Classic Forum Chat: Size isn't the only factor.

I would put Bowe above Douglas, without too much doubt.

They are similar in ways, but Bowe's early consistency and better showings against Holyfield, take him beyond Douglas. Bowe had been groomed towards a World Championship title, despite his poor habits and a few hiccups along the way.

Douglas was ticking over, hot, warm and cold - looking promising, fringe contender and journeyman, over the course of eight or nine years. His is a Cinderella Man type of affair. Bowe one felt was destined.

Both were ultimately wasted Talents; especially when you consider each of their top-end performances, which were exceptional.


EDIT: I've leant too heavily on legacy here, and less towards H2H - the very point of your post JT. I'd still go Bowe, and in no small way due to their performances leading up to their respectively brief Championship tenures - but such were the level of their Championship challenges - it does give me pause for thought on the H2H question, admittedly.

 

That was one of those things wasn’t it? It’s not like Williams wasn’t always a good fighter or was never good again. What did Weaver go onto after it? Williams later beat Bert Cooper, Berbick and took Witherspoon to a split verdict.

Yes Larry had slipped somewhat but I recon Williams would have been a handful for Larry at any point. Carl was a good fighter. On the form against Larry Williams might have beat Thomas and Tubbs. Weavers Sunday punch probably robs Carl of any credit.

Yes Spoon was contracted to meet Tubbs in a rematch after facing Bruno in London. So he was tied up for his next two fights wasn’t he?

Larry signed to take part in the HBO tourney alongside Thomas and Tubbs didn’t he? They agreed to each defend their titles one time each then face each other. But all three guys lost their next fight.

 

Fair post mate!

 

This is rubbish posting. . Coetzer won 2 rounds max. Bowe turned his face inside out and shortened his career. He would retire 2 fights later.

Holyfield chose to brawl? Post something original cos thats a misnomer that has been parroted for years.

Has it ever occurred to you that Holyfield chose to not stay on the outside where he would be at the end of Bowe's punches?? You really think Holyfield thought he could beat Bowe from long range , but decided not to?

Holyfield thought it was best for him to be in close where he could get off fast counters and quick fire combo's. Kinda like how how beat Foreman , and Holmes and Tyson.... And how he tried to beat Lennox Lewis.. Strange how you never hear how Holyfield chose to brawl against Lewis....Because he lost twice thats why.
When people say Holy only lost because he chose to brawl , what they are really doing is trying denigrating Bowe and his performance.

 

It was Williams getting KTFO by a guy who was heading downwards, after Williams had not long given Holmes a good go.

Trying to big up Williams' ensuing career is an interesting angle and your observation on Weaver does Williams no favors, either - it just means he got beat by a very beatable guy. Cooper was not an established Heavyweight when Williams met him. Berbick's meaningful career was over by the time Williams met him.

A couple of fights later, Williams lasted 2 seconds longer than Spinks did, against Tyson. After that, he was to all intents and purposes, done.

It's a theory, but not one that I'm convinced by, given how not so well Williams fared, going forward.

Holmes had been slipping ever since Cooney. There are those who put his close call with Witherspoon down to Larry being on the other side of the hill.

I would comfortably tend towards a Holmes, closer to his prime, dishing out a bit of a lesson to both Witherspoon and Williams and certainly not being that close to losing his title.

Not after Smith, in Jun '85, he wasn't. Witherspoon/Tubbs was signed in September that same year and took place early the following year (Jan '86). Witherspoon won and the rematch that never happened had been scheduled and rescheduled, post-Holmes retirement.

The tournament didn't start until after Holmes had been defeated by Spinks. And, his only match in that tournament was the Spinks rematch in '86, which took him out of the running (and by way of a bad decision). Lewis saw to it that Spinks would no longer participate in the tournament (I wonder why?).

A lot of what you have written above really does not address the issue of Holmes being well past it in 1985 and being careful with his risk/reward calculations, as well as referring to events after the fact. There's really no case for Williams or Bey being considered on par with the Ring Rated Top-5 of the times.

The point is Holmes' hadn't been fighting the top-rated Heavyweights for a while, leading up to the Spinks upset. That's just a fact, whatever the reason. It doesn't really matter what you think about the respective careers of the other contenders and the fights they had among themselves. We just know that Holmes wasn't fighting any of them.

