I'm respectfully bewildered by your reasoning (no offense intended). Tyson wasn't anywhere near the same age as Holmes, Weaver was much closer. And I don't count the Holmes blowout by Tyson as significant besides proving that fighters are often spent past the age of 37 (not to mention Holmes' 20 months of ring rust, a factor which I believe most boxing pundits find legitimately significant). I never wrote that Weaver-Holmes wasn't a great fight, nay, it was the biggest proof of Holmes' heart since his defeat of Norton. Weaver had a lot to be proud of. It showed Holmes scraping himself off the floor and stopping his opponent, something Tyson never did.
This only proved how great Larry was, he had plenty of victories where the opponent made it clear he was fighting to win a championship belt...no pushovers (they were all ranked contenders). It usually wasn't Holmes' punch that delayed things as much as his caution. I still think Cooney was finished in round 2, Holmes was just being the eminent champion, pacing himself.
Ok lets go another way. You are saying Holmes Weaver was a meaningful fight because they were both 50'ish?
I'm getting the feeling you know exactly what I mean my friend. Just look back over the post, please. No further explanation needed. All respect, it seems more like you'e bored than interested in sparking a reasonable debate. No offense intended whatsoever, and I happen to like many of your observations.
None taken. I will read back. Roughhouse said - "Larry Holmes wanted no part of a rematch with Mike Weaver to unify the titles and was smart to feel that way." You replied - "But then Larry knocked him silly again a bit later." I picked you up on the remark as they fought 21 1/2 years later. This is a couple of levels beyond an eternity in boxing years. You replied - "Well, Holmes was no spring chicken either. And yes it was meaningful...end result was Weaver got knocked silly by Holmes twice.". I then asked was Tyson significant. You said no Tyson was young, Holmes old which is fair enough. So lastly i asked you whether you consider Holmes - Weaver a meaningful fight because both were 50 odd. It's a simple yes or no question and i am "interested" to know your answer.
Sorry my friend, I was of the opinion that Larry was a dominantly better fighter because he beat Weaver both at his and Weaver's peak AND when they were both much older. This of course could be a perfectly erroneous idea. Forgive me please for my oversight on your argument, you're one of my favorite members to read.
Weaver's peak came when he took Coetzee's best- someone Larry also wanted no part of- and left him slumped on his home ring. That Weaver was a good deal better than the one who was picked as a slappy for a Holmes "take it easy" title defense. I would take the Weaver of 1981-1982 over Holmes of that period. He came within a hair of stopping him in the first fight, the litany of Holmes' apologists excuses notwithstanding. (Hey, don't have to agree. The thread is "Unpopular Opinions"....)
Was a while ago since I saw this debate, but from memory there were a good few on this forum who had either Langford, Greb, Armstrong or even Fitz at nr 1. The majority probably have Robinson but I've never considered this to be an unquestionable consensus on this forum.
Lennox Lewis is super overrated. His prime was after everyone was faded (Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield) and was very lucky they stopped the fight against Klitschko. DLH is the best WW since Leonard/ Hearns
Vitali Klitschko is the best H2H heavy in history. Never knocked down, Every physical advantage, Intelligence, 87.23 KO%. He has never been behind on points, and only lost fights he was leading via injury and could not continue. He was WINNING those fights. Very few can touch him.
