First of all, congratulations to Larry Holmes for his enshrinement into the IBHOf, certainly well deserved. Not trying to bash either of these great champions and there's no wrong answer, but in your honest opinion, whose 20 defenses of there title was more impressive, Bernard Hopkins' or Larry Holmes'. Explain your rationale, i.e., competition, etc.
A tough era? I'll give you a chance to back-peddle out or desperately try and justify that idiotic statement before ripping you a new one :deal
Yeah neither man fought in a great era for their division ( thus the 20 defences each) but I go for Holmes
I haven't been on this forum a long time but every time I see the name JACK PRESSCOT, it comes with a biased, uneducated, stupid ignorant ass comment. Is he always like this?
Yea neither fighter opposition was tremendous but I think Holmes' opposition was a little bit better so I vote Holmes.
lol @ Holmes dominating a tough era. He was a great fighter, but how many other great fighters did he fight in their primes?? Tim Witherspoon is probably the best win he has on his resume.
Holmes's record as a whole is definetly more impressive (if we consider his dominant pre-title defense wins over Roy Williams and Earnie Shavers avec his epic win over Ken Norton, and his post-title wins against Ray Mercer and Oliver "Birthday Boy" McCall) and while it's a little closer if we're just considering title opposition, I think Holmes still clearly takes it. His wins over Tim Witherspoon, Carl Williams, Earnie Shavers and Mike Weaver were all very solid indeed. What's Hopkins's best title defence anyway? Tito Trinidad, who was at his best at welterweight, and who was never a p4p elite like he was hyped to be? William Joppy? Howard "Sleeper Train" Eastman?
You're a self-admitted Holmes fan (like me) but just to play devil's advocate, this notion that Tito was no better than a Welterweight is horse****! He hadf just DESTROYED Joppy and was a 4:1 favorite against Hopkins. B-Hops most significant wins are probably Tarver, Trinidad, Winky, Holmes, Johnson, Joppy, Mercado, Echols, and Eastman.
Hmm.... In Holmes's defense, he was linear for more defenses, and beat a more respected fighter (Ken Norton compared to Segundo Mercado) for his belt. Going against Holmes is that he never unified (when there was less belts to unify), had much tougher fights (for which he never gave rematches). In Hopkins's favor, he dominated an undefeated champ and future HOFer, fully unified, didn't struggle or win any controversial decisions (and convincingly won the rematch to first win the belt, and convincingly won the rematch after a freak no contest). Going against Hopkins is that he was just a titleholder for the first few years of his reign. Sure, everyone thought of him as the most talented and skilled of the titleholders during that time, but boxing is about proving, not speculation. Both Holmes and Hopkins had some weak opposition, but Hopkins probably had more "gimmes", especially in the first couple years.
Wow Jack...you are actually correct for once. Holmes did dominate during a tough era.....too bad it was a tough era for MWs...the HW scene was decent to awful during that time. God sometimes you truely amaze me. atsch
I think you're overstating Hopkins's case. Winky was 10 lbs over middleweight, where his lack of size was already becoming a problem. Trinidad was not only 13 lbs over his best weight, but was hugely overrated and had never beaten an elite boxer. If Howard Eastman was a club fighter, he would have been a more threatening opponent- club fighters at least try to win!
