The ' Who did he beat' question

George Crowcroft · Jul 17, 2024

InMemoryofJakeLamotta said: ↑

You're trying to criticize Joe Louis for beating Tony Galento
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a pretty accurate assessment.

Jakub79 · Jul 17, 2024

Markus.C.65 said: ↑

From my brief experience on here,I'm often seeing the legacies of great fighters ( mainly HW) debated,but unless you're a fighter like Ali , the question often raised is ' who did he beat ' ?
I've seen it raised in the direction of Holmes,Tyson,Lewis etc.
I was going to post my thoughts on it in a thread re Holmes , but then saw the same subject being discussed in a Tyson thread , so I thought I'd create a thread to discuss this subject.
Holmes often gets hit with the ' he didn't beat another great fighter ' line and so does Tyson , but let's consider this..
It's rare to get more than one great fighter at the same time , so it's not the fighters fault .
Another point is that if you take Holmes , he beat good versions of Norton,Weaver,Shavers,plus the unbeaten and peak Cooney. Had he lost to Cooney , who knows what Cooney MAY have gone on to achieve ? We now view Cooney in a more negative light but Holmes had to beat him to start his decline.
It's the same with Tyson , he beat the unbeaten Tucker and Biggs and as unlikely as it now looks, what's to say if either of them had beaten him they themselves may have gone on to beat the next few fighters that Tyson actually subsequently beat and been seen as significant champions themselves, unlikely but possible.
It could be argued that if a great champion LOSES it strengthens the validity of their era , eg had Ali swept aside Frazier in the FOTC , not taken Norton lightly then beat Foreman in Zaire in the way he did , then you may have had people saying ' Who did Ali beat , he never beat another great fighter ' in much the same way I've seen it said re Holmes and Tyson in particular. If a great champion runs through a list of defenses with relative comfort , it almost invites the view that the era is weak.
I hope my ramblings make some sense ?
Click to expand...

very wise, interesting observations. Of course, you are right. Great victories are sometimes created by chance, circumstances, some age better, some worse, with hindsight we evaluate fights differently that had exactly the same sporting dimension.
A simple example - Bowe defeated Holyfield in 1993 but lost to him a year later. This is a great feat for Bowe and a great feat for Holyfield...

but,.but - what would have happened if Holy had been an even greater fighter and had won against Bowe in the first fight? and then he did it in the second? How would we evaluate this victory? Who was Bowe in 1992, Holy? a guy who was an Olympic vice-champion and in the professional rings his greatest success was a debatable victory over the old, fat and broken Tony Tubbs. The same Tony who didn't make it to the 3rd round with Tyson and who is considered one of the cans of tomato juice in the fight with Tyson. So - If Holyfield had been better and dominated Bowe, would we have rated it higher than Tyson's win over Tyrell Biggs in 1987? I don't think so... but since Holy wasn't that good, a rematch with Bowe is a huge feat. The victory over Moorer in 1997 is assessed similarly. But what if Moorer had lost to Holy in 1994 when they met? Who would he be? what would it be like to win Hokyfield with Moorer? it would be to win against LHW who has not beaten anyone really strong in HW and yes - a great rematch, a great fight and a great success.. Holyfield would never have received such recognition for winning in 1994 even if he had won in an even better style