I would contend that several of the top-rated guys in '85 would have been able to achieve what Spinks did. Moreover, I would say that any number of top-rated Heavyweights would have taken Spinks out too, had he the mind to give them a shot.

Larry was quoted, a couple of weeks or so after his first decision loss, as saying of Spinks:

"Pinklon Thomas and Tim Witherspoon can beat him. And so can Carl Williams, Tony Tubbs, Bonecrusher Smith, Greg Page and David Bey. In fact, there's a bunch of guys who can beat him.'

Whether Holmes intended to say so much with this, I can't be sure. But it spoke volumes.

 

And...?

I wrote that Coetzer landed at will on Bowe, but lacked the power to hurt him. That's why Bowe won.

Well, that and Bowe being allowed to low blow Coetzer. It wasn't just Coetzer's face that Bowe "turned inside out."

Note as well that Coetzer "retired 2 fights later" because he lost to Bruno and Old Foreman. And they didn't need to tenderize his groin to stop him, IIRC. Beating Coetzer was not a very significant achievement.

I don't really care about posting something "original." We are not on an avant garde literary forum.

As your own posts admit, Holyfield choosing to brawl in fight #1 isn't just my opinion. It is widely held. That's really all that matters in the context of this thread. See below.

Your last sentence seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. He lost twice to Bowe, and arguably twice to Lewis, yes. (Which doesn't exactly help Bowe's legacy if you're counting Holyfield as 0-2 against Lewis, by the way.)

EDIT: Also, what's your explanation for Holyfield beating Bowe?

Read the rest of the context of this thread. Holy trying to brawl is no worse an excuse for a loss than Lennox ignoring Rahman's right hand, Tyson forgetting to use head movement, Louis dropping his jab after throwing it, etc.

 

Yes and no. You got it right that I personally do rate them and their peers lesser fighters than Liston forward, and that devalues their ranking a bit, but I don't necessarily exclude them, because I look at their achievements in the context of their era.
I just happen to think what Bowe did in his era is more impressive that what they did in their era.
But I did not say all these guys you mentioned are inferior. I said you could make a case/argument for guys like Dempsey, Vitaly and Fury, perhaps even Patterson, but for none of the rest, meaning not for:
Jeffries
Langford
Walcott
Corbett
Charles
Wills
Sullivan
Norton

Not really. It depends on what else they achieve. If they clean up the division, like you said, normally they would rank ahead. But that's only if they also manage to win the world title, otherwise they kinda don't (except when they are not allowed to compete for the title). But this is hypothetical, I'd have to see a real situation in order to give you a definitive answer.

I agreed with 12 and I said that a case can be made for another 4. So this puts Bowe either in the top 15 (if we don't accept the case for those 4) or in the top 20 (if we do count those 4 as superior).
But if you don't see Bowe as top 20, good for you, you have the right to make that choice.

 

Sullivan because he was too early, right?

Why not Charles or Jeffries, given that we have Johnson and Marciano already on the possibles list?

 

Usyk vs Fury would be something to watch. If he beats AJ in the rematch (which is the likely outcome), I hope to god Fury is next. Usyk vs Wilder would certainly be interesting as well, but it would be such an interesting chess match against Fury.

 

I pick Usyk to win that one but it would be more difficult than beating Wilder, his fundamentals are all wrong, Usyk`s head movement and angles would baffle him, the presser with Fury and Usyk would be something as both are colourful characters.

 

I think Usyk would make Wilder look really, really bad, but you can never rule out that right landing.

 

Lyle can do that, but I don't feel he is honest. Lyle hated Foreman and Foreman KO'd him. Shavers did not, but who knows, perhaps Shavers caught him with a bigger shot.

How can that be, since he is able to KO 90.9% of his opponents that weighed under 200 pounds and only 47.8 % of those that weigh above 215 ?!?
Sure, you can say he sucked at finishing people, but he didn't suck against those sub 200 lbs guys, did he ?!? His finishing skills were the same whether he fought sub 200 or +215 guys. So, unless those +215 were on average far superior skill wise, then the logical conclusion is that his power was not enough to take out the bigger guys.

But he is much smaller height wise. So even if he bulks up, he still won't be quite as big due to his frame limitations.

