick leads me to believe he might answer to Daffy.)

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ha ha. Good stuff squire. :yep

[Senya13]

Lewis by far better resume.

[mr. magoo]

Lewis by far better resume.

By far??? With Losses to Oliver Mccall and Hasim Rahman? Not to mention a near defeat to Ray Mercer, who hadn't won in over 2 years prior to their meeting? Additionally, with most of his best wins coming against aging or MEDIOCRE competition???

I think that by far, is extending things just a bit.

While Holmes may not exactly have had the best list of defenses, he at least stayed undefeated until two months shy of his 36th birthday, and through 48 pro fights. What's more, he defeated a wide array of young undefeated prospects on the rise, along with some of the division's best seasoned veterans. He demonstrated on a multitude of occasions that he could go 15 rounds, and take a solid punch, along with finding ways to take apart whoever he was facing, no matter what type of style they fought. Upon retiring, he would return to the ring in 1991, and looked more impressive in beating a prime Ray Mercer, than Lewis did against a shot version of him.

Lewis's resume is no better than Holmes in my opinion.

[ChrisPontius]

Read the whole thing. You are only reading what you want. Larry had already signed to fight Frank and Frazier long before the WBC thing happened. He was sick and tired of King taking his money, and he was sick and tired of being treated like complete shit by everyone. Hardly anyone gave him credit. In the early 2000's he started getting his just due, but now, people like you are taking it away from him...again. You wonder why he got miserable at times, or why he did certain things. Maybe if people gave him his just due it might have happened. Or if King and politics were fair and didn't try to steal his money, or make unreasonable offers, you may have seen him fight certain people. You are taking away from his legacy and his stature because he went about it from a buisness aproach, and wasn't sucking up to all of the orginaztions or promoters.
No, the fact that he failed to meet basically any legit threat from 1982 on and never rematched his close fights is what takes his legacy down.
I'm sure you have a reason for every fight he didn't make that should've happened, but that's beyond the point here.


What do you want me to do, pretend Holmes UD Thomas, Holmes TKO7 Weaver (rematch), Holmes UD Witherspoon (rematch), Holmes TKO5 Norton (rematch), Holmes UD Page, etc, just because King and politics wanted to steal all his money?

No one is pretending Bowe to be on Lewis' (pro) resume just because the fight didn't happen, when it was not Lewis' fault.

You are really stubborn. Conteh, JT and others have already pointed out several times that Holmes had no trouble fighting for Don King or him taking from both purses when it was a 14 fight Scott Frank he's fighting. How often need these things be said?
You're a Holmes fan and it is exactly your kind of behaviour which makes people dislike certain fighters. A lot of people dislike the Klitschko's because some of their fans are so delusional. So if you wanna support your man Larry then at least admit some of the things he didn't do and be fair. Everyone has their bias, but there's a difference between some bias and having your head stuck up his ass.

[Bill1234]

No, the fact that he failed to meet basically any legit threat from 1982 on and never rematched his close fights is what takes his legacy down.
I'm sure you have a reason for every fight he didn't make that should've happened, but that's beyond the point here.


What do you want me to do, pretend Holmes UD Thomas, Holmes TKO7 Weaver (rematch), Holmes UD Witherspoon (rematch), Holmes TKO5 Norton (rematch), Holmes UD Page, etc, just because King and politics wanted to steal all his money?

No one is pretending Bowe to be on Lewis' (pro) resume just because the fight didn't happen, when it was not Lewis' fault.

You are really stubborn. Conteh, JT and others have already pointed out several times that Holmes had no trouble fighting for Don King or him taking from both purses when it was a 14 fight Scott Frank he's fighting. How often need these things be said?
You're a Holmes fan and it is exactly your kind of behaviour which makes people dislike certain fighters. A lot of people dislike the Klitschko's because some of their fans are so delusional. So if you wanna support your man Larry then at least admit some of the things he didn't do and be fair. Everyone has their bias, but there's a difference between some bias and having your head stuck up his ass.

King didn't want Larry to fight Frank or Frazier. Murad Muhammad and Bob Andreoli were in charge of it. King wanted Larry to fight Page. Have you ever read Larry's book? He never liked King, but knew King had the connections to make him a lot of money and propel him into boxing. I never said it was Lewis's fault, or even mentioned that Lewis should have fought Bowe. Why would Norton get a rematch with Larry? Does getting KTFO by Shavers get you a shot at Larry? Ive admited I don't know how many times that Larry ducked Thomas. Weaver got his rematch 21 years later, and got KTFO with 1 punch. Witherspoon went on to win another title, and Page was the #1 contender for 9 months as Dr. Z has pointed out. Also, the getting stripped of the belt thing wasn't even mentioned to Larry until 1 week before the Frazier fight as I quoted from Larry's book. Larry resigned his belt because he was tired of being treated like crap. If it was from King it was Jose Sulaiman or Rogich. Larry had tons of problems with King. They had a lot of stand offs over money, even when Larry was only making $100 a fight. King tried pulling BS with Larry like when he TKO'd someone in the 3rd round of a 6 round fight, King was only gonna give Larry 1/2 the money because Larry only fought 1/2 of the fight before beating the guy. Larry had to flat out lie to King to get his money. Larry never liked King, and always had problems with him. Larry then resigned his belt, and picked up the IBF. But no matter what title he had, he was the linear champ, and thats all that matters. Its people like you who Larry got pissed at and at the end of his title reign said all of that trash about and walked around with a chip on his shoulder. People tried to kill him going into the Cooney fight, they did a drive by on his resurant, and his office is right up stairs.