swagdelfadeel · Jul 17, 2024

Totentanz. said: ↑

The Holmes issue is so funny to me, because I've heard everything under the sun about Holmes- "He doesn't have any quality wins", "He ducked many fighters", "He fought mostly paper bags", "He robbed multiple fighters of wins", and it just seems so apparent at a certain point that people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the era that Holmes reigned over.
He won out over Norton, Weaver, Shavers, Berbick, Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frazier, Smith, and Williams during his reign, with everything post Cooney being on a decline, and him purposefully choosing to take it easy- And through this, he STILL gave opportunities and fights to anybody who was worth a shot. But let's take a look at some fighters he might've "ducked" and see how it comes out.
Ken Norton - Holmes never gave Norton a rematch due to him starting to decline after their fight together, but people still will claim this as an issue on Larry's part, when Norton had only five fights in the following three years, in which he went 2-2-1 against high and low opposition, and in which four of those five men (Shavers, LeDoux, Cobb, and Cooney) later fought Holmes, it wasn't that Holmes was ducking Norton, but rather that Kenny couldn't earn a title shot.
Gerrie Coetzee - Holmes Vs Coetzee was scheduled for '84, but promotional and financial issues made it hard for the fight to happen, money fell through, and Coetzee wasn't a popular fighter at the time due to him being South African and apartheid being a fervent issue at the time (Just look at his fights against Snipes and Thomas where he was robbed of a decision twice).
Michael Dokes - Dokes never earned his way to a title shot or a unification bout with Holmes due to his poor (Randall Cobb, Gerrie Coetzee) or odd performances in the ring (Had a fluke knockout of Weaver and robbed him of a win in the following match).
Greg Page - Page originally was turned down for a shot at the title due to there being a low cost purse attached to their would be fight, and Holmes fought Frazier instead, but after this- Page nearly earned his way to a title shot only to lose to Witherspoon before he fully made it, leading to Tim getting his match against Holmes instead.
Pinklon Thomas - Thomas didn't earn a chance to fight Holmes, with him only beating James Tillis and getting a robbery draw against Gerrie Coetzee, who whooped him quite badly in their match, and thus, he earned the chance to fight Witherspoon instead. On top of that, all of Thomas' callouts of Holmes past that point didn't matter much because of his tendency to not unify.
I think it's just silly when he fought the best men that his era had to offer.
Click to expand...

lol

Saad54 · Jul 17, 2024

Dubblechin said: ↑

Can't believe you typed those posts back-to-back.

Look at the number of guys Holmes beat who later won a title.

There was: Mike Weaver, Trevor Berbick, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith.

Not to mention Ali, Norton, Leon and Ray Mercer, who had also held titles before or were coming off title wins.

If #1 WBC and WBA contender Cooney wasn't the "toughest" guy Holmes could've fought in 1982 ... the other options were Mike Weaver (WBA champ) who Holmes already stopped. Or Greg Page, the #2 contender, who lost on the undercard of Holmes-Cooney to Berbick, who Holmes had also already beaten. After which Page lost to Spoon (who Holmes beat) and Bey (who Holmes also beat) in back-to-back fights,

Galaxy went to 47-1 and retired. Holmes went 48-0 before he lost to Spinks. He later came back and beat another champ in the unbeated Ray Mercer, who vacated the WBO belt before the Holmes match.

The arguments against Holmes are laughable. The same guys bashing Holmes give guys like Galaxy and Lopez a pass and their opponents weren't nearly as good.

Fans are too hypercritical of heavyweights.
Click to expand...

i was comparing holmes and iron mike. i never said holmes neve# bea# an# eli# compe#i#ion. mike cleaned up and unified. holmes never did

m# defense of kaosai had no#ing #o do wi#h holmes.

in 1982, i believe dokes, page, pinklon, Berbick and Wi#erspoon would have all been harder opponen$s #han Coone#

PittSteel · Jul 17, 2024

I think you are making a good point OP.
I'd say that the "who did he beat"-argument is pretty lazy, when it comes to assessing genuine ATGs and HOFs like Tyson, Holmes etc.
They obviously beat serveal highly regarded boxers.
BUT I'd also say that it is objectively true that Holmes and Tyson (just to stay with those examples), do not have anywhere near the highlights on their resumes as an Ali, Lewis or Holyfield for that matter, and this should be significant considerations when rating these respective fighters.

InMemoryofJakeLamotta · Jul 17, 2024

George Crowcroft said: ↑

Actually, that's a pretty accurate assessment.
Click to expand...

Galento was the David Tua of his time. In fact, he may have been better than Tua.

Totentanz. · Jul 17, 2024

InMemoryofJakeLamotta said: ↑

Galento was the David Tua of his time. In fact, he may have been better than Tua.
Click to expand...

