He still beat Moorer and according to him his plan was to toy with him and give him the impression of vulnerability. As Jim Lampley said, "George, how are you going to get him to stand in front of you." George, "He won't at first, but sometime later in the fight he'll get confident and stand in front of me." Out-pointing Moorer probably wasn't the way to go. Thinking fighter :good Morrison ran from him. Holyfield and Morrison were the only fighters to loss to him in the comeback (He beat Briggs. Morrison wasn't too shabby). No because Holyfield was clearer old and past it in the Lennox fights and fought pretty competetively with him. Holyfield never got knocked out the way Lewis did except for Bowe III. Holyfield had heart problems and was seen was way past at that point, even Duva left him because of this. What's he do? Come back and defeat Mike Tyson. His resume is better than Lewis :goodHe lost, but he lost to some great fighters and some are very very close fights (Moorer, in which he had a heart problem or something odd).
Is a points win over 40 year old Foreman any better than a blowout over Ruddock? No. Holyfield was no more past it than Holmes, Foreman, or Tyson. Coming back from defeats is a great thing to do as a fighter. Lewis knows all about this too. It erases the defeats in my book when you come and absolutely blow them away in rematches, which is what Lennox did. He avoided all his defeats, Holyfield did not. I think Lewis established dominance that Holyfield was never capable of. He was clearly the number one guy who was peerless when it came to him retiring. Holyfield, just when he was getting on a winning track, lost, and he looked more vunerable against average opposition. Finally, he lost to Lewis twice. Lennox is higher on the list in my book, and there is no way a fighter like Holyfield should be at top 5. We'll agree to disagree.
Old Foreman was easy to outbox. Look what Morrison was able to do with him and he's not even a slickster. I have Johnson ranked #5. How is Holyfield's far better? I want names. '73 Frazier still had some left in the tank but was not the prime beast he once was. Frazier's pressure and pace wasn't as fast as it once was. Frazier declined at a faster rate than Ali did. Physically, he wasn't the same either because of all the punishment he had taken throughout his career due to his style; it took a lot out of him. It's coupled with the fact that he wasn't as hungry as he used to be. He got cought up in being the Champ, was overconfident and became overweight.
That's tough. I'm not sure to be honest because Tyson really did a number on Ruddock. He was never the same afterwards. Tyson, definitely not. Foreman and Holmes, definitely Holmes but Foreman was thought to be almost a better fighting in his second run. But that's not the point, I don't take that away from Holmes for losing, I just credit Holyfield. Same with the Lewis situation. Don't take it as much away from Holyfield. Holyfield beat beat Bowe in the rematch and he beat Moore. So who didn't he redeem himself with? All other situations are a past his prime Holyfield so I don't hold it against him. It would be like holding it against Frazier for losing to Foreman twice. Well, the two big losses bring Lewis off his track. You have many champions in between those splits. I don't say Lewis dominated the era. But Lewis did take hold of the decade well. A lot of fighters didn't want to fight him, so they fought Holyfield. In a way, this allowed Lewis to mature with easier opposition. It let him grow and let him fill his frame out a bit. But really, Holyfield definitely has the bigger and better names on his resume. Holyfield was 36-3 up until the age of 37. Everything from 37 to 47 I don't take much against him. He still has some decent wins to prove his worth. He also really beat Valuev which makes him regain the title a 5th time. If Holyfield does this officially, he might be an automatic top 5-10 for me. I have him #11 so you know what I think. I think you can justify him at #5-10 though. #4, I think that's a lot to give for. Remember, Ring Magazine (Which was up until 98) ranked Holyfield #3 HW champ on the top 50 list. Lewis was somewhere around 33 or something. Crazy ****, but true. He was behind Cleveland Williams or something. Morrison ran the entire night. It was borderline disgraceful. Holyfield boxed him smartly, and Foreman made a good accounting of himself. Besides Foreman was better in 91 than he was when fought Frazier. Holyfield's resume is far better, especially within the context of things. Look at the name and when he foughts them and who. Holyfield fought bigger, stronger guys and won. He also became the 4 time HW champion of the world. Johnson fought smaller men that were usually middleweights, or men that were old or inactive (Jeffires, Fitzimmons). However, I have Johnson in my top 10 but not Holyfield. Go figure. I just think #4 is offly steep. Yes, I mentioned a lot of these things. I really think that you have to blame Frazier for being overconfident and overweight, living the glamor life as champ. We can't discredit Foreman. Fighters go into fights overconfident like this all the time. I think Frazier was past his best days but I don't buy that Frazier was this guy who had significantly declined. I don't think there's even enough fights on film to prove this. Frazier had a few fights up until Foreman from FOTC. I also think we don't know how Frazier could've been physically if he would've kept lighter and fighter, but he didn't. So I blame Frazier for this more and not discredit Foreman for this.
Jack Johnson's best wins not in any order: Sam Langford: Arguably the greatest fighter ever Sam McVea: Former Colored HW champion who beat the likes of McVea and Harry Willis. Bob Fitzsimmons: Former HW champion, one of the greatest fighters that ever lived. James Jefferies: Undefeated former HW champ and one of the best of his time. Tommy Burns- Current World HW Champion; beat Marvin Hart who beat Johnson Joe Jeanette- Could have been the World Champ if not for the Color Line. Beat McVea and Langford. Fireman Jim Flynn- Upset the likes of Jack Dempsey. Battling Jim Johnson- Had fierce rivalries with Langford, Jeanette and McVea; beat Harry Willis.