[Senya13]

Those gift decisions Holmes was given on a couple of occasions are really hurting him, and his reluctance to prove he was the better man and give rematches.

[ChrisPontius]

King didn't want Larry to fight Frank or Frazier. Murad Muhammad and Bob Andreoli were in charge of it. King wanted Larry to fight Page. Have you ever read Larry's book? He never liked King, but knew King had the connections to make him a lot of money and propel him into boxing. I never said it was Lewis's fault, or even mentioned that Lewis should have fought Bowe. Why would Norton get a rematch with Larry? Does getting KTFO by Shavers get you a shot at Larry? Ive admited I don't know how many times that Larry ducked Thomas. Weaver got his rematch 21 years later, and got KTFO with 1 punch. Witherspoon went on to win another title, and Page was the #1 contender for 9 months as Dr. Z has pointed out. Also, the getting stripped of the belt thing wasn't even mentioned to Larry until 1 week before the Frazier fight as I quoted from Larry's book. Larry resigned his belt because he was tired of being treated like crap. If it was from King it was Jose Sulaiman or Rogich. Larry had tons of problems with King. They had a lot of stand offs over money, even when Larry was only making $100 a fight. King tried pulling BS with Larry like when he TKO'd someone in the 3rd round of a 6 round fight, King was only gonna give Larry 1/2 the money because Larry only fought 1/2 of the fight before beating the guy. Larry had to flat out lie to King to get his money. Larry never liked King, and always had problems with him. Larry then resigned his belt, and picked up the IBF. But no matter what title he had, he was the linear champ, and thats all that matters. Its people like you who Larry got pissed at and at the end of his title reign said all of that trash about and walked around with a chip on his shoulder. People tried to kill him going into the Cooney fight, they did a drive by on his resurant, and his office is right up stairs.

There is a saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"; it seems you're an old already.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Also, the getting stripped of the belt thing wasn't even mentioned to Larry until 1 week before the Frazier fight as I quoted from Larry's book.


Suilaman told Holmes he would be stripped if he fought Frazier NOT Page in JUNE OF 1983- FIVE months before the Frazier fight.

[My dinner with Conteh]

There is a saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"; it seems you're an old already.



He never seems to take anything in. He's a simpleton. :huh

[Nemesis]

He never seems to take anything in. He's a simpleton. :huh

In the slightest... Thats why i have given up arguing with him


BTW Bill where's that footage of Pep vs Saddler II you have alledgedly seen

you shouldnt make shit up, it'll come back to bite you in the arse

[hobgoblin]

Lewis, barely. Neither resume is very impressive.

Who are you, Rocky Marciano? :patsch:

[ChrisPontius]

Suilaman told Holmes he would be stripped if he fought Frazier NOT Page in JUNE OF 1983- FIVE months before the Frazier fight.

He probably thought they wouldn't do it anyway, just like they didn't strip Ali in the later stages of his career.









Not that it justifies what Holmes did, but i'm helping Bill a bit here :good

[Cojimar 1945]

It certainly appears to me that Lewis faced more of his best contemporaries. Lewis also consistently faced top-rated opponnents from 1992 through to 2003 a span of 11 years. This is several years longer than Holmes run against top opponnents.

[Cojimar 1945]

I'm shocked JohnThomas would consider rating Holmes so highly given his points about Holmes competition. Are you rating based on something aside from accomplishments?

[thunder06]

yea

[thunder06]

wait. try again in 15 seconds.

[Denny Cruser]

Definetly Lewis` competition was better. He didnt fought as much green and unskilled contenders.

[JohnThomas1]

1. You won't see it unless a time machine is made and we go back in time and get Norton and bring him to fight Holyfield and cancle the Lewis fight.

Ever heard of the Tardis?

:roll:

2. Why would you "highly doubt it"? Norton is a very underrated fighter. He had great defence, he had a nice jab, only lost to the elite compotition, and IMO beat Ali 2/3 times. He packed a good punch, and he had nice body shots. His ackward defence/style would be an advantage of his too.

I highly doubt it because i think that version of Holyfield was still better than Norton, follow? Question - do you think the Norton that fought Holmes was peak? Just because he gave Larry hell doesn't mean he was the second coming. You keep telling us Holmes had a torn left bicep or whatever it was. Simple fact is Norton troubled boxers and had trouble vs aggressive bangers. Holyfield is a nice blend even later. I think he can outslug Norton when he has to and possibly even take him out.

[JohnThomas1]

In those situations I typicaly put who IMO was the better fighter.

There's nothing between them still i might go with Chris' call actually.

[barneyrub]

Lewis didn't beat better comp. Also, its not Larry's fault he didn't unify, it was politics and as usual, Don King.
Lewis had the same politics to overcome, he never signed with king and was frozen out for years as a result.

[JohnThomas1]

He never seems to take anything in. He's a simpleton. :huh

Most of us have given up, yes lol

[barneyrub]

("Hmmmmm....time to yank some chains!")

The reason the late seventies and early to mid eighties were so moribund in the heavyweight division was because of Holmes's ridiculous superiority to the rest of the heavyweights in boxing.

The two Scott's, Frank and LeDoux, would have easily kayoed Lewis, and have achieved enshrinement in Canastota by now. In Larry's heyday, Lennox would have labored as one of his exhibition partners.

