the what fights did you watch today\scorecard thread.

Pat, you're right it is a toughie to score on how things were moving about during this fight. Momentums changing constantly. I scored this about 3 years ago on @PhillyPhan69 's old FOTW series (which I loved). I had it a bit closer than yours, but again, the momentum during the fight was changing constantly. Great fight. This is how I had it:

Bobby Chacon v Cornelius Boza Edwards II

Round 1: 10-10 Even
Round 2: 10-8 Chacon (scores a knockdown)
Round 3: 10-8 Boza (scores a knockdown)
Round 4: 10-9 Boza
Round 5: 10-9 Boza
Round 6: 10-9 Boza
Round 7: 10-9 Boza
Round 8: 10-9 Chacon
Round 9: 10-10 Even
Round 10: 10-9 Chacon
Round 11: 10-9 Chacon
Round 12: 10-8 Chacon (scores a knockdown)

Total: 114-113 Chacon (actual scores: 115-113, 115-112 and 117-111 all for Chacon)

In a word; phenomenal!

 

That first round is one of the few where I can’t argue at all with it being even despite a knockdown, even though Boza didn’t do any major damage.

I went with a three-point margin in the final round with only one knockdown because Boza was battered the rest of the way and stood up only by the power of his own grit (and Bobby’s exhaustion).

One wonders how this would turn out over 15 rounds given how tides kept shifting. Chacon was well in command in the 12th but might have punched himself out and Boza was nothing if not resilient.

 

I think Boza was cooked, personally. His legs had lost their strength in the late rounds, and his punches no longer had power. He'd have been stopped, I think.

Provided Bobby's face didn't fall off first.

 

Because Witherspoon was fighting tougher opposition than Holmes was at that point in his career. It's the fact that Holmes was choosing in what he perceived easier opposition between 83-85 is where Holmes rightly gets criticized, not to mention Holmes never defended his belt against a number 1 contender.

Holmes after having a close fight vs Witherspoon didn't defend his title vs his mandatory Greg Page. And instead fought two very undeserving challengers in Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier. The Frazier fight was considered such a poor fight the WBC didn't even sanction it.

Compare that to Witherspoon who had a competitive fight vs Greg Page which wasn't controversial at all BTW, he then fought the undefeated Pinklon Thomas straight after Page fight who Holmes didn't want to fight.

Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas are two fighters Holmes didn't fancy fighting.

Witherspoon after having another competitive fight vs Tubbs which was also not controversial, fought the big punching dangerous Frank Bruno in his own backyard at Wembley.

The rematch vs Witherspoon would've probably been overlooked if Holmes fought the likes of Greg Page or Pinklon Thomas two fighters who were major threats to him at the time. The fact he didn't fight either of them is a bit of an asterisks over his title reign.

 

@scartissue @Saintpat Here's my scorecard from awhile back.


Bobby Chacon vs Cornelius Boza Edwards 2

1 Chacon 10-9 for me this wasn't a knockdown
2 Chacon 10-8 knockdown
3 Edwards 10-8 knockdown
4 Edwards
5 Edwards
6 Edwards
7 Edwards
8 Edwards
9 Chacon
10 Chacon
11 Chacon
12 Chacon 10-8 knockdown

113-112 Chacon

So after watching their 1st fight i thought i'd watch this classic again, as i've only seen it once and that years ago. I'm not really gonna go into a full detailed analysis, as pretty much everyone knows about this classic fight but i'll just point out a few things.

The knockdown in the 1st round for me wasn't a knockdown, Boza Edwards was already going down after slipping and then Chacon hit him. For me that's not a legit knockdown and there's no way Chacon deserves a 10-8 round for that as Edwards was clearly winning the round and that was more of a slip.

I felt like Edwards pretty much controlled rounds 3-8 he was the constant aggressor, backing up Chacon on the ropes and was out landing Chacon 2-1, Chacon would have spurts where he would fight off the ropes and land some decent right hands and flurries. But for me it wasn't enough to win the rounds in which Edwards was working for 3 minutes of the round.

The fight for me started to turn around in the 9th round, Edwards punches didn't have the same power as they had earlier. And Chacon was now starting to land the better punches off the ropes. From then on it was all Chacon for me as he swept rounds 9-12, and with the big rally in the 12th round with the knockdown Chacon wins the fight by 1 point on my card.

Overall the fight was as good as i remember, although i don't remember Ferdie Pacheco being so over dramatic with his commentary regarding Chacon. I'm not gonna lie it was a bit grating on my ears, like mate Chacon is always fighting back he's in a great fight competing well, why do you keep spouting about Chacon has a family and etc and wanting to stop the fight ?

Lastly i do think the 1st round is kind of controversial ? for me this isn't a legit knockdown. And i never see this talked about when discussing this fight, and for me this round made the difference on my scorecard.

 

What makes a fight controversial? Tim won split and majority decisions, so there was some controversy among the actual judges as to who deserved to win. Fact is nobody much cared about who got those decisions because nobody cared about the fighters or those fights.

