Half of Larry Holmes' best wins were against inexperienced fighters

I totally agree with you on the fact it wasnt LARRIES fault . But these green fighter who never amounted to much simply beat very bad experienced fighters in a **** poor era . in fact it wasn:t even that bad . the history of the devision is one where a good fighter has beaton ones not so good . it was never really that strong .

 

He struggled . And was the benefactor of being DONs boy !

 

Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

Witherspoon and Smith both went on to hold some very good wins and prove to be very good fighters.

 

Sorry but Im not .

 

:roll: true but it wasnt much .

 

Was he or was he not experienced?

That's what this thread is about -- obviously it's clear most of those inexperienced fighters had established they were better and more deserving than some more experience guys (i.e. Ocasio instead of Young) of the day.

 

That's right! They went on to do ok, because both were green kids when Holmes beat them..........

 

It's easy to play the troll game:

Marciano's last seven opponents at the time he fought them had a combined 71 losses, or something like that.

And far from being green, they were almost all fossils. And it's hard to argue that any, save Don Cockell, were anywhere close to their peak.

And Joe Louis? Don't get me started.

:admin

 

As I said earlier, Smith beat the 21-0 Frank Bruno litterally just before his fight with Holmes.

Again, even though Witherspoon was green in the Holmes fight, he put on the best performance of his career against Holmes, but it just wasn't enough.

 

Would you have prefered him to fight the more experienced fighters that the green guys beat just before their fight with Holmes?

 

How many fights did Smith have when he fought Holmes? Maybe ten??

 

The thread starter is ignorant. To be fair all the opponets he listed were in the RING magazine top 10. Also, Spinks, Mercer were champions or former champions when Holmes fought them.