His wins are certainly better than Dempsey's. Johnson fought plenty of punchers like McVea, Langford, Jeffries, Burns, etc. In fact they were better than Dempsey's opponents and more skilled. Size means nothing; it's how skilled and accomplished your opponent is. He doesn't have a resume as good as Johnson. He didn't defend the title nearly as much and was largely inactive during his reign.
We're going to do this dance again? Langford was 156 pounds at the time. Weighed less than a middleweight. Fitzsimmons was 44 years old. On the tail end of his career and just got KOed by a 165 pound fighter while weighing 165 pounds in his last fight. Tommy Burns was another midget middleweight. He was 5'7, 168 pounds and chubby. Jeanette lost to Langford 3/5 times while being knocked out in one of the fights. At the time he fought Johnson he was raw. Infact, the first fight he drew with Johnson his record was an amazing 0-3. And Frazier was green against Bonavena? It's also important to note that he beat Johnson in his 10th fight. Jeffries was 37 years old with 6 YEARS OF INACTIVITY. LoL you mention Flynn after I mention that name because I believed it was one of his solid wins. Mcvea is a great figher but he was rather raw being 19 years old with 6 fights in the first fight he had with Johnson. He also lost to Langford 3-4X as many times as he beat him. Again, some great names here. But a lot of these guys are old, inactive, or very small and overmatched physically. I think I have Johnson ranked around #8-9 but #4 is quite steep.
He was still outboxed by someone who is not known as a slick fighter. I thought you said Old Foreman wasn't as good as young Foreman? I think youre very wrong with that statement. He was better technically but that wasn't him at his best, certainly not. Again, it's not about size. It's about how skilled and accomplished your opponent is. Johnson fought some smaller men but when fought them, he weighed well under 200 and the difference was not all that great. I rated him at #5 not #4. Agreed.
McVea was raw, though. Jeffries had 6 YEARS of inactivity on top of being 37 years old. Burns was a midget 5'7 168 pound men. Langford weighed 156 pounds! I am not big on weight not being everything. I make a big stance that bigger isn't better and that the bigger heavyweights that are fat and slow aren't better and that many old fighters could beat them. However, 5'6 156 pound guys beating bigger, stronger, and in shape heavyweights is a bit of a stretch. Firpo is a better puncher than any of this fighters were except Jeffries who was old and inactive for 6 years. Williard is 250 pounds and very strong. I said Johnson had the better resume but Dempsey destroyed bigger men and bigger punchers. This much is true. And he fought more fighters when they were at a better stage in their careers. Most people talk about Williard being inactive but Jeffries was inactive for twice as long. Dempsey wins in rankings for his destructiveness, fighting bigger man rather than much smaller win and historical impact. He completely changed boxing with his glitz. Not fair, though. Their rankings are close to me but Johnson being #4 while Dempsey off a top 10 list is bit harsh I think.
He wasn't, especially at that point. But I'm saying some thought the Old Foreman was the better version. I really think the one against Holyfield was better than Morrison, at least. Out-boxing/running from an older Foreman was much easier. However, he was definitely a better thinking fighter. When it becomes that drastic a difference it is. You are saying that fighting a 156 pound fighter compared to a 256 or 224 pound fighter shows little difference? Size isn't everything, but it has an affect to an extent. But come on Burns was a joke of a fighter and small to boot. The rest are old and inactive guys, or much smaller or much more inexperienced fighters. Dempsey beat the much bigger Williard. Beat Gibbons, Carpentier, Firpo, and Sharkey. He destroyed most of these fighters. A lot of the fighters were at great stages of their careers when they fought Dempsey (Besides Williard). On the other hand, a lot of those big names from Johnson aren't great wins in the context of things. Bob being 44 years old and recently KOed at 165 pounds and Jeffries being old and inactive for 6 years.
I went through this another post. The fact is Langford, while small, beat many big men. Size really means nothing. I disagree, Firpo's KO wins aren't impressive as he never KO'd a good fighter. He was very limited. Someone like McVea is much better. Size means nothing and they weren't bigger punchers than what Johnson fought. Willard was never skilled to begin with but Jeffries was considered one of the best HWs of all time at that time. His inactivity takes a lot away from Johnson's win though. What he did outside the ring should have nothing to do with his ranking. The men he fought were not nearly as skilled as the fighters Johnson fought.
Not at this point, in fact before he lost to Jeanette he beat a lightweight. Yep... I know. Williard, Brennan, Smith. Still, he was Koing most of his opponents. One of which was 240+ pounds. Of course they were bigger punchers. What does skill have to do with power? Jeffries was brought out of the wind works to beat the "Black Champ" how can he be one of the best HW of the time when he hadn't fought in 6 years? He was a good referee though Well if you add Tunney on that list I don't think so. But he lost to Tunney. I said Dempsey's resume wasn't as good. However, a lot of those names weren't seasoned fighters and a lot were small. Discrediting Firpo who was virtually KOing everyone while saying Langford was still good while fighting lightweights in previous matches is really overstating things while dowing Dempsey and his opponents. In my opinion, Dempsey defended his title against better opposition. Maybe if Johnson defends the Langfords and other black fighters that warranted a title then he gets props... but he didn't. Legacy plays a small part of my criteria. Also Dempsey was a ferocious killer who KOed a lot of guys. Small points with that.
Langford was 156 ,but Johnson was 185 ,neither were at their prime weight Jeffries was 35 not 37 and after 5 years of inactivity. Are you confusing this with Johnson losing at age 37 to Willard? Mcvey wasnt 19 in all their 3 fights , in fact in their 1st he was only a month short of 20. Jeanette beat Johnson ONCE,on a foul, hardly earth shattering . Johnson beat plenty of big guys look it up Sorry to stick my nose in ,but facts are facts:good