Lewis bribed Big Daddy to toss one of his championship belts in the garbage, so he could go dumpster diving for a world title of his own. (Do you really think Lennox wanted to face Bowe again, after paying off the referee to stop their Olympic match in Lewis's favor?)

Marvis Frazier would have easily outboxed Lennox from long-range, just as he did James Broad in their pro rematch. Lewis would have never been alble to win the EBU HW title with Evangelista, Zanon, or Rodriguez in the way, yet Larry didn't forfeit a single round in toying with all of them. For Lewis, confronting Cobb would have been like trying to repell a zombie from Night of the Living Dead. Ditto Ali. Lennox would have knocked out Leon Spinks's mouthpiece, then run screaming from the ring in horror. As soon as Bonecrusher Smith exposed his Moon Mullins face to Lewis, Lennox would have collapsed to the canvas, laughing for the count.

It's just too bad that Page had to bribe Holmes to pretend to avoid him. Page could have made himself a part of history by helping Larry establish the IBF, but he took the easy way out.

Conteh and ChrisPontius, I know you secretly agree with me, but I promise not to tell! (As far as calling Holmes, The Mallard, watching him fly off that car roof to leap onto Berbick leads me to believe he might answer to Daffy.):patsch Hilarious lol:rofl

[barneyrub]

I agree Holmes looked just as good against McCall and Mercer as Lewis did

Lewis fought Tyson 15 years past his prime and Holyfield 5 years past

his prime. Holyfield was never the same after the Bowe trilogy. People

give to much weight to his two wins against Tyson. I take both the 88 Tyson and 91 Holyfield

over a Prime Lewis

Holyfield was on his best heavyweight championship run of defences actaully when he faced Lewis, he also held 2 belts! Facts beat your opinion im afraid.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm shocked JohnThomas would consider rating Holmes so highly given his points about Holmes competition. Are you rating based on something aside from accomplishments?

You've called me out pretty good and fairly here. And to think, a couple see me as a Holmes hater. One could easily make a compelling essay on why Holmes doesn't belong among the very top elite. You are right that i am not rating him just on accomplishments. For me, his skills as a fighter and my belief that he could rise very very high if needed in mythical head to head battles puts him near the top for me. I very well could be wrong. I just have a feeling when push comes to shove and the greatest ever are pitted that Holmes really lights up the scene. Like Lewis, he sometimes didn't put forth his pinnacle showings vs guys he wasn't inspired for or respectful of. I have no problem with people rating Holmes anywhere from 3 to hmmm 10 or whatever.

Larry now sits cemented in at number 4 for me but won't be going any lower unless someone very impressive comes on the scene and lasts a helluva long time. This very thread made up my mind, finally. The Klits have no chance of coming near him so change is a long way down the road.

[barneyrub]

Why do you think Lennox is better? Larry has more speed, stamina, agility, a better jab (a key factor), better chin, more heart and durability, and better recuporative powers. Lennox only has power, size/reach, and variety of punches on Larry. And the only reason he had more of a variety was because he threw them more.Holmes was just as hurt and shaky after getting knocked down by shavers as lewis was when he was knocked down by mccall, the only difference is different referees and Holmes getting the benifit of the doubt. So take the Mccall tko out of the picture along with holmes shavers knockdown which would be a tko loss by that same refereee and both guys were only knocked out once, how does that show Holmes had better chin.

[quintonjacksonfan]

Bottom line Lewis got knocked out by two journeyman

Sure he could compete with any heavyweight on a given night but he also

could get knocked out by a heavyweight not in the top 50 all-time

That's the difference between Lewis and the other greats

All the other greats could possibly lose to the other greats but would not get

knocked out by average fighters

Can anyone name another top 10 heavyweight in his prime who couldn't get

out of the second round against an average fighter like McCall

[Bill1234]

Those gift decisions Holmes was given on a couple of occasions are really hurting him, and his reluctance to prove he was the better man and give rematches.

Larry didn't get giftdecisions at all. He got robbed twice in his career, arguably 3 times. Once with Spinks, once with Brian Neilson, and he lost a close one to Spinks the first time.

[Bill1234]

Lewis had the same politics to overcome, he never signed with king and was frozen out for years as a result.

No he didn't. Larry would have been champ much sooner if it weren't for King. Larry was trying and trying to get King to get him big fights, and King blew him off. Then finally, with 8 days notice, King offered for him to fight Roy Williams. Larry took it, beat Roy up, even with a busted hand, and then King payed a little more attention to him. King was trying to steal money from Larry for years, and Larry wouldn't let him. King got him back for it in situations like Page. King had a bunch of different champs in the 80's, the best one was Larry, but then in 83 Larry dropped King, and refused to deal with him unless it was on his terms, and he did just that. The best thing Lewis could have done was not sign with King. King was big trouble.

[Bill1234]

Suilaman told Holmes he would be stripped if he fought Frazier NOT Page in JUNE OF 1983- FIVE months before the Frazier fight.

Did you or did you not read what I quoted?

[UpWithEvil]

I highly doubt it because i think that version of Holyfield was still better than Norton, follow?
But hypothetically, let's assume a steroid-free, 190lb Holyfield. Now how does he do against Norton?

[Bill1234]

I highly doubt it because i think that version of Holyfield was still better than Norton, follow? Question - do you think the Norton that fought Holmes was peak? Just because he gave Larry hell doesn't mean he was the second coming. You keep telling us Holmes had a torn left bicep or whatever it was. Simple fact is Norton troubled boxers and had trouble vs aggressive bangers. Holyfield is a nice blend even later. I think he can outslug Norton when he has to and possibly even take him out.

