Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[-CANE-]

** If you got the Holmes runs, you got no choice. Generally most tend to their business in the privacy of their loo though.

Can't stop laughing at that one. I was pointing out that your'e ****** exercise of matching up the opponents was pointless which I proved by giving another set of matchups yours make Tyson's opponents look better and mine make Holmes look better. So we disagree big ****ing deal. That is what this forum is about, your'e obviously one of these narrow minded fools that throws childish insults if someone has a different opinion than you and think that your'e right and everyone else is wrong. To be honest there isn't a great difference between the opponents but all I said was I think Holmes opponents were slightly better, not far greater just slightly. But I can see now I'm not allowed to have an opinion without offending anyone, I'd better run in case I'm up for a hanging after saying everything I said. How Dare Me.

[them_apples]

lol shavers wouldn't beat spinks, no way in hell.

[LondonRingRules]

I was pointing out that your'e ****** exercise of matching up the opponents was pointless which I proved by giving another set of matchups yours make Tyson's opponents look better and mine make Holmes look better.

** Apparently you didn't catch that I matched the 20 yr old Tyson's title defenses in exact chronological order as the 29 yr old Holmes title defenses started. I didn't pick and choose the mismatches and I can't help that you chose the glue in this horse race. Yeah, you're desperate to salvage something out of this mismatch and will do anything.

You appeared to have some astuteness to you with your previous analysis of the heavy rankings. What happened? Your understanding of the Holmes era is rehensible. He never fought a top Ali, Norton, Frazier, or Foreman, and never fought most of the premier heavies of the late 70s to early 80s save a few even though he was fighting in those eras. No wonder he had such a good record. Peter McNeeley has one too.

Tyson was the one who cleaned up Larry's mess. That was too big a job for Spinks who did his job well enough by thoughly outclassing Larry in and out of the ring. Too bad Spinks didn't go for the KO, but the judges decided they had gifted Larry enough against Williams and Witherspoon to be embarrassed by association with Holmes again.

That old dog Holmes keeps on biting you everytime you wake him up. Most kids would have learned about the old dog by now. Just let him sleep and wake up in the HOF where he belongs and maybe you can visit without him biting you there.

[-CANE-]

Your right I didn't catch the chronological order of the opponents and sorry but that really doesn't matter does it. Larry fought better competition in the middle and latter stages of his reign.

But at the end of the day you can only fight who gets in the ring with you.
Larry had a big mouth and upset a lot of people and wasn't allowed to be given the opportunity to unify the titles.

Larry fought in between possibly the 2 most exciting and watchable heavyweights in history as well, and while he wasn't the most exciting fighter to watch looking back he seems even less exciting sandwiched between these 2 fighters. Larry was never gonna be a big money making machine because of his style and his big opinionated mouth of his, which is why boxing politics kept him from being given the opportunity to unify the titles.

Tyson on the other hand was the complete opposite, he just facinated people with his style,power he seemed a nice genuine polite kid who was so ferocious yet spoke so softly. People were intruiged by him and mezmerized by his knockout power and how no one could seem to touch him. The only logical thing to do was let him clean the mess up that Larry wasn't given the chance to and everyone get stinking rich in the process. Trouble is a lot of people saw Tyson for something he wasn't, they were making him out to be some sort of god and blew everything out of proportion. Could Larry have unified the titles probably if given the chance between 78 and 83 would he have been exciting doing it then no he wouldn't far from it and no where as exciting as Tyson did it later on. Larry fought some bums as did Tyson and Larry fought some quality opposition as did Tyson.

I just think that Shavers,Snipes,Weaver,Cooney and Witherspoon are slightly better than Tucker,Tubbs,Thomas,Spinks and Biggs but that is my opinion. Also on common opponents Berbick,Williams and Smith I think Larry fought them when they were better than when Tyson fought them.

But Larry never got knocked out by a powder puff puncher in his prime did he, and when he did get dropped he got back up and won when it seemed like he couldn't.