Much better.

Pepsi Dioxide · Jul 17, 2024

Markus.C.65 said: ↑

From my brief experience on here,I'm often seeing the legacies of great fighters ( mainly HW) debated,but unless you're a fighter like Ali , the question often raised is ' who did he beat ' ?
I've seen it raised in the direction of Holmes,Tyson,Lewis etc.
I was going to post my thoughts on it in a thread re Holmes , but then saw the same subject being discussed in a Tyson thread , so I thought I'd create a thread to discuss this subject.
Holmes often gets hit with the ' he didn't beat another great fighter ' line and so does Tyson , but let's consider this..
It's rare to get more than one great fighter at the same time , so it's not the fighters fault .
Another point is that if you take Holmes , he beat good versions of Norton,Weaver,Shavers,plus the unbeaten and peak Cooney. Had he lost to Cooney , who knows what Cooney MAY have gone on to achieve ? We now view Cooney in a more negative light but Holmes had to beat him to start his decline.
It's the same with Tyson , he beat the unbeaten Tucker and Biggs and as unlikely as it now looks, what's to say if either of them had beaten him they themselves may have gone on to beat the next few fighters that Tyson actually subsequently beat and been seen as significant champions themselves, unlikely but possible.
It could be argued that if a great champion LOSES it strengthens the validity of their era , eg had Ali swept aside Frazier in the FOTC , not taken Norton lightly then beat Foreman in Zaire in the way he did , then you may have had people saying ' Who did Ali beat , he never beat another great fighter ' in much the same way I've seen it said re Holmes and Tyson in particular. If a great champion runs through a list of defenses with relative comfort , it almost invites the view that the era is weak.
I hope my ramblings make some sense ?
Click to expand...

You can only beat the people that are around when you are fighting.

An example that pops in my head is Marciano, a guy who reigned in an era that isn't considered to be particularly stellar, but he made the most of it beating multiple number 1 contenders or the time (and a number 2 contender I believe during his reign) before his body gave out.

I tend to give guys credit if they are beating top ten contenders and not just cans or journeymen, but that's just me. Though avoiding the #1 guy should be looked at as well IMO (ex: Patterson avoiding Liston)

Markus.C.65 · Jul 17, 2024

Totentanz. said: ↑

The Holmes issue is so funny to me, because I've heard everything under the sun about Holmes- "He doesn't have any quality wins", "He ducked many fighters", "He fought mostly paper bags", "He robbed multiple fighters of wins", and it just seems so apparent at a certain point that people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the era that Holmes reigned over.
He won out over Norton, Weaver, Shavers, Berbick, Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frazier, Smith, and Williams during his reign, with everything post Cooney being on a decline, and him purposefully choosing to take it easy- And through this, he STILL gave opportunities and fights to anybody who was worth a shot. But let's take a look at some fighters he might've "ducked" and see how it comes out.
Ken Norton - Holmes never gave Norton a rematch due to him starting to decline after their fight together, but people still will claim this as an issue on Larry's part, when Norton had only five fights in the following three years, in which he went 2-2-1 against high and low opposition, and in which four of those five men (Shavers, LeDoux, Cobb, and Cooney) later fought Holmes, it wasn't that Holmes was ducking Norton, but rather that Kenny couldn't earn a title shot.
Gerrie Coetzee - Holmes Vs Coetzee was scheduled for '84, but promotional and financial issues made it hard for the fight to happen, money fell through, and Coetzee wasn't a popular fighter at the time due to him being South African and apartheid being a fervent issue at the time (Just look at his fights against Snipes and Thomas where he was robbed of a decision twice).
Michael Dokes - Dokes never earned his way to a title shot or a unification bout with Holmes due to his poor (Randall Cobb, Gerrie Coetzee) or odd performances in the ring (Had a fluke knockout of Weaver and robbed him of a win in the following match).
Greg Page - Page originally was turned down for a shot at the title due to there being a low cost purse attached to their would be fight, and Holmes fought Frazier instead, but after this- Page nearly earned his way to a title shot only to lose to Witherspoon before he fully made it, leading to Tim getting his match against Holmes instead.
Pinklon Thomas - Thomas didn't earn a chance to fight Holmes, with him only beating James Tillis and getting a robbery draw against Gerrie Coetzee, who whooped him quite badly in their match, and thus, he earned the chance to fight Witherspoon instead. On top of that, all of Thomas' callouts of Holmes past that point didn't matter much because of his tendency to not unify.
I think it's just silly when he fought the best men that his era had to offer.
Click to expand...

