Tokyo Douglas vs Rocky Marciano

Holmes was beating the same kind of build up guys the other contenders were beating. Guys like Furgason, big foot martin and Ribalta. He gave Mcall and Holyfeild a tough fight each. I've never heard of any one who thought Brain Nielsen deserved the win against Holmes. Larry schooled him.

George Foreman beat Moorer but he should have got the decision over Shannon Briggs too, though to be fair each other time George went the distance the other guy should have won.

Ring Ratings for the end of year 1994 looks crazy with both Holmes and Foreman in them.

 

When is someone going to get the idiots who are censoring bits of words embedded in longer words to F U C K OFF ?!?

 

I don't think it was that weak. It was entertaining. I think within a top ten there's are three groups : the elite, then those who are as good as you can get without ever being a champ and after that the group who used to be one of either of the other two. I think George and Larry found a new niche in the division, they had a novelty value and not were not necessarily matched as "has beens" but rather as a kind of limited honorary contender.

There was heavyweights you could not put George and Larry in with. but if you were selective enough there proberbly always was somebody for them to beat in the top ten because age was no longer the disadvantage it had been. 12 round championship distance and the breathers spurt fighters needed to take offered the kind of pace older fighters needed.

What earlier heavyweight decade than the 1990s could this be possible? Where if you were selective enough you could always find a contender capable of losing to somebody's grandfather?

 

What the results of older Holmes and Foreman in the 90s would suggest, is that the top contenders of the 90s were no better than the top contenders of the 80s, and that Holmes and Foreman in their primes were probably better than Holyfield and Lewis.

I do not propose to derive my opinion solely on their results, but their results do contradict the notion that the 90s was this golden era that people see in hindsight.

I think that people should acknowledge this, even if they disagree with the resulting conclusion.

 

I think that most all time greats who came back well past their primes were matched carefully, and picked up some significant scalps, but they were always shown that they had no business in that era when they fought the best i.e. Jeffries Johnson, Marciano Louis, Ali Holmes, even Holmes Tyson.

Foreman winning the lineal title, Holmes beating somebody who many thought beat Lennox Lewis, and both of them being competitive against a prime Holyfield, are not consistent with what we should be seeing here.

I do think that Moorer winning the lineal title distorted the lineage somewhat, and that Foreman and Holmes were very wise to steer clear of Lennox Lewis, but something still isn't right in this picture.

 

I think that the presence of George Foreman and Larry Holmes in the 90's only ADDED confirmation of it being a great era and not detracting from it. You greats in Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, and solid men in Bowe and Moorer.. Ad to that two former great heavyweight champions who were probably still about 75% of their former selves and it made for another golden era for sure.

 

See response to PowerPuncher.

 

It should also be noted that while Foreman and Holmes both took Holyfield the distance, they lost almost every single round of those fights. I also think that comparing Louis's results against Marciano or Jeffries' against Johnson or Ali's against Holmes is a bad gauge when talking about Foreman and Holmes efforts in the 90's, as they were clearly far less diminished and had more left.

 

OK, since Rocky Marciano was the original but of this thread, lets use his career as an ****ogy.

Lets say that after Joe Louis beat Lee Savold, Savold had lost a controversial MD to Rocky Marciano.

Lets then say that Louis then went on to loose to Rocky Marciano, but in a more competitive manner, by decision.

Even allowing that Savold was an inconsistent fighter, would you not conclude that Rocky Marciano didn't belong in the same ring as a prime Joe Louis?

Would you not also conclude that the contenders of Louis's era were almost certainly a better crop?

I would add that Louis has not won anything else in this hypothetical scenario.

Personally I think that the 90s was a strong era, but its proponents should be a lot more worried by the success of these older fighters, than they actually are.

 

Perhaps to some extent. But I don't necessarily think it weakens the era. There were several aging men in the 90's, but only two of them really had an impact and they were both consensus top 10 all time great heavyweights who carefully constructed a comeback in a non traditional sense. Both steadily building back up their skills, conditioning and confidence by staying active and even making slight adjustments to their styles to better suit there older renditions. This really isn't anything like Jim Jeffries coming out cold after 6 years in retirement to challenge the champion in his first fight back. One of them became the lineal champion for a brief period while the other had claim to beating a fine young contender. I don't think this taints the era too badly, and in fact their presence ( especially Foreman's ) helped to strengthen it.