Greater Resume: Lewis or Holmes?

Oh boy,

this is precious!!! Lewis's losses to Mccall and Rahman were a result of luck?? Norton was a journeyman?

I like you Senya. You add a, shall we say......Humerous twist to the board.....

 

I gave you exact quote of what several Ring magazine experts thought about Norton. You presented nothing but your own agenda, that Norton was considered great long before that, which is complete BS for anyone who actually takes time to read some things that were written about Norton back in those days. Holmes having close extremelly controversial fights with old journeyman Norton and very green Witherspoon and then losing to light heavyweight champ two fights in a row and then getting completely destroyed by Tyson, it was more disgraceful than being caught by single punches you didn't expect.

 

If Norton wasn't great, then how come he battled Ali through three highly promoted super fights, challenged Foreman for the world title, and was awarded the WBC belt in 1978? Sure, he was a bum all right..
Yesterday you called him mediocre. Today he's a journeman. I suppose tommarrow you'll call him a tomato can, and do it on the basis that some expert in the past called him such, but with no cited source to back it.

There's more nonsense in this paragraph than I've seen on this forum in months. Once again, Norton was no Journeyman. In 1978, he was viewed by many sports writers and experts as quite possibly the best heavyweight in the division. Tim Witherspoon was 25 years old, and coming off of wins over contender Renaldo Snipes, as well as unbeaten prospects Alfonso Ratliff and Marvin Stinson. He would soon become a world champion within a year following the Holmes fight. Holmes was 2 months shy of his 36th birthday against Spinks in the first fight. In the rematch, he was nearly 37, and arguably kicked Spink's ass. Against Tyson, he was 38 years old, and hadn't fought in 2 years, facing what many considered to be an invincible Tyson at the time. I hardly think that this was a more disgraceful loss, then was Lewis's defeat in the prime of his career to an unknown named Mccall.

That's about all the time I'm willing to spend on your stupidity. :finger

 

Jesus. That's the most hideous scorecard i've ever seen. 10-5 Holmes would be far more accurate (I had it 9-6 Larry).

 

Yes. Why? He was 'reminded' a week before the Frazier fight, he already knew.

 

How did Leon Spinks got a shot, beat Ali, lost in rematch, got destroyed by Coetzee, and got another shot at Holmes soon after? That time period was very bad for heavyweights, that's why.
Read what was written about Norton prior to his fights with Ali and after them, read how Foreman with an injured knee was installed as 4-1 favorite and annihilated Norton, what was written about Norton after that?

Give exact names or sources.

He only had 15 fights under his belt and didn't have a single fight scheduled for 12 rounds prior to that. Pretty much everyone agrees he was green coming into that fight, you want to claim otherwise?

Spinks was a light heavyweight who didn't have a single true (early fights where he weighed a couple of pounds above 175lb limit don't count) heavyweight fight. Holmes promised to destroy him, instead he blew both chances. The way he fought Tyson, several fighters prior to that showed much better boxing against Mike, than the silly tactics Holmes had chosen for that night.

 

I'm going to say something bluntly at the risk of my own banning. The moderators on this board are far too tolerant of trolling, especially as of late. There is at least one author who is currently posting on this very thread, that I feel would be a good candidate for a ban....

 

Yeah, get rid of Bill1234.

 

Ha ha, Ronny had it a draw.

 

Guess who's been insulting an opponent many times and concentrating more on his mental qualities than on subject that was being debated?

 

Guess who's only debate tactic is to call fighters and their opponents mediocre, when ever he's getting his arse kicked in an argument? :ban1

 

Guess who's using contemporary sources to quote opinions about fighters, instead of just speaking his own opinion heavily affected by historical revisionism?

 

Uhhhhh, would it be the same individual who never produces any such sources, and who's opinions are highly in contrast to the bulk of society? :huh

 

You want me to scan that page with Ring's ratings of the worst champions of all time to belive it?

 

You already showed that page, and It's still only one perspective. Also, just because Norton was rated as a lesser champion, doesn't mean he was a mediocre fighter overall. Remember, his reign was short lived, and between the eras of two of history's greatest champions.