When Holmes fought Tyson he was 38 years old and hadn't fought in 3 years and was in no real shape. Holmes aquitted himself well while the fight lasted and it took a prime Tyson 4 rounds to catch up with an old slow fighter who was a shadow of himself in his prime, and when Tyson put him down it still took him another 2 knockdowns and a whole round to finish him off. Tyson was always gonna win but if Holmes hadn't got his arm trapped in the ropes while trying to throw an uppercut he might have lasted the round. Yeah he more than likely gets stopped the next round thats a certainty but my point is had he fought Larry in his prime when Holmes was 10 times the fighter he was in 1988 then the outcome would have been a lot different. How long would it have taken Tyson to catch up with Holmes if he could have. And even if he could have there is a strong possibility Holmes would have been able to survive the round recover and come back. In a fight in their primes I'd pick Holmes 7 times out of 10 to beat Tyson.

Tyson was always really knowledgable on the fight game and back in his prime was a more honest fighter regarding himself and other fighters and said what he truly believed. After the fight he said the following "Everyone knows Larry was a great fighter and if he was in his prime I wouldn't have stood a chance"

[StarshipTrooper]

Your right I didn't catch the chronological order of the opponents and sorry but that really doesn't matter does it. Larry fought better competition in the middle and latter stages of his reign.

But at the end of the day you can only fight who gets in the ring with you.
Larry had a big mouth and upset a lot of people and wasn't allowed to be given the opportunity to unify the titles.

Larry fought in between possibly the 2 most exciting and watchable heavyweights in history as well, and while he wasn't the most exciting fighter to watch looking back he seems even less exciting sandwiched between these 2 fighters. Larry was never gonna be a big money making machine because of his style and his big opinionated mouth of his, which is why boxing politics kept him from being given the opportunity to unify the titles.

Tyson on the other hand was the complete opposite, he just facinated people with his style,power he seemed a nice genuine polite kid who was so ferocious yet spoke so softly. People were intruiged by him and mezmerized by his knockout power and how no one could seem to touch him. The only logical thing to do was let him clean the mess up that Larry wasn't given the chance to and everyone get stinking rich in the process. Trouble is a lot of people saw Tyson for something he wasn't, they were making him out to be some sort of god and blew everything out of proportion. Could Larry have unified the titles probably if given the chance between 78 and 83 would he have been exciting doing it then no he wouldn't far from it and no where as exciting as Tyson did it later on. Larry fought some bums as did Tyson and Larry fought some quality opposition as did Tyson.

I just think that Shavers,Snipes,Weaver,Cooney and Witherspoon are slightly better than Tucker,Tubbs,Thomas,Spinks and Biggs but that is my opinion. Also on common opponents Berbick,Williams and Smith I think Larry fought them when they were better than when Tyson fought them.

But Larry never got knocked out by a powder puff puncher in his prime did he, and when he did get dropped he got back up and won when it seemed like he couldn't.

When Holmes fought Tyson he was 38 years old and hadn't fought in 3 years and was in no real shape. Holmes aquitted himself well while the fight lasted and it took a prime Tyson 4 rounds to catch up with an old slow fighter who was a shadow of himself in his prime, and when Tyson put him down it still took him another 2 knockdowns and a whole round to finish him off. Tyson was always gonna win but if Holmes hadn't got his arm trapped in the ropes while trying to throw an uppercut he might have lasted the round. Yeah he more than likely gets stopped the next round thats a certainty but my point is had he fought Larry in his prime when Holmes was 10 times the fighter he was in 1988 then the outcome would have been a lot different. How long would it have taken Tyson to catch up with Holmes if he could have. And even if he could have there is a strong possibility Holmes would have been able to survive the round recover and come back. In a fight in their primes I'd pick Holmes 7 times out of 10 to beat Tyson.

Tyson was always really knowledgable on the fight game and back in his prime was a more honest fighter regarding himself and other fighters and said what he truly believed. After the fight he said the following "Everyone knows Larry was a great fighter and if he was in his prime I wouldn't have stood a chance"

A well spoken response Hurricane! I think everyone reading this thread can tell who the scholor and gentleman is here. Put in your place I doubt I could have responded to LRR's nasty invective in such a calm and measured way,

The writer Peter Stitt and I had a short corespondence regarding Holmes. I told him that while Holmes was champion I knew he was a great fighter but it was on rewatching Larry's fights that I realized how great he truly was. Peter agreed wholeheartedly. That second Shaver's fight was of the best fights I've ever seen and I've seen a LOT of fights over the past 35 years.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

Personally I think it's wrong to judge these guys on the competition they had available. All three of them were dominant and cleaned out the division at the time. You can only fight who is available and fighters get way too much flak for being dominant in so called 'weak' eras.

