Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

He wasn't in his prime vs Spinks he was 35/36. If non-prime losses are counted than Morrison has to count against Foreman

 

A dream entitled, "Late 1983" no doubt...he was about 16 defences in by then. What no:1s did he avoid before then? Enlighten me, as i may have forgotten. Because he fulfilled his mandatory in 79, in 80 he had the Ali fight (and hindsight on this one doesn't count, He was still by far the biggest name in the division), his mandatory slot in 81 was pushed back to 82 because of Cooney delaying. Which leaves us 1983, 16 defences in. Not bad at all.

Norton had his mandatory slot for the rematch in Sep 79, lost to Shavers. Lost his no:1 ranking, Shavers took his place for that fight, hardly Larry's fault. Maybe Kenny should have gotten an immediate one, perhaps, like Ali did in 78...and Liston did in 65...and Patterson did in 63...and Frazier did...n't in 73.

A long-reigning or highly-regarded champ gets rematch after being dethroned? That's never happened, ever, has it?
Foreman hardly gave out rematches either. Then again, he was official champ for about a total of just over two years- over two title reigns!

Of course, he kept some ‘linear’ bollox rather than fight No:1 contenders or even give Axel Schulz a rematch…then again, he did get easily beaten first time round, so can't hardly blame him. It depends how much stock one holds in 'linear' i suppose (or some crummy WBU thing). Linear once meant something until Foreman made a mockery of it (and by the way, I'm not excusing Holmes for his behaviour in 'late 83' either- y'know 16 defences in and all that (as opposed to 'one'). It was around this time that Foreman avoided fighting Holmes like he had a peanut allergy.

Well that's news to me, as I've hardly seen him above Holmes at any time and I've read a fair few of these. What lists are these anyway? And your mates on various Big George Threads across random forums, called 'Toasty" or "MAGA_Mike_24" don't count.

 

The Divine Peanut is usually between 3-6. Definitely belongs above Foreman, and typically is, as any decent list of repute usually states. Funny, just on the list thing, Louis is now seemingly a 'lock' for top 2 and had now been there for about 50 years, but between his last world title fight and the mid-70s (around 25 years) he was seldom, if ever, top 2. Jeffries is definitely the one name that seemingly disappeared out the top 10 forever and he was still there on some lists as late as 1994 (e.g. Ring).

 

Any decent list of repute must have Holmes above Foreman

I’ll shatter your other post in the morning.

 

No, you’ll type some words, that’s all.

Enjoy spending the next 20 hours on Google.

 

More non-sense from you.

 

Who were Louis' best title defense opponents ?

 

Pugguy I don't care if someone disagrees with me or doesn't think highly of me I'm not here for praise or kudos. But I do take offence when someone is consistently having digs at me to other members.

But apparently I have to accept it and I'm being "spared" because he isn't quoting me directly anymore despite still bad mouthing me.

And why did all this happen ? Because he got butthurt over a difference of an opinion regarding Holmes/Foreman. Hence all this weird behaviour from him for the past week 40 year old man BTW. Apparently you're not allowed to have a different view on a boxing forum who knew ?

I've asked this person to stop doing these childish snide comments 4 times he wouldn't so hence I've put him on block because I'm not wasting my time arguing on internet when I've done nothing wrong and I know I haven't.

 

Foreman lost to Young at age 28, Holmes lost to Spinks at age 35 after fighting 20 world title fights which is over double the amount of title fights Foreman had in his entire career

Witherspoon was green in regards to fights but he peaked vs Holmes and never fought a better fight in his career.

 

Thirty years in the ring, & not one great opponent on your ledger. LOL.

 

Fury has beaten two top heavies post Wlad. How does that equate to any form of dominance?
He hasn't beaten Usyk, Joshua, Bakole, Kabayel, Ortiz, Dubois, Joyce, Parker, etc, etc, etc.
Wilder and Whyte are his only top level wins post 2015

If he loses the Usyk rematch I'll have to question if he is top 5 for this era

 

Using your laughable logic, Joshua and the Chisora that Fury wiped the floor with three times are tied with one win over this group. Wilder who you've constantly deride would be at the top with two wins over Ortiz. Tied with him would be Zhang, and Joyce.

I'm sure you've removed Joshua from the top 5 of this era in that case.

Out of interest, I'd like to see your top ten list for the era. I'm in for a laugh right now.

 

So he was the only one with self discipline, and he came out on top of the pile?

What a f*****g surprise.

That era could have been incredible, if the best talent had some sort of discipline.

 

No way to know the top 10 because they won't fight each other. Objectively Fury can't be considered dominant without actually getting in the ring and beating his contemporaries.
If Usyk stops Fury in the rematch and Fury proceeds to retire people may start to wonder whether he was actually better than Zhang, Kabayel and the like especially given Wilder seems to be done. And they would be right to do so.

Fury apologists see Dubois beating Joshua as a win but Joshua has generally done better against common opponents than Fury so if anything it makes Fury look bad too. And it raises the question of why Fury hasn't faced Dubois.

 

That's actually a good point. Fair enough.

A good measure along with resume is performances against common opponents which I'll address later in my post, in response to your later comments regarding the matter.

Wilder is done..... because of the brutal beatings Fury gave him (on top of age).

Fury is still far more proven than the likes of Zhang, and Kabayel. How many rated opponents has Kabayel beat?

Using this logic, Wilder is better than Joshua. Knocked out Breazale and Helenius in a single round while Joshua needed 7 for both of them.

Fury did worse against Wallin and Ngannou but it's obvious, he didn't take these bouts seriously and underestimated his opponents. A more serious Fury performed far better against Usyk than Joshua did, and came far closer to beating him.

Fury also did far better against Wlad and certainly didn't need to get off the canvas to beat him. The Wlad who Fury fought was better than the even older one Joshua fought who'd come out of retirement and hadn't fought in nearly 2 years.

You do bring up a valid point regarding Fury's lack of competition against top men, but as you stated earlier this isn't an issue exclusive to Fury.

Fury's resume of wins over Wlad, Wilder twice, and Whyte, and absence of embarrassing losses like Joshua's to Ruiz put him at the top for me.

He also did far better against the other two top three fighters in Dubois and Joshua against Usyk. Is this a perfect measure? No. As we saw with Dubois and Joshua. Joshua did better against Usyk than Dubois but that didn't translate to superiority over Dubois. So while it's not perfect, in the absence of all else, it's pretty much all we've got.

Fury and Dubois are in the same stable so their promotor doesn't want to force a fight at all, putting them in an awkard position. Frank Warren won't push for Tyson Fury-Daniel Dubois fight - ESPN