OMG. Ive said that Norton gave boxers like Larry and Ali stylistic night mares many times now. But as usuall you twist my words around or flat out ignore them. I was simply saying maybe if Larry's left tricept wasn't torn, maybe it wouldn't have been as close. No Norton was in his prime when he fought Larry, he was a year or two past it, but he was still a very good fighter. I doubt Holyfield could out slug Norton at that stage in his career, maybe 4 or 5 years earlier, but not then.

[Bill1234]

I wonder how many times Bill has said "Don King" or "King" since he's been here?

100 or so.

[JohnThomas1]

OMG. Ive said that Norton gave boxers like Larry and Ali stylistic night mares many times now.

So fukking what? I was saying this years before you even discovered this joint.

But as usuall you twist my words around or flat out ignore them. I was simply saying maybe if Larry's left tricept wasn't torn, maybe it wouldn't have been as close.

You're hard work, i tell ya. You've said the same damn thing as me basically, but paranoia dictates you taking a defensive position instead of just agreeing.

No Norton was in his prime when he fought Larry, he was a year or two past it, but he was still a very good fighter.

Nobody claimed he wasn't still a very good fighter. IMO Holyfield was better!

I doubt Holyfield could out slug Norton at that stage in his career, maybe 4 or 5 years earlier, but not then.

It was over 5 years since Norton beat Ali Bill. By contrast Holyfield had hammered Tyson just 2 and 3 years earlier than the Lewis fight. Spare me the 4 or 5 years shit.

[ChrisPontius]

But hypothetically, let's assume a steroid-free, 190lb Holyfield. Now how does he do against Norton?

Who cares? Lewis fought 212lb Holyfield, not 190lb.
And who's to say Norton was not on the juice as well? It was already around in the 70's, too. Except for the control, that is.

[ChrisPontius]

You're hard work, i tell ya.

You sure got that right. :yep

[JohnThomas1]

You sure got that right. :yep

And then some lmao

[Bill1234]

Holmes was just as hurt and shaky after getting knocked down by shavers as lewis was when he was knocked down by mccall, the only difference is different referees and Holmes getting the benifit of the doubt. So take the Mccall tko out of the picture along with holmes shavers knockdown which would be a tko loss by that same refereee and both guys were only knocked out once, how does that show Holmes had better chin.

Shavers hit harder than McCall, and Larry had great survival skills to make it through the round. Larry was very dangerous when he was hurt bad, Lewis wasn't as dangerous when hurt. Why would the ref stop the fight if after the knock down, if Larry wasn't letting Shavers touch him? IMO that would be a bad call if the ref stopped it. It would be different if Holmes just stood there clinching and getting hit.

[Bill1234]

So fukking what? I was saying this years before you even discovered this joint.



You're hard work, i tell ya. You've said the same damn thing as me basically, but paranoia dictates you taking a defensive position instead of just agreeing.



Nobody claimed he wasn't still a very good fighter. IMO Holyfield was better!



It was over 5 years since Norton beat Ali Bill. By contrast Holyfield had hammered Tyson just 2 and 3 years earlier than the Lewis fight. Spare me the 4 or 5 years shit.

over 5 years since the first time, IMO and many others, Norton won the 3rd match with Ali, just 2 years earlier. If you want to be exact, just under 2 years.

[mr. magoo]

It was over 5 years since Norton beat Ali Bill. By contrast Holyfield had hammered Tyson just 2 and 3 years earlier than the Lewis fight. Spare me the 4 or 5 years shit.


I agree with most of what you're saying mate. Keep in mind however, Tyson was not exactly at his best when Holyfield pounded him either, in fact neither man was. What's more, Holyfield was 36 years old in the first Lewis fight, and was fairly close to being the same version who looked like shit against John Ruiz. I'm not entirely certain how old Norton was in 1978. I've read some sources that say he was 33, while others listed him at 35 . Although he was beyond his better days, Ken was still coming off of a rather impressive run mate. He had recently chalked up wins over undefeated bobick, top contender Young, avenged an earlier loss to Garcia, beat up Zanon, and was possibly robbed in his 3rd effort against Ali. He was also in fairly good shape, or so it appeared. Frankly, when I look at footage of Norton in 1974, as opposed to film in 1978, I don't see much of a difference from either a physique nor performance standpoint.

Was a 1999 Holyfield better than a 1978 Ken Norton? I couldn't say for sure. One thing is certain though, it's a rather close comparison. Prime for prime, I'd pick Evander as the superior of the two, but a late 90's version, was hardly the " real deal. "

At anyrate, I think Lennox Lewis would have easily dusted A late 70's version of Ken Norton, in much easier fashion than Larry did....

[Senya13]

Larry didn't get giftdecisions at all. He got robbed twice in his career, arguably 3 times. Once with Spinks, once with Brian Neilson, and he lost a close one to Spinks the first time.
Holmes-Norton.
New York News - 10-5 Norton
Associated Press - 143-142 Norton
New York Times - 143-142 Norton
Plus, not to forget the bottle that was confiscated from Holmes' corner after 10th round, he should have been disqualified for for it (it's not allowed to use anything, but water).

Holmes - Witherspoon
Angelo Dundee had Witherspoon winning the fight. Many people who voiced their opinion had it for Witherspoon too.

[JohnThomas1]

over 5 years since the first time, IMO and many others, Norton won the 3rd match with Ali, just 2 years earlier. If you want to be exact, just under 2 years.

