[Deleted by user.]

We have discussed this before and as before I always end up agreeing with your reply

 

I am sorry but I find this to be excuse making. Obviously beating Page and Thomas over David Bay and Marvis Frazier would have increased his standing.

 

Holmes had size, speed, brains, conditioning and as much heart as any fighter that ever lived ... not GOAT but without question a highly respected, top tier all time great at heavyweight ...

 

Larry was shyte. A severely overrated guy.

 

A few other problems with hypothetical H2H, besides being subjective, is that it is also abstract - taking the respawned, perceived best version over and over again - which does not play out in an actual career.

Worse, still, that perceived best version might be sourced from a handful of fights - worst case scenario, even just one fight - say Buster Douglas vs Tyson.

Even if we could emphatically prove that “version” of Buster beats all other HW Champs in history - that can only have so much weight and in and of itself certainly can’t automatically instal Buster as an ATG.

The way I look at it, the irony is that a fighter increases his successful H2H projections based on the breadth, depth and greater variations of opposition types he prevailed over.

And for a fighter to actually prove his dominance over the field - it would require the time and frequency of fights that would have to (in terms of probabilities) involve some off peak performances < best version (eg see Louis v Conn 1) but performances that still see the Champ prevailing given his overall qualities as an ATG.

Drawing from a smaller sampling of “best versions” defeats the purpose of the exercise. It also invites the “defence” invoked when one examines any fights outside of that smaller sampling - that “defence” being - “Well, that wasn’t the best version of so and so - so that performance has to be stricken from the record”. A circular and self protecting argument.

Relying completely on resumes can also be problematic in so far as one might view a # 1 contender in one era as the equivalent to another eras’s lower ranked contenders - and that deduction could also involve H2H hypothesising - not just based on the resumes of the ranked fighters in question.

A blanket argument against a given era could be a fine resume achieved in a weak era - I guess determining a weak era involves some degree of subjectivity also, including some H2H speculations.

As to the view that a Champion can only beat the best available to him - I totally get that and they are obviously not to blame for their perceived lack of available competition - and most of the time I don’t think anyone is “blaming” them for that - but, in all objectivity, their manifest achievements are still limited to the perceived quality of their opposition - so, while a Champ might’ve fought the “best”available, pundits themselves can’t be “blamed” for factoring in the quality (or lack thereof) of that opposition.

 

agree Larry Holmes is the best hw of all time in my opinion, better boxer than Ali, Ali j was a better athlete but about skills holmes is above

 

I've never said the criteria is written in stone but when judging boxers the base has to be what they did in the ring and if you go otherwise well it's not really a greatest boxer list. The guts of it is in what they did.....boxing. One can do a list based strictly on political impact et al but it's not a greatest boxer list. Fleischers ridiculous bias has been noted by a great many and George is as zany as it gets. This was just underlined today by Spreadeagles response to you in another thread. It's well known, commonly talked about and hardly confined to his boxing list. Individuality comes thru via how you judges era's, longevity and the like.

I think my thoughts extend outside this community and are quite orthodox and normal. I have mags and articles going back many many decades and their lists and criteria are quite similar and that's certainly not the ESB crowd. Imagine how many people read these lists, criteria and opinions reached. It's hardly confined to ESB. McGrain's own lists outside of here have been read thousands of times and reached countless people outside ESB. I'm sure many were influenced.

Greatness is objective, to a point, a point of common sense.

Well what are these examples of "weird criteria" so i can better understand where you are at? What would you say is the "customary range"? At some point you simply can't make a square peg fit into a round hole. If you get too silly with it all you may as well be talking "feet".

Indeed. It is invariably, i value longevity, or i value quality of opposition, or i value superhot streaks that didn't last, or i value historical impact. It's almost always "common sense" themes, themes that matter judging boxers. This is where subjectivity, individuality and opinion comes in.

Yes, absolutely. Things we can witness any amount of times in here.

