The ' Who did he beat' question

I've been told that I have reasonably limited opinions.

 

Surely you jest!!!!

 

The post was supposed to be ironic, lol

 

What’s with you and Ali?

So the Bonecrusher KO 1 shows me that Witherspoon’s win over him was … what?

Because someone wins a rematch doesn’t nullify the first result. It means after two fights, they’re even. Ali also won the third, about as narrowly as possible, so he won the series, but he’s the GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL TIME. He absolutely was not a shell of himself in the first Norton fight. That wasn’t the Ali of Spinks I, much less of Holmes or Berbick.

With Ali-Norton I, you’re basically creating a narrative that ‘that wasn’t really the real Ali’ because Muhammad won the rematch. Which is horse hockey. It’s a legit win against an Ali who had won 10 fights in a row against top opposition (I’ll grant you Bob Foster was a light heavy and was a bit of a gimme even though he was an ATG light heavy).

And Ali-Norton II was NOT a unanimous decision. It was split: Ali won by one round on two cards and lost by one on the other. You’re acting like Ali came in 15 pounds overweight (that was Tubbs vs. Spoon btw) and then he got in shape for the rematch and smoked Ken (like Bonecrusher did Tim), and that’s a complete fabrication on your part.

Over the course of three fights, Ali won 56 rounds vs. Norton on the combined nine scoreboards and Kenny won 53. Ali did not come back and dominate Ken in any way, shape or form. Norton’s win in the first fight was by far the most one-sided, and the other two were all one- or two-round advantages on all scoreboards (whichever way they went).

Tim never did anything remotely as impressive as beating Ali.

 

I know

 

I mean, Witherspoon is not all that great, though. And he was a 12-fight novice at the time. So what does this prove?

 

You're right, actually. I've been had.
I went back to watch the first fight after I saw on Boxrec that it was a SD in their second bout, and figured I must've forgotten too much to properly talk about it. Apoligies there.
I do believe that Tim would beat Ken head to head, but that's a different deal.

 

The third best heavyweight of the 80s wasn't all that great, my bad.
Witherspoon gave the hardest fight other than Weaver to a closer to prime Holmes than any other man in contention- Not to mention that Holmes had the flu in the Weaver fight.

 

Uh, yeah. Witherspoon is not a great fighter. He is a very good one, but he falls short of the great mark.

 

You wanna clarify what makes a fighter great? You wanna back up any of your claims at all?

 

There are various metrics that people use, but Witherspoon doesn't cover any of them. He doesn't have a signature win over an ATG, he doesn't have a long title reign, he has multiple losses against less-than-great competition, he does not appear in almost any standard top ten or even top 15 list...

It's a little curious that you think he is when his best wins are Tubbs, Page, Bonecrusher and Bruno.

 

Are you talking about great as in ATG? Cause I agree with you in that case.

 

Copy. Same page.

 

Wasn't prime vs Holmes and obviously not fighting Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis would prevent him from beating them. How does this refute the point he didn't get the opportunity to fight an Ali-level opponent? What if Ali just didn't fight Norton in the first place?

If we are holding a fight against Witherspoo where he only had 15 fights does Norton's kayo loss to Garcia when he had 15 fights count as well now? Assuming we are being objective.

 

You said he couldn’t fight Ali because they weren’t contemporaries and someone can only fight people with whom they shared an era (were around at the same time). I listed guys he was contemporary with whom he could have fought (or beaten) and he managed to miss them all.

So if he can’t fight guys he was contemporaries with and he doesn’t fight guys he was contemporaries with … do we just say he’s great when he doesn’t have a great win?

The one great he fought was Holmes, and he lost.