The ' Who did he beat' question

Surely, you must be joking. Men like Witherspoon were better than Norton prime for prime, much less than one that's starting to slip.

 

Why do you think Witherspoon was better prime for prime?

 

Holmes had to walk away from his title before it was stripped for saying he would fight Page, signing to fight Page and then refusing to. Page and Snipes fought an eliminator to meet Holmes as his mandatory.

Bey vs Page wasn't to fight Holmes, Holmes chose Bey after he won.

McGrain did a thread a while back on how many times the heavyweight champs fought the next best fighter in the division. From memory Holmes only fought 1 and was way back in the list.

 

I think Witherspoom achieved more he was a two time world champion and has more filler to his record.

Witherspoon beat.....

Bonecrusher
Page
Tillis
Snipes
Bruno
Tubbs
M.Williams
C.Williams
Gonzalez

Norton beat.....

Young
Ali
Quarry = He was past it though.
Bobick
Cobb
Kirkman

Norton has the better single wins over Ali and Young but I think Witherspoon had a better career overall.

H2H wise there is not alot between them either.

 

Were C. Williams and Gonzalez ranked?

I think Quarry was ranked in the top 3 when Norton beat him, so past it is a bit much a think. He took it on short notice though I think, and his shape probably wasn't the best, but seeing how inconsistent the 80's guys were I'm sure that goes for some of Witherspoon's wins as well.

And you also have the losses to Smith and Thomas in prime age. Norton never lost to anyone below ATG level in his prime. I also think he did equally as well against a better version of Holmes.

Anyhow, it's not like it can't be argued. Fairly close one I'd say.

 

I even think one is debatable. Norton? Quite possibly, but he would be starched by Shavers soon after. 78-79 there wasn't really a clear next best.

Weaver? He would become the next best soon after, but no one would have made that claim at the time they met.

Ali... He had retired as champion, so there is that.

 

I think it was Ali, from memory.

The premise being wins over the highest ranked fighter in the world aside from yourself = a win over either the lineal champion or the number 1 contender if said fighter was the lineal champion. I think I recall McGrain counting Ali as he was the lineal champion.

Ali certainly wasn't the best fighter in the world aside from Holmes at that point, though arguably that's evened out because Norton didn't count towards McGrain's numbers, yet could be argued as the best HW in the world aside from Holmes at that time.

 

Yeah, I think that's pretty fair.

But that's one in an eight year reign...

Some want to know why he's behind Ali and Louis Well, you don't look at their records and see half a dozen nr 1 contenders missing for starters. And don't have to do gymnastics like "well, he beat X who would beat Y five years later, so doesn't matter, really".

 

Ali and Louis were in a league of the their own by the "number of fights won against the highest ranked HW in the world aside from yourself " metric. As they should be on any credible all time HW ranking.

 

Witherspoon was just the better fighter in my eyes, better quality wins, more showcased talent in those wins, and the lack of an Eddie Futch in his corner to make those things happen. The two losses in his prime are questionable, he's obviously out of it for both fights, likely on drugs for the Thomas fight, and just exhausted and mentally gone for Smith due to his court case with Don King at the time.

 

1. I don't get all this excuses. It's your ****ing job to be in shape.
2. That can be said for all the top HWs of the 80's except for Holmes and Berbick, so goes for his wins as well. If you don't want to do the Lex Tyson: "In an era of wildly inconsistent fighters, those fighters were somehow always on point when he won but when he lost it was only because of his own inconsistency".

 

Then I'm wrong about Page, good catch.

I'd have to check the timing for every fight to see if 1 is necessarily true, but I feel like off the top of my head that he beat more than just that.

 

If a win comes by any circumstances other than two men being at or near their best, then we must take it into account.

 

I repeat:

1. I don't get all these excuses. It's your ****ing job to be in shape.
2. That can be said for all the top HWs of the 80's except for Holmes and Berbick, so goes for his wins as well. If you don't want to do the Lex Tyson: "In an era of wildly inconsistent fighters, those fighters were somehow always on point when he won but when he lost it was only because of his own inconsistency".