For sure, and it's based on what they have achieved on the golf course with the subjectiveness of era's. Let me give you an example, based on my own knowledge of golf. It was easier to win in Jack Nicklaus' day for Jack because there were only about four players that could win big tournies consistently while in Woods era there are dozens of guys that can catch fire and win a tournament. This absolutely holds water and is one criteria that needs to be heavily scrutinized when making a pick, among others of course.

You don't have to play dumb we both know you've seen your share of this on here and have been a fixture as bloody long as i have

And again i think it well and truly bursts thru ESB boundaries as explained earlier. Where do you think ESB got it's tendencies and standards? Do you think one man invented them? If so who?

George is weird, let's call a card a card. His list is only one little part of it.

Actually why don't you put forward your best explanation of the criteria George uses to place Patterson at #6. What criteria do you think would place Patterson fairly at #6? Do you know what his criteria was? There's a lot of talk about other criteria and i'd be immensely interested in some that explains GF's reasoning.

My point is boxers don't automatically know everything about boxing. Also aren't you the one keen to break down or expand criterial boundaries?

Already addressed in full. I have to admit tho i'd love to see us labelled a cult, a boxing cult. How good would that be.

An extremely conventional list adhering to many common sense principles with a teeny dash of flair. I like it, a lot. You've even submitted to the big 2!!!!!

How would one apply their criteria? I don't think anyone would ever be able to figure it out. Well pre 1930 is obviously a huuuuge part of Fleischers criteria.

 

Tyson and Tucker were really not contenders until after and old Holmes lost the title. I actually had Larry beating M. Spinks... on both occasions. I would have loved to have seen Holmes vs Dokes as his hand-speed would have given Larry problems. I was never that impressed with Page and Thomas. They each had only a few noteworthy wins. Although, they were without question more skilled and worthy of challenge rather than guys like Zanon, Frank, and Jones who Larry opted to fight instead.

 

Yes for sure, I am just saying that even if Holmes had beaten those guys I doubt he would have got a huge amount of extra credit given these dudes propensity for lethargy and self destructive behavior. Also as I have said before the window of opportunity that was open to make a credible fight before they blew up and lost was fairly narrow, apart from Thomas who as Dynamic Puncher has said was on a long winning streak.

 

Realistically in a perfect world I believe Mike Weaver rematch should've happened, Pinklon Thomas fight definitely, and fights against Coetzee, Page, Dokes, either of one them.

The big knock for Holmes is he never unified, and he avoided some dangerous challengers who would've been stylistically very problematic for him.

I understand what your saying but if Holmes would've unified, and beat some of the more challenging opponents his reign would've been more respected.

That's why overall I think Lewis is rated higher than Holmes.

 

I agree it is crazy Holmes never unified! He seemed so desperate to be seen as the natural successor to Ali and be respected by the man in the street but it never happened. I cannot believe there would not have been a lot of interest and money in a unification bout. I beleive politics and timing played a part (it's not like the rival champs held onto the title that long before blowing it) but as you say a rematch to unify against Weaver seems like a no brainer.

 

I think at the time Holmes was considered "The Man", and the other alphabet titlists were seen as pretenders to the throne. I think that's how Holmes see himself and didn't feel the need to unify.

Overall I don't think anyone doubts Holmes wasn't the best of his era due to his consistency. But I can't help but think that Holmes did avoid certain opponents towards the end of his reign, I'm not saying it was all Holmes's fault. I know a proposed fight with Coetzee fell through which wasn't Holmes's fault.

But then you have Pinklon Thomas who Holmes flat out said he wouldn't fight, and then he avoided his number 1 mandatory Greg Page, but then had no issue fighting Bonecrusher Smith who was also his mandatory but obviously considered way less of a threat being 15 fight novice.

I know it seems like I rag on Holmes alot, but really I like Holmes alot as a fighter and his career set was the first one I ever watched which my dad bought me.

But you have to see call it as you see it whether you like a fighter or not.

 

And I am saying that you are wrong. It would have been better than the crap that Holmes actually beat.

 

Your last sentence is the important one.

 

Describing a fighter as crap is pretty harsh but then I accused the others as fat coke heads so who am I to judge