Ken Norton....well past his prime when they fought. Michael spinks....Larry lost to him twice. Larrys best fights are to a guy lost to. Earnie Shavers, good but far from great. Larrys jab was ****, easily his most over rated quality. atsch
First, he fought a peak Mercer when he was 43 years old. Secondly, to answer you question...if you throw the Berbick and Mercer wins in with everything else he accomplished then yes, he is a great. And I don't care what anyone says, he won that first Spinks fight... they just didn't want him to break Rocky's record.
I didnt think many people gave much of a **** about him both back in his day and after he was gone. Wasn't he regarded as a sort of a recess champ filling the void between real heavyweight stars?
Lol nobody gives a **** about marciano or his record. They robbed him because he couldn't draw flies to **** and had no personality, spinks was more marketable while holmes was too shy and soft spoken. mercer started boxing at like 32 years old
It doesn't matter who won the first Spinks fight. **** happens. But he absolutely should have completely dominated him in the rematch. He couldn't and didn't. And this alone will always hurt his legacy from anyone who truly understands the fight game.
Who brought up Haye? You did, kid. I can't stand Haye but at least you can jerk off to his youtube vids.
Exactly. It is really, really simple. Holmes should have absolutely dominated Spinks in the rematch. He didn't...and it exposed him for what he was. A great fighter who is nothing more, nothing less. Imagine if Louis went life and death with Schmelling the second time...or Lennox with Rahman...Wlad with Brewster, etc... Holmes should have clowned him and he couldn't.