Good post.
I think you have to live through an era to have a real perspective of it.
As a kid I remember older writers saying how great Joe Louis was and that it was a shame people of my generation didn't have that knowledge and that his achievements were fading into the past . I've realized that is now what has happened to the Ali / Holmes eras that I remember as a kid / young man. It's similar to the Tyson era. It's easy to be dismissive of his reign or at least underestimate it given we know what came next , but in real time his reign 86-90 seemed awesome.
My memory of Holmes was that he fought regularly and was often involved in good fights. He always seemed to find a way to win.
I think he suffered slightly by coming to prominence quite late , he wasn't really accepted universally as champion until he beat Ali and by that point he'd already turn 30, which in those days was seen as approaching the veteran stage whereas now that age status seems rather different.
It's also easy with hindsight to downgrade his win over Cooney , but in real time Cooney was seen as a career defining fight for Holmes.
I often recall the odds for a fight to give it the perspective it had at the time and for that fight Holmes was only the slightest of favourites with the odds makers.

Markus.C.65 · Jul 17, 2024

George Crowcroft said: ↑

True, but if the fighters of your era all suck, you don't get bonus points just for beating them.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case for the eras that we are generally discussing .
In any case regarding your quote if ' you ' ( or the relevant champion) didn't beat them , they might not suck ?

Markus.C.65 · Jul 17, 2024

thistle said: ↑

Kudos to those very thorough breakdowns above. So many arm chair critics who never take the full reality into analysis and cite inaccurate, misleading or complete manipulation into such breakdowns... Boxing is littered with so many proper & ligitimate reasons for contests happening or not and not always sacred.

As I always say there are hundreds of great fighters at the TOP with little between them, except of of course, as pointed out here, Life, Circumstances and Machination.

Funny too, when I read some of the breakdowns of fighters on Internet forums, I always think, do you think, the Boxers and people who were there and actually know what transpired or not, do you think they give a monkeys F what people years or decades later try to say about them...

I also think, go have a pop at them, if you're so sure they don't add up to much and see what the outcome would be ..

Great explanations of reality presented here gentleman and especially when and if such truths indeed can be found written in Recorded History.

Well spoken Sirs.
Click to expand...

Markus.C.65 · Jul 17, 2024

Dynamicpuncher said: ↑

Holmes never beat a great fighter no but to be fair during his reign he never actually had a great fighter too fight so that's not his fault. His other rivals from his era were too hit and miss so there was never really any big rivals for him to set up big fights, did some of the contenders like Page, Thomas, deserve shots towards the end of Holmes's reign ? yes but again a fighter like Page was too hit and miss and i don't think Page would've added much to Holmes's resume even though it would've been nice to see the fight in 83.

Holmes still beat 15 ranked Heavyweights which is the 3rd most wins any other Heavyweight has over ranked Heavyweights apart from Louis, Ali.
Click to expand...

Agree
But worth adding that many saw Cooney as potentially an excellent fighter UNTIL Holmes beat him. Holmes was a very narrow favourite with the odds makers for that fight .
It's easy to forget how big that fight was .
It was a huge event.