He could spark some 70s guys, not all were small.

Simple. Cause it's about how good they are overall as boxers, not only about their chin. Plus, Shavers did not manage to KO many of them, so saying he sparked them is kinda innacurate.

Well, if those punchers managed to land power punches and those power punches did nothing to their opposition, Heavyweight Blog Guy would probably class them as such. Also, it depends on who'd they land, how big those men would be, and it also depends on how they land. But what big punchers are you talking about ?!

Some 90s guys are indeed gonna brutalize them, some aren't. It depends on how they match stylistically, how they match size wise, how they match skill wise, etc.

Yes, this is what I'd say.

Not necessarily. Again, it depends how they matched stylistically, how skilled they were, how old they were etc.
Not every big guy from the 70s needs to also be very skilled, it's not a given.

Liston's performance would still be great, since it will show he is skilled enough to take Ali out.

Well, that's cause 70s Ali had a better chin than 64 Ali, similar to 90s Foreman having a better chin than 70s Foreman.
With the increase in size and weight, as well as with the aging process (you're bones are thicker and stronger in your 30s and 40s compared to your 20s, and also your frame widens), you get a better chin too and more durability / ability to absorb punches.
There's a reason Holyfield, RJJ, Toney, Sphinxs, Usik, bulked up when they went up to HW, they needed it.

I agree with this.

Not to me. For example:
- Louis being old when Marciano beat him is a FACT, not an excuse.
- Liston being older than stated and not prepared for Ali is a FACT, not an excuse.
- Tyson not preparing for Douglas is a FACT, not an excuse.
Wilder claiming his suit was too heavy and that wore him down, that's an EXCUSE, and an embarrassing one IMO.

Yes.

That is true. Unfortunately, we can never get a definitive answer.

Quite possible.

That matters more, I agree.

That is true. But they did not land the same way on those moving targets.

 

No. A top boxer doesn't automatically have a better chin. He usually got his ranking cause he is more skilled, at hitting his man and not getting hit in return. Guys like Chuvallo, Cobb, McCall had better chins than guys ranked above them.

But Ali was not prime. Beating a non-prime Ali is not the same as beating a prime Holyfield.

 

Right. Boxing was too primitive in his time.

In Charles's case, cause Johnson and Marciano dominated their era and he did not, at least not at HW.
In Jeffries's case, similar to Sullivan, cause it was too primitive.

 

Yes but that was more to do with him going against a prime Mike Tyson isn’t it?

well it’s not like the wheels completely fell off for Williams with the Weaver loss is it. He was not that active, I think his career was derailed somewhat but it’s not like he was John Tate, Pinklon Thomas or Micheal Dokes was it?

perhaps so. I was insinuating that Williams and Witherspoon were actually close together in ability. Their respective performances against Larry and Each other bares this out.

Bey was rated #3 by thevRing at that time actually.

Yes we know Larry was not fighting them. And it is a pity he did not. But whoever gets to fight all of their contenders?

Without the distraction of paper titles more of them would have fought each other in elimination fights eliminating precisely the number of them Larry never got to fight anyway!

If Thomas eliminated say Tubbs, Larry would have at least got to fight Thomas. And I would have loved that. But was Thomas even good enough to beat Tubbs the night he lost to Berbick?

I don’t think so. Larry would always have started as a betting favourite against those guys. And precisely because for the same reason Larry was favoured to beat Spinks. Despite his decline he was still beating guys as good as anyone else out there.

Spinks did not look a convincing champion. He was an underdog. But he was a great fighter who was able to implement his LH strengths against the heavyweight in the same way Usyk implemented his CW strengths against the SHW Joshua. There might well have been HWs who would have been wrong for Spinks once they saw what he was about as a HW, but first time around, when nobody knew what to expect, Spinks was good enough to baffle any of them. Tubbs? Thomas? Berbick? Witherspoon? I can see all of them being as confused as Larry was. Witherspoon was baffled by Thomas. Thomas was baffled by Berbick. These guys went into fights not knowing what to expect.

I didn’t know that Larry said that, but I can understand him saying that. Spinks strategically beat him under strict technical methods that diffused and restricted what Larry wanted to do. He was frustrated by a guy who couldn’t hit as hard as those other guys, who Larry knew were all stronger and bigger than Michael.