Holmes fought David Bey, who beat Page. He fought Marvis and Frank because those fights paid more. Anyone would be foolish to turn down the bigger money to fight those guys.

 

Alot of people at ringside thought Witherspoon beat Holmes and it was considered highly controversial at the time. I don't think people viewed Tubbs vs Witherspoon in the same light considering if you look on eye of the ring, it has a 0 percent controversy rating with majority of the scorecards having Witherspoon winning by atleast 6 rounds.

As i said it's not so much that Holmes didn't necessarily fight Witherspoon again, it's the fact he wasn't fighting dangerous opposition after the Witherspoon scare. Holmes carefully picked what he perceived as very winnable fights so he could ride off into the sunset beating Marciano's record of 49-0. There's even interviews where Holmes states he won't fight the likes of Thomas and is only interested in the money at point.

I guess i can't fault him as Holmes's was always a shrewd businessman as evident of his business ventures after he retired. That still doesn't mean there is some question marks over Holmes's reign in regards to never fighting a number 1 contender, never unifying, and not fighting the most dangerous contenders towards the last few years of his reign.

 

So you figure as many split and majority decisions as Witherspoon fought, none of them deserved rematches. But Tim deserved a rematch after Holmes.

 

Again you're missing the point i've already stated It's not that Holmes didn't fight Witherspoon again it's the fact he was fighting easier opposition after the Witherspoon scare.

If Holmes would've fought the likes of Page or Thomas just even one of them, the Witherspoon rematch wouldn't of been such an asterisks. As Holmes would've fought another dangerous top contender and it could've been overlooked.

As i said Witherspoon after those competitive fights vs the likes of Page, Tubbs, fought Frank Bruno and Pinklon Thomas which is night and day difference between Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

 

Larry fought Witherspoon, who was presumably better than guys Tim beat.

He fought David Bey, who beat Page.

He fought Bonecrusher Smith, who would then be one of those tough guys Tim beat … and who would then knock out Tim in their rematch.

Carl Williams too, who was a bright and rising prospect.

So if he fights Page but not Bey, who beat him, that’s better? How?

If he fights Pinklon and beats him but never faces Williams and The Truth had gone on to great things, you’d be saying how he should have fought Williams.

Yes, Larry had some easy defenses. (And vs. Marvis and Frank got paid handsomely for them, which is why he fought them.) Name me a fighter who had 20 successful title defenses who didn’t have a few easy ones mixed in — in fact, many champions who had a handful of defenses or less had a few easy ones.

 

We've had this debate many times so I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this because we never agree on this so I'm going to make one last post on the subject.

The problem with your arguments it's always with hindsight involved you're talking about Bey beating Page what has that got to do with Page being the rightful mandatory that he earned in 1983 ? So by your logic every champion should be able to avoid their mandatory and take on easier defences for more money ? I don't agree with that sentiment at all, that's basically encouraging ducking with boxing politics allowing champions to fight weaker opposition. The fact is Greg Page earnt his shot and was the rightful mandatory and should've got his shot end of.

I mean what is it even the point of earning your shot at being a mandatory then going by your logic.

Bonecrusher was 15 fight novice with no Amateur background who had lost every single round to a green Frank Bruno before scoring a miracle come from behind stoppage in last round. Williams was a 16 fight novice who had recently been on the deck twice by the only notable name he'd faced in James Tillis.

So you're telling me they were more deserving than a Pinklon Thomas who beat Witherspoon far easier than Holmes did and was undefeated for 7 years ?

As for me saying I would've changed my narrative and said Holmes should've fought Williams had he gone on to achieve great things ? No I wouldn't because that's the hindsight argument which I've alluded to earlier which I don't believe in.

Thomas was the most deserving of his shot in 84-85 and should've got his shot, but Holmes said himself he refused to fight Thomas and was only interested in money and not fighting the most dangerous contenders anymore. Hence what I said earlier that Holmes after Witherspoon scare was choosing what he perceived as very winnable fights to finish out his career beating Marciano's record.

Finally as for champions fighting a few weak challengers ? Yes of course that always happens even Ali who has the GOAT resume at Heavyweight had a few easy defences. But heres where the problem lies with Holmes he never fought a number 1 contender, never unified, and his resume at least in the last 3 years or so of his reign has a serious asterisks over it missing out on some top contenders and not unifying.

To put it into context after the Cobb fight Holmes's list of title challengers were questionable to say the least. Lucien Rodriguez had no business fighting for a world title, and then after that fight up until Holmes fought a Light Heavyweight in Michael Spinks. All of his title challengers had under 20 fights apart from the very undeserving Scott Frank who had 21 fights who also had no business fighting Holmes for the title.

Final thoughts I've got no real issues with Holmes's resume from 78-82 although I think he should've unified and gave Weaver a rematch but from 83-85 is a whole different matter which I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on.