Remember too that Louis was fighting around a fight per month and when you're fighting that frequently, in any era, you will eventually run out of top competition and move on to fighting the less talented fighters. ALSO, some of the so-called bums were VERY good fighters such as Max Baer, genuine talents such as Nathan Mann, and dangerous punchers such as Buddy Baer and Tony Galento. You can't make these evaluations in a vacuum and you can't assume an opponent of Louis was a bum simply because YOU never heard of them.

Nice shout out for Ezzard Charles on your avatar and signature: Great to see!

Poet

[-CANE-]

A well spoken response Hurricane! I think everyone reading this thread can tell who the scholor and gentleman is here. Put in your place I doubt I could have responded to LRR's nasty invective in such a calm and measured way,

The writer Peter Stitt and I had a short corespondence regarding Holmes. I told him that while Holmes was champion I knew he was a great fighter but it was on rewatching Larry's fights that I realized how great he truly was. Peter agreed wholeheartedly. That second Shaver's fight was of the best fights I've ever seen and I've seen a LOT of fights over the past 35 years.

Poet

Thanks Poet, that's a big compliment from you as I can tell your very knowledgable on the fight game and the older fighters as well. We might not allways agree but at least we can try and reason our points in a mature way.
Don't matter how many times I watch that Shavers fight I still think Holmes is gonna get knocked out his recuperative powers of recovery were better than probably any other heavyweight in history with Holyfield not far behind.

[-CANE-]

Remember too that Louis was fighting around a fight per month and when you're fighting that frequently, in any era, you will eventually run out of top competition and move on to fighting the less talented fighters. ALSO, some of the so-called bums were VERY good fighters such as Max Baer, genuine talents such as Nathan Mann, and dangerous punchers such as Buddy Baer and Tony Galento. You can't make these evaluations in a vacuum and you can't assume an opponent of Louis was a bum simply because YOU never heard of them.

Nice shout out for Ezzard Charles on your avatar and signature: Great to see!

Poet

Your right again you can't keep fighting great fighters when you make that many defenses and fight often. He beat every one they put infront of him and that's all he can do, same goes for Holmes who made 3-4 defenses a year and made a total of 20 defenses second only to the great Joe Louis.
He fought some very talented fighters and got up from one of the hardest punchers in the history of the game.

[StarshipTrooper]

Thanks Poet, that's a big compliment from you as I can tell your very knowledgable on the fight game and the older fighters as well. We might not allways agree but at least we can try and reason our points in a mature way.
Don't matter how many times I watch that Shavers fight I still think Holmes is gonna get knocked out his recuperative powers of recovery were better than probably any other heavyweight in history with Holyfield not far behind.

It IS possible to have good dicussions here and disagreements without insults: It just isn't easy! Unfortunately there are a number of posters like LondonRingRules who can't. Most of those (like him) eventually make their way to my ignore list. They seem unable to have a disagreement with someone without talking down their nose at and calling the person ******. They can't have a conversation without throwing cheap 7th grade insults. I end up ignoring them because I have a temper and if I read their manure I'll likely start trading cheap shots with them which I'd rather not do. So I usually will leave them for a while, throw a few insults of my own, and then if they continue ignore. Frankly, the cheapshot artists bore me.

Poet

[The Iron Man]

I have to say..I personally think Holmes had the best Chin in heavyweight history, possibly along side Holyfield. The way he gets up from Shavers shots is amazing, i remember the 1st time i watched the fight and Holmes went down after that massive shot by shavers and thinking "i thought Holmes won this fight!!" somehow he pulls himself off the canvas! a great champion once said " A Champion is someone who gets up even when they cant" - Holmes was definatley a great champion!