My point was correct regardless. Norton was also facing a faded Ali. Holmes was utter peak. You also called the 1st Spinks fight a robbery

:roll:

[Bill1234]

My point was correct regardless. Norton was also facing a faded Ali. Holmes was utter peak. You also called the 1st Spinks fight a robbery

:roll:

I called the 2nd one a robbery, I called the first one close but IMO Larry won it by a round. I can see why some people gave it to Spinks. But the 2nd one was a disgrace.

[Bill1234]

Holmes-Norton.
New York News - 10-5 Norton
Associated Press - 143-142 Norton
New York Times - 143-142 Norton
Plus, not to forget the bottle that was confiscated from Holmes' corner after 10th round, he should have been disqualified for for it (it's not allowed to use anything, but water).

Holmes - Witherspoon
Angelo Dundee had Witherspoon winning the fight. Many people who voiced their opinion had it for Witherspoon too.

A full 3 newsoapers thought Norton won. The New York News was way off. Also, with the Witherspoon fight, many people who voiced their opinion thought Holmes won too. There is always going to be stuff like that in close fights.

[ChrisPontius]

Shavers hit harder than McCall, and Larry had great survival skills to make it through the round. Larry was very dangerous when he was hurt bad, Lewis wasn't as dangerous when hurt. Why would the ref stop the fight if after the knock down, if Larry wasn't letting Shavers touch him? IMO that would be a bad call if the ref stopped it. It would be different if Holmes just stood there clinching and getting hit.

What are you talking about? He meant that the referee could've waved Holmes-Shavers off because Holmes was hurt badly even after he got up.
Not based on what happened after he was allowed to continue.

I'm starting to wonder if you've actually seen Lewis-McCall.



Holmes-Norton.
New York News - 10-5 Norton
Associated Press - 143-142 Norton
New York Times - 143-142 Norton
Plus, not to forget the bottle that was confiscated from Holmes' corner after 10th round, he should have been disqualified for for it (it's not allowed to use anything, but water).

Holmes - Witherspoon
Angelo Dundee had Witherspoon winning the fight. Many people who voiced their opinion had it for Witherspoon too.


I think you've mixed up the words "robbery" and "close fight".
Myself i had Holmes edging both the Witherspoon and Norton fights by one round and two rounds, respectively.

[dalek]

i though spinks clearly outscored holmes first time round.i had witherspoon winning by a round but had larry edging norton by a round.
bill-in all honesty how in the heck do you make larry a winner in the first spinks fight?just cos you love the guy doesn't mean you can't score against him.

[JohnThomas1]

i though spinks clearly outscored holmes first time round.i had witherspoon winning by a round but had larry edging norton by a round.
bill-in all honesty how in the heck do you make larry a winner in the first spinks fight?just cos you love the guy doesn't mean you can't score against him.

Ronald Biggs couldn't have made Larry the winner in the first Spinks fight. It's all good tho,tis good to know where credible posts lay.

[Senya13]

A full 3 newsoapers thought Norton won. The New York News was way off. Also, with the Witherspoon fight, many people who voiced their opinion thought Holmes won too. There is always going to be stuff like that in close fights.
He should have given them rematches to remove any doubts of who was the better man. He chose to avoid them instead. And had the judges given these two fights to his opponents, it would be a much more damaging thing to his career than Lewis losing to McCall and Rahman on lucky punches. Norton being just a journeyman, and an old one at that, and Witherspoon being still green and unexperienced.

[mr. magoo]

had the judges given these two fights to his opponents, it would be a much more damaging thing to his career than Lewis losing to McCall and Rahman on lucky punches. Norton being just a journeyman, and an old one at that, and Witherspoon being still green and unexperienced


Oh boy,

this is precious!!! Lewis's losses to Mccall and Rahman were a result of luck?? Norton was a journeyman?

I like you Senya. You add a, shall we say......Humerous twist to the board.....:lol:

[Senya13]

I gave you exact quote of what several Ring magazine experts thought about Norton. You presented nothing but your own agenda, that Norton was considered great long before that, which is complete BS for anyone who actually takes time to read some things that were written about Norton back in those days. Holmes having close extremelly controversial fights with old journeyman Norton and very green Witherspoon and then losing to light heavyweight champ two fights in a row and then getting completely destroyed by Tyson, it was more disgraceful than being caught by single punches you didn't expect.

[mr. magoo]

Senya13]I gave you exact quote of what several Ring magazine experts thought about Norton. You presented nothing but your own agenda, that Norton was considered great long before that, which is complete BS for anyone who actually takes time to read some things that were written about Norton back in those days.

If Norton wasn't great, then how come he battled Ali through three highly promoted super fights, challenged Foreman for the world title, and was awarded the WBC belt in 1978? Sure, he was a bum all right..
Yesterday you called him mediocre. Today he's a journeman. I suppose tommarrow you'll call him a tomato can, and do it on the basis that some expert in the past called him such, but with no cited source to back it.


Holmes having close extremelly controversial fights with old journeyman Norton and very green Witherspoon and then losing to light heavyweight champ two fights in a row and then getting completely destroyed by Tyson, it was more disgraceful than being caught by single punches you didn't expect.