 

Whose measure are you using for the ‘never fought the No. 1 contender’? He fought Shavers, who won an eliminator vs. Norton, and Leon Spinks, who won an eliminator vs. Bernardo Mercado. If you’re talking Ring rankings or something like that where someone else with a belt is ‘No. 1’ then saying he didn’t unify is the same thing — but he DID twice sign contracts to unify with Gerrie Coetzee (the money fell through both times; have no idea what Ring ranked him at the time). And Ring magazine rankings aren’t the people who sanction the belt, so if he fought guys who won eliminators then he’s fighting who they mandate him to fight, which is a … mandatory.

You’re all over the place with your selective ‘who Larry should have fought when’ stuff: first he should have given Witherspoon a rematch — next he’s a novice who didn’t deserve a shot; you say Witherspoon was fighting better opposition ‘at the time’ as a basis for this whole thing, and one of those people he fought was Page … who lost to Bey (in this time frame) and Larry fought Bey instead of Page and that’s somehow a duck of Page; etc.

There’s a lot of Goldilocks going on here: this contender isn’t experienced enough, that one is too old, but of course for you where it concerns Holmes none of them is ‘just right.’ Bonecrusher was a dangerous puncher when Larry dismantled him, same as he was when Tim outpointed him, same as he was when he crushed Witherspoon in one round. But let me guess: Smith was ‘just right’ when Tyson beat him, lol.

 

How am i all over the place ? i'm not being selective at all you just make excuses for Holmes avoiding Page trying to justify him fighting weaker opposition. So as i said by your logic every champion should be able to avoid their mandatory then via boxing politics being able to fight weaker opposition and you think that's fair ? baffling. What is even the point of having mandatories or having title eliminators then ? The fighter who wins the title eliminator should get their shot end of. Didn't Bonecrusher win an eliminator to get his shot vs Holmes ? why did Holmes have no trouble fighting him then ?

As for Witherspoon rematch again read the bolded.

It's not that Holmes didn't fight Witherspoon again it's the fact he was fighting easier opposition after the Witherspoon scare. People could overlook Holmes not fighting Witherspoon again had he fought the best available contenders but he didn't.

Also Witherspoon vs Tubbs/Page were not highly controversial decisions like Holmes/Witherspoon. It was generally accepted Witherspoon won both fights pretty clearly. Also Witherspoon fought two very dangerous contenders after in Bruno who had KO'ed Coetzee in 1 round, and an undefeated highly dangerous Pinklon Thomas.

It's not being selective i'm stating facts Holmes won a controversial decision over Witherspoon in which most ringsiders thought he lost. He then followed that up with a weak string of challengers aswell as avoiding his mandatory. So he didn't rematch Witherspoon nor did he fight his mandatory so that will leave an asterisks over his resume.

Not at all comparable to Witherspoon's situation vs Page and Tubbs.

Again so what if Page lost to Bey later on ? you keep saying this hindsight argument but it's got nothing to do with Page being Holmes's mandatory in 1983. You might aswell say because Holmes beat Berbick in 1981, and then Berbick beat Thomas in 1986 that Holmes didn't need to fight Thomas either i'm not buying that argument.

This is what you're not realizing Holmes said himself that he wasn't willing to fight the best contenders anymore and was only interested in the money. He flat out stated he wouldn't fight someone like Pinklon Thomas so this is why i don't understand. In one sentence you're saying Holmes didn't avoid anyone and fought best available contenders, yet you have Holmes stating himself he's not fighting best contenders anymore and flat out refuses to fight Thomas. So your comment doesn't really make much sense to me when the fighter himself is stating otherwise.

You also state a 16 fight novice Carl Williams as a credible challenger for Holmes, yet his only notable opponent was James Tillis in which he got floored twice. Yet Greg Page beating Renaldo Snipes easier than Holmes did and beating a better version of James Tillis. Yet Greg Page isn't a credible contender to you, and you are fine justifying Holmes avoiding him to fight 2 poor challengers again don't make much sense to me.

Of course Smith was at a better point in his career when he fought Tyson, He was on a 4 win streak coming off early stoppages vs Witherspoon, Weaver, and wins over Bey, Ferguson. That's the best run of form Bonecrusher had in his entire career not to mention being a belt holder.

Bonecrusher had 10 more fights and another 3 years experience between the Holmes-Tyson fights. Which is pretty vital for a guy that had no amateur experience. I'm not saying Bonecrusher become a boxing wizard in those 3 years, but obviously with more experience added to the fact he was on the best run of his entire career. I don't think it's biased to say Tyson beat a more accomplished version of Bonecrusher with a bit more experience, although it's also fair to say Bonecrusher gave a better effort in the Holmes fight than he did in Tyson fight in which shat the sheets.

 

@Saintpat Also i don't want to clog up the scorecard thread with this debate so we can leave it now if you want. Or we can continue the discussion in a PM but as i said we won't see eye to eye on this as we clearly have totally different views on this.

 

Please allow me to apologize to you @Dynamicpuncher and the board — particularly the ones who frequent this thread — for taking us off track with my diatribe on Holmes. I went overboard and this wasn’t the place for it. I appreciate Dynamo here for pointing it out and not wanting to clog up this thread (my favorite thread on any message board anywhere on any topic btw) of all places with a back-and-forth.

Please keep posting your scores and accounts of fights, all. I read every single one of them.