HW TOP 10 h2h and achievement

ANY sort of rating of Holmes involving those 3 fights is woeful and agenda driven regardless - no if's and no but's. Even giving them a significant mention is embarrassing. I'm as hard on Holmes as anyone, but only for hard facts.

In all likelihood Holmes would have beaten Holyfield and Tyson at his greatest and Spinks need not even rate a mention given a very very poor version of Holmes came back and bested him.

Many feel Holmes possessed the stylistic gifts to beat Ali, and while i don't quite agree they make a very good debate.

 

I'm not saying that was a prime version by any means, but since he started so late he had much more left in the tank than most others at his age. It was the same with Lewis.

But even if you look at the best he met in his prime (Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon) it's not like they were dominating wins. And Norton and Shavers were both well into their 30's and 'Spoon was still quite green.

 

Ali lost to Frazier in his prime. Norton too. Holyfield and Tyson would have whupped the Ali ass at a comparative stage to Holmes - no doubt at all. Ali's matches with Norton and Frazier weren't "dominating" wins. Nor Young and Shavers.

You're not beating Holmes with the same stick.

 

It's not like that was sole basis for my argument. I think I put into context. These are the exact words:

"Holmes lost to the best fighters he faced (Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield), and even though he was quite a bit past his prime on all occassions he wasn't really dominant against his best opponents even in his prime. Norton, Shavers and Witherspoon all gave him trouble."

The fight against Holyfield is of course much more of a plus than a minus, I don't really know if any real conclusions can be drawn from the loss to Tyson, but the loss to Spinks isn't that flattering even if most agree that it was avenged.

Anyhow, the fact remains that Holmes didn't dominate many top class opponents and that puts a question mark on how he would do against top ATGs.

I certainly don't agree that Holmes "in all likelihood" would have beaten Tyson. Sooner or later Tyson will proably land that right and then Holmes will have to survive against the greatest finisher since Louis. Not an easy task.

I would give Holmes a better chance against Ali. Very interesting match-up.

 

Ali wasn't in his prime when facing Frazier and Norton. And I haven't said that Ali dominated either Frazier, Norton, Young or Shavers.

My basis is that Ali's prime was roughly from 1964 or 1965 to 1967 (a bit short since it got cut short) and Holmes's was roughly from about 1978-1982.

 

He lost his best years to that "break", so its benefits is questionable.

Look, it's just this simple; just as I don't compare a 25-year old Holmes with a 25-year old Ali, I don't compare a 35-year old Ali with a 35 year-old Holmes. I use their respective peaks as basis for comparison.

 

Even trying to make the statement meaningful and notable is a terrible slant against Holmes and shows ones position with crystal clarity. Ali lost to Frazier, Holmes and Norton, 3 of the greatest, say, 5 fighters he faced.

Holmes should not have even been boxing.

Louis lost to the greatest he faced, Marciano, no? I prefer to use Ali tho, for obvious reasons.

It's not detrimental either, because this was a pathetic version of Holmes. Like the Louis who fought Charles. Nither fight means frig all when talking about these guys anywhere near the top of their game.

What he did do was win, again, and again, and again ad infitum. Astute observers will note that Holmes often fought down to his level and supposed danger of opposition, and he's sure not alone in that. Against the Cooney's and Shavers he put on pure boxing exhibitions. No doubt at all he'd rise and fire vs the greats.

I respect people's opinions picking Tyson as it's debatable either way. The trouble with making it sound like Holmes likely gets finished the minute he swallows Tyson's big right hand is that even over the hill he swallowed plenty before finally succumbing. At his best we would see a much much different match.

I respectfully disagree. I feel Holmes would drag Tyson into deep mental and physical water and drown him.

 

That's just plain biased. You claim Holmes was in his prime vs Witherspoon but Ali wasn't vs Frazier?

Holmes had 42 fights going into Witherspoon. Ali had 31 going into Frazier. Holmes had been boxing 10 years and Ali 11, but Ali did have a 3 year break. Ali was 29 odd, Holmes was 33 odd.

It just doesn't add up for me. You would have been better off comparing opposition, but you didn't, you nominated primes. Did you not realise Holmes fought Witherspoon outside your nominated primes?

Incidentally i mostly agree with your nominated primes. I think Ali would have absolutely peaked just after exile started.

 

Fascinating indeed. Holmes had just enough rough spots to make a Tyson win quite feasible.

 

Oh, god. The "position" thing again. Hey, let's just cut this short: I agree that those losses isn't really a mark on Holmes - the quality of his perfomance against Holyfield actually outweighs the losses against Spinks and Tyson.

I just said in the opening sentence as a reply to a post that I found a little bit befuddling - and I qualified it by saying that he was "quite a bit past his prime" for all his losses. You put way more in it than I actually meant by it, but now I hope I've made my position clear.

But especially Shavers had him in bad trouble. Personally, I actually rate Holmes quite highly h2h (probably top 5 or top 6), but I just can't look past the fact that he had problem with nearly all his top opponents.

I hope you don't mean I implied that, because I didn't. I think that Tyson would get to him with the right more often than not at some point, and when he did Holmes would have a job surviving. But it's certainly not a given that he would be finished off, since his recuperative powers and survival isntincts perhaps were on par even with Tysons' finishing.

Sure. That's certainly not impossible. I just objected to how emphatically you put it.