There's more nonsense in this paragraph than I've seen on this forum in months. Once again, Norton was no Journeyman. In 1978, he was viewed by many sports writers and experts as quite possibly the best heavyweight in the division. Tim Witherspoon was 25 years old, and coming off of wins over contender Renaldo Snipes, as well as unbeaten prospects Alfonso Ratliff and Marvin Stinson. He would soon become a world champion within a year following the Holmes fight. Holmes was 2 months shy of his 36th birthday against Spinks in the first fight. In the rematch, he was nearly 37, and arguably kicked Spink's ass. Against Tyson, he was 38 years old, and hadn't fought in 2 years, facing what many considered to be an invincible Tyson at the time. I hardly think that this was a more disgraceful loss, then was Lewis's defeat in the prime of his career to an unknown named Mccall.

That's about all the time I'm willing to spend on your stupidity. :finger

[My dinner with Conteh]

Holmes-Norton.
New York News - 10-5 Norton


Jesus. That's the most hideous scorecard i've ever seen. 10-5 Holmes would be far more accurate (I had it 9-6 Larry).

[My dinner with Conteh]

Did you or did you not read what I quoted?


Yes. Why? He was 'reminded' a week before the Frazier fight, he already knew.

[Senya13]

If Norton wasn't great, then how come he battled Ali through three highly promoted super fights, challenged Foreman for the world title, and was awarded the WBC belt in 1978?
How did Leon Spinks got a shot, beat Ali, lost in rematch, got destroyed by Coetzee, and got another shot at Holmes soon after? That time period was very bad for heavyweights, that's why.
Read what was written about Norton prior to his fights with Ali and after them, read how Foreman with an injured knee was installed as 4-1 favorite and annihilated Norton, what was written about Norton after that?

In 1978, he was viewed by many sports writers and experts as quite possibly the best heavyweight in the division.
Give exact names or sources.

Tim Witherspoon was 25 years old, and coming off of wins over contender Renaldo Snipes, as well as unbeaten prospects Alfonso Ratliff and Marvin Stinson.
He only had 15 fights under his belt and didn't have a single fight scheduled for 12 rounds prior to that. Pretty much everyone agrees he was green coming into that fight, you want to claim otherwise?

Holmes was 2 months shy of his 36th birthday against Spinks in the first fight. In the rematch, he was nearly 37, and arguably kicked Spink's ass. Against Tyson, he was 38 years old, and hadn't fought in 2 years.
Spinks was a light heavyweight who didn't have a single true (early fights where he weighed a couple of pounds above 175lb limit don't count) heavyweight fight. Holmes promised to destroy him, instead he blew both chances. The way he fought Tyson, several fighters prior to that showed much better boxing against Mike, than the silly tactics Holmes had chosen for that night.

[mr. magoo]

I'm going to say something bluntly at the risk of my own banning. The moderators on this board are far too tolerant of trolling, especially as of late. There is at least one author who is currently posting on this very thread, that I feel would be a good candidate for a ban....

[My dinner with Conteh]

I'm going to say something bluntly at the risk of my own banning. The moderators on this board are far too tolerant of trolling, especially as of late. There is at least one author who is currently posting on this very thread, that I feel would be a good candidate for a ban....


Yeah, get rid of Bill1234. :D

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ronald Biggs couldn't have made Larry the winner in the first Spinks fight. It's all good tho,tis good to know where credible posts lay.


Ha ha, Ronny had it a draw. ;)

[Senya13]

Guess who's been insulting an opponent many times and concentrating more on his mental qualities than on subject that was being debated?

[mr. magoo]

Guess who's been insulting an opponent many times and concentrating more on his mental qualities than on subject that was being debated?

Guess who's only debate tactic is to call fighters and their opponents mediocre, when ever he's getting his arse kicked in an argument? :ban1

[Senya13]

Guess who's using contemporary sources to quote opinions about fighters, instead of just speaking his own opinion heavily affected by historical revisionism?

[mr. magoo]

Guess who's using contemporary sources to quote opinions about fighters, instead of just speaking his own opinion heavily affected by historical revisionism?

Uhhhhh, would it be the same individual who never produces any such sources, and who's opinions are highly in contrast to the bulk of society? :huh

[Senya13]

You want me to scan that page with Ring's ratings of the worst champions of all time to belive it?

[mr. magoo]

You want me to scan that page with Ring's ratings of the worst champions of all time to belive it?

You already showed that page, and It's still only one perspective. Also, just because Norton was rated as a lesser champion, doesn't mean he was a mediocre fighter overall. Remember, his reign was short lived, and between the eras of two of history's greatest champions.

[Bill1234]

Jesus. That's the most hideous scorecard i've ever seen. 10-5 Holmes would be far more accurate (I had it 9-6 Larry).

Thats how I had it.

[Bill1234]

What are you talking about? He meant that the referee could've waved Holmes-Shavers off because Holmes was hurt badly even after he got up.
Not based on what happened after he was allowed to continue.

Yeah, Larry was badly shaken, but his eyes were clear, not glazed over. Thats what refs look for when they stop fights. Thats why they look them in the eyes. And ask them questions. To see if they are still on queer street, or if they are just badly shaken.

[Bill1234]

i though spinks clearly outscored holmes first time round.i had witherspoon winning by a round but had larry edging norton by a round.
bill-in all honesty how in the heck do you make larry a winner in the first spinks fight?just cos you love the guy doesn't mean you can't score against him.

No, Ive scored against Larry before. I only had Larry winning by a round, and understand how people think Spinks won it. But the rematch, Larry won clearly.


PS I don't love him and you can go fuck your self.

[Bill1234]

Yeah, get rid of Bill1234. :D

Fuck you. Get rid of I Am Legend, the guy has no concept of anything except Tyson. At least I have a concept of multiple fighters and put up a decent argument.