Totentanz. · Jul 17, 2024

Markus.C.65 said: ↑

Good post.
I think you have to live through an era to have a real perspective of it.
As a kid I remember older writers saying how great Joe Louis was and that it was a shame people of my generation didn't have that knowledge and that his achievements were fading into the past . I've realized that is now what has happened to the Ali / Holmes eras that I remember as a kid / young man. It's similar to the Tyson era. It's easy to be dismissive of his reign or at least underestimate it given we know what came next , but in real time his reign 86-90 seemed awesome.
My memory of Holmes was that he fought regularly and was often involved in good fights. He always seemed to find a way to win.
I think he suffered slightly by coming to prominence quite late , he wasn't really accepted universally as champion until he beat Ali and by that point he'd already turn 30, which in those days was seen as approaching the veteran stage whereas now that age status seems rather different.
It's also easy with hindsight to downgrade his win over Cooney , but in real time Cooney was seen as a career defining fight for Holmes.
I often recall the odds for a fight to give it the perspective it had at the time and for that fight Holmes was only the slightest of favourites with the odds makers.
Click to expand...

The thing about Holmes was that he wasn't really prevalent in his true prime years because he spent so long as Ali's sparring partner, and even if he was getting fights, he couldn't be relevant because he was in The Greatest's shadow, and even once he was the new champion this continued to happen.
It's always sweet to hear everybody's personal experience from back then, as I can only know so much from researching.

Markus.C.65 · Jul 17, 2024

PittSteel said: ↑

I think you are making a good point OP.
I'd say that the "who did he beat"-argument is pretty lazy, when it comes to assessing genuine ATGs and HOFs like Tyson, Holmes etc.
They obviously beat serveal highly regarded boxers.
BUT I'd also say that it is objectively true that Holmes and Tyson (just to stay with those examples), do not have anywhere near the highlights on their resumes as an Ali, Lewis or Holyfield for that matter, and this should be significant considerations when rating these respective fighters.
Click to expand...

I respect your reply and see your point , but my point is that Holmes and Tysons reigns seem weaker now than they did in real time and I'm just suggesting that real time may be a better judge ?
I'd sight the Holmes v Cooney fight.
In real time it was seen as a 50/50 contest with Cooney hyped off the scale. Holmes' win and the subsequent decline of his opponent ( who'd actually put up a great fight ) diminished the event when viewed from a distance, whereas immediately after the fight , the win for Holmes looked a career definer.
It was much the same for Tyson , in that most of his opponents didn't achieve much after he beat them .

Markus.C.65 · Jul 17, 2024

Totentanz. said: ↑

The thing about Holmes was that he wasn't really prevalent in his true prime years because he spent so long as Ali's sparring partner, and even if he was getting fights, he couldn't be relevant because he was in The Greatest's shadow, and even once he was the new champion this continued to happen.
It's always sweet to hear everybody's personal experience from back then, as I can only know so much from researching.
Click to expand...

He was Ali's sparring partner for Zaire I believe. At that point Holmes was 24 y.o. and 9-0 as a pro.
His career moved slowly and if I recall he often fought on the Ali undercard.
His first significant win was Roy Williams in 76 , it may well have been on the Ali - Young bill.
You are right he was in Ali's shadow.
Everyone was.
I remember when Ali won the rematch v Spinks thinking that Ali wasn't the best HW anymore .
Better fighters were short changed by Ali hanging onto the limelight longer than he should.

Log in or Sign up

The ' Who did he beat' question

George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

Jakub79 Active Member Full Member

swagdelfadeel Obsessed with Boxing

Saad54 Boxing Junkie Full Member

PittSteel Member Full Member

InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

Totentanz. Gator Wrestler Extraordinaire banned Full Member

Pepsi Dioxide Boxing Junkie Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Totentanz. Gator Wrestler Extraordinaire banned Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

The ' Who did he beat' question

George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

Jakub79 Active Member Full Member

swagdelfadeel Obsessed with Boxing

Saad54 Boxing Junkie Full Member

PittSteel Member Full Member

InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

Totentanz. Gator Wrestler Extraordinaire banned Full Member

Pepsi Dioxide Boxing Junkie Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Totentanz. Gator Wrestler Extraordinaire banned Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member

Markus.C.65 Member Full Member