[Bill1234]

Guess who's been insulting an opponent many times and concentrating more on his mental qualities than on subject that was being debated?

You?

[Senya13]

You?
Want to produce some evidence of this?

[UpWithEvil]

Ladies, ladies, please! You can BOTH marry Lennox Lewis!

[Senya13]

A book about Ali, published in 1975, "Muhammad Ali - The Holy Warrior" by Don Atyeo and Felix Dennis.

It was left to an unknown fighter whose last match was before an audience of 700 for a $300 purse to shatter Ali's careful plans. Ken Norton was ranked seventh in the heavyweight hierarchy but, as one magazine noted, he seemed to have sneaked into the listings. A former marine built like an hour-glass ("He'll break in half," laughed Dundee), Norton had yet to meet even a reasonably rated heavyweight when he signed with Ali.

"Muhammad Ali, His Life and Times" by Thomas Hauser:
Then, on March 31, 1972, he entered the ring against Ken Norton in San Diego. Norton's most recent bout had been in front of seven hundred spectators for a purse of three hundred dollars. He was so lightly regarded as an opponent that Ali's promoters decided to forgo closed-circuit television and show the fight live on network TV - the first time one of his fights had been televised in that manner in more than six years. Brimming with confidence, Ali trained less than three weeks, and much of that time he was hampered by a sprained ankle.

Howard Cossell: "Losing to Norton was the end of the road, at least as far as I could see. Certainly, it was the worst moment I shared with Ali untill those awful beatings at the end of his career."

The comeback began with a rematch against Norton.
"I took a nobody and created a monster," Ali said of the man who'd defeated him and broken his jaw. "I put him on The Dating Game. I gave him glory. Now I have to punish him bad."

Wali Muhammad: "Also, Norton had a style that was troublesome for us. He was kind of awkward, which made him hard to hit. And after his first fight with Ali, he got brave. Norton was afraid of guys with a big punch. Against Earnie Shavers, George Foreman, Gerry Cooney, he was nothing. If you made Norton step back, he couldn't fight. But Ali always let him come forward. He made Norton look like a better fighter than he was."

Two months after the Coopman bout, Ali fought what was expected to be another "breather" in Landover, Maryland, against Jimmy Young. Young was a journeyman heavyweight, who'd lost to opponents like Clay Hodges, Roy William, and Randy Neumann.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I don't understand the point of that post. Have I missed something here?

[Bill1234]

A book about Ali, published in 1975, "Muhammad Ali - The Holy Warrior" by Don Atyeo and Felix Dennis.

It was left to an unknown fighter whose last match was before an audience of 700 for a $300 purse to shatter Ali's careful plans. Ken Norton was ranked seventh in the heavyweight hierarchy but, as one magazine noted, he seemed to have sneaked into the listings. A former marine built like an hour-glass ("He'll break in half," laughed Dundee), Norton had yet to meet even a reasonably rated heavyweight when he signed with Ali.

"Muhammad Ali, His Life and Times" by Thomas Hauser:
Then, on March 31, 1972, he entered the ring against Ken Norton in San Diego. Norton's most recent bout had been in front of seven hundred spectators for a purse of three hundred dollars. He was so lightly regarded as an opponent that Ali's promoters decided to forgo closed-circuit television and show the fight live on network TV - the first time one of his fights had been televised in that manner in more than six years. Brimming with confidence, Ali trained less than three weeks, and much of that time he was hampered by a sprained ankle.

Howard Cossell: "Losing to Norton was the end of the road, at least as far as I could see. Certainly, it was the worst moment I shared with Ali untill those awful beatings at the end of his career."

The comeback began with a rematch against Norton.
"I took a nobody and created a monster," Ali said of the man who'd defeated him and broken his jaw. "I put him on The Dating Game. I gave him glory. Now I have to punish him bad."

Wali Muhammad: "Also, Norton had a style that was troublesome for us. He was kind of awkward, which made him hard to hit. And after his first fight with Ali, he got brave. Norton was afraid of guys with a big punch. Against Earnie Shavers, George Foreman, Gerry Cooney, he was nothing. If you made Norton step back, he couldn't fight. But Ali always let him come forward. He made Norton look like a better fighter than he was."

Two months after the Coopman bout, Ali fought what was expected to be another "breather" in Landover, Maryland, against Jimmy Young. Young was a journeyman heavyweight, who'd lost to opponents like Clay Hodges, Roy William, and Randy Neumann.

Ummm, ok. That proved little-nothing.

[JohnThomas1]

Ha ha, Ronny had it a draw. ;)

:lol:

[mr. magoo]

A book about Ali, published in 1975, "Muhammad Ali - The Holy Warrior" by Don Atyeo and Felix Dennis.

It was left to an unknown fighter whose last match was before an audience of 700 for a $300 purse to shatter Ali's careful plans. Ken Norton was ranked seventh in the heavyweight hierarchy but, as one magazine noted, he seemed to have sneaked into the listings. A former marine built like an hour-glass ("He'll break in half," laughed Dundee), Norton had yet to meet even a reasonably rated heavyweight when he signed with Ali.

"Muhammad Ali, His Life and Times" by Thomas Hauser:
Then, on March 31, 1972, he entered the ring against Ken Norton in San Diego. Norton's most recent bout had been in front of seven hundred spectators for a purse of three hundred dollars. He was so lightly regarded as an opponent that Ali's promoters decided to forgo closed-circuit television and show the fight live on network TV - the first time one of his fights had been televised in that manner in more than six years. Brimming with confidence, Ali trained less than three weeks, and much of that time he was hampered by a sprained ankle.

Howard Cossell: "Losing to Norton was the end of the road, at least as far as I could see. Certainly, it was the worst moment I shared with Ali untill those awful beatings at the end of his career."

The comeback began with a rematch against Norton.
"I took a nobody and created a monster," Ali said of the man who'd defeated him and broken his jaw. "I put him on The Dating Game. I gave him glory. Now I have to punish him bad."

Wali Muhammad: "Also, Norton had a style that was troublesome for us. He was kind of awkward, which made him hard to hit. And after his first fight with Ali, he got brave. Norton was afraid of guys with a big punch. Against Earnie Shavers, George Foreman, Gerry Cooney, he was nothing. If you made Norton step back, he couldn't fight. But Ali always let him come forward. He made Norton look like a better fighter than he was."

Two months after the Coopman bout, Ali fought what was expected to be another "breather" in Landover, Maryland, against Jimmy Young. Young was a journeyman heavyweight, who'd lost to opponents like Clay Hodges, Roy William, and Randy Neumann.


So basically what this said was that Ali, Dundee, and some unamed magazine felt that Norton was nobody before Muhammad's first meeting with him.

Hmmmmm......I wonder how all three entities felt after the match, let alone 2 more fights later, plus maybe half a decade of Kenny tearing up the division....

Funny how a " nobody " can all of a sudden become somebody, when given a chance. Is this not what great fighters are made of?

[JohnThomas1]

Hmmmmm......I wonder how all three entities felt after the match, let alone 2 more fights later, plus maybe half a decade of Kenny tearing up the division....


Not to take sides but i'd hardly say Kenny tore up the division lol.

[mr. magoo]

Not to take sides but i'd hardly say Kenny tore up the division lol.

Fair enough mate,

but wouldn't you at least say that he made a substantial presence? Think about it, 3 fights with the greatest including a victory and a controversial loss. Wins over Quarry, Young, Bobick, Kirkman, Zanon, an avenged loss to Garcia. He gained the WBC world title, ( by means of elimination of course,) and probably gave a prime Larry Holmes the fight of his life.

Frankly, I think that there's a very good reason why everytime we hear the names Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, the name Norton is not far behind......:good

[JohnThomas1]

Fair enough mate,

but wouldn't you at least say that he made a substantial presence? Think about it, 3 fights with the greatest including a victory and a controversial loss. Wins over Quarry, Young, Bobick, Kirkman, Zanon, an avenged loss to Garcia. He gained the WBC world title, ( by means of elimination of course,) and probably gave a prime Larry Holmes the fight of his life.

Frankly, I think that there's a very good reason why everytime we hear the names Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, the name Norton is not far behind......:good

He's not far behind because he fought every one of them hahaha. But yes, Norton was a top fighter just short of great status.

[Cojimar 1945]

Given the advancements occurring in sports and the fact that athletes continue breaking records all the time I would suspect Holmes rating on a head to head basis would be going downhill as the years pass.

[Senya13]

So basically what this said was that Ali, Dundee, and some unamed magazine felt that Norton was nobody before Muhammad's first meeting with him.
Hauser's book is not a contemporary source, actually. He met with Ali and his wife in October 1988 to discuss the possibility of writing that book, so some of those opinions about Norton were said in 1988-1991 (the book was first published in 1991) and still none of them thought highly of Norton. While you have presented nothing at all to back your bare words up, and it's been how long? But I expected that, as it's hard to find much respect for Norton in the contemporary sources, it only started to change many years after where people were trying to raise Ali's status as truly the greatest heavyweight there was, and thus instead of admitting that Ali lost to a virtually nobody, they started calling Norton great, and it has gone so far that he was accepted into IBHOF, which is BS to say the least.

Hmmmmm......I wonder how all three entities felt after the match, let alone 2 more fights later, plus maybe half a decade of Kenny tearing up the division....
The 3rd fight meant nothing at all. Everyone figured Ali was done by that time, was completely past it.

Funny how a " nobody " can all of a sudden become somebody, when given a chance. Is this not what great fighters are made of?
Except that Norton doesn't have anything significant other than 1 single win over aged undertrained Ali. He has 2 losses in rematches and a loss to Holmes, if you are not aware of that. He blew his chances, and him being awarded the title was a joke. He has never truly won a world champion title, he was a journeyman (who entered the ratings only because the system or ranking fighter was very bad, he didn't have a single win over ranked fighter prior to meeting with Ali) who accidentally became a mediocre contender once, blew his chances in rematches, and got handed a gift in a fight vs another former journeyman.

[fightking12]

Lewis is better

[My dinner with Conteh]

If Norton was a journeyman, what was McCall?

[dalek]

No, Ive scored against Larry before. I only had Larry winning by a round, and understand how people think Spinks won it. But the rematch, Larry won clearly.


PS I don't love him and you can go fuck your self.
i bet it was the holyfield fight that you scored against larry right.seriously if you had larry winning the first spinks fight then you have ZERO credibility as far as i'm concerned.

[My dinner with Conteh]

i bet it was the holyfield fight that you scored against larry right.seriously if you had larry winning the first spinks fight then you have ZERO credibility as far as i'm concerned.


Zero credibility? That's a compliment to Bill. He's been hanging around in the minus section for the past few years.

[JohnThomas1]

Zero credibility? That's a compliment to Bill. He's been hanging around in the minus section for the past few years.

:lol: