Would jack johnson style work today

"Holmes was a nobody until he fought Norton".

Holmes was the number one Ring contender .1978-1979.
Holmes was rated no 6 in 1976 to Norton's no2 ,no3 in 1977 to Norton's no1 . Holmes had beaten Earnie Shavers in a WBC eliminator 3 months before he faced Norton, he was the logical no 1 contender, and the Ring's when he faced Norton.He had been top ten rated for 3 years.

Why don't you answer Timmers questions ?

 

You have a totally distorted understanding of the lineal title. What's most important is that an undeserving fighter not be granted the title. By saying Tate and Coetzee were far more qualified than Holmes you are showing your out of your league. Tate and Coetzee beat no one...(Bobick???, Spinks?). Holmes beat Shavers, Norton and then Ali....he was the most deserving fighter to be the new lineal champ after Ali. There is no question.

 

Houdini, you are tripping all over yourself. The problem with your argument is that it is revisionist. By 1990 we all agree that Holmes had a better record than tate, but that doesn't make one lineal. To be lineal you must acquire the title the last lineal champ held. Sometimes this is not possible and you can have a round robin tournament. Problem was Larry was in the wrong tournament, vacated titles that were non lineal and joined up for new title that was given to him.

Who determines undeserving. You in HINDSIGHT. It doesn't work that way, no one could tell in 1979 in HINSIGHT who will be better because both tate and holmes were undefeated with similar records (20 some odd wins with 1-2 notable opponents). And thats not how lineal works. Tyson was the best fighter when he stepped in the ring, should he instantly be given the championship when he was 1-0?

Holmes beat no one at that point. Ali last fight before retiring first was feb '78. Larry's best wins until that point where over ibar arrington at 23-3-1 and fred askew at 15-12 and roy williams at 23-4. None of these guys were proven at this point so its non-sense to pretend larry was, larry was well doubted really until he beat cooney. And duane bobick was 48-2, compared to lary's win's over 56-6 or 40-4 washed up earnie shavers and washed up ken norton, 2 guys who had been beaten silly by the time larry got to them. Gerrie Coetzee at 22-0 was alot more impressive than a washed up old man who had been put through the ringer but was great in the past. Claiming beating norton is like claiming beating shane mosley today. Especially when you consider how embarassingly he'd lose his next few fights. Its actually quiet a disgrace such a young gun got beat silly by norton and couldn't even have the deceny to rematch a guy who whipped him and was twice his age.

Holmes beat an old washed up Norton who was a shell, a old washed up shavers who was a shell and an old washed up ali who came out of retirement and couldn't even fight back and had parkinson. Where the hell is lineal champ in that? Not to mention he ducked norton a rematch. Shavers never had a title, ali never had a title when he fought holmes and norton never had a real title when he fought holmes, he was just given one like larry was given one. Where the hell is lineal in that. No one thought norton was lineal, certainly not over spinks or ali so the argument is bogus.

The lineal champ was Ali, the lineal title he held for all practical purposes was the wba. He vacated the title so he would not have to defend it against the challenger and was paid for it. Tate and Cooeetzee the #1 and 2 matched off for the title and tate won becoming lineal. At that point Holmes was not more qualified than tate because his best wins

We can agree Holmes was a good fighter who held some titles throughout the 80s, but lineal champion, he was not.

@mcvey, read what I wrote I answered timmers question.
-The ring can claim what they want, it doesn't determine the lineal champ. To be the lineal champ is clear, you have to beat the man who beat the man or obtain his title. Holmes did neither, never got the wba. The ring might rate him 1 or 2 or 5 doesn't matter the wba didn't.
-It doesn't matter because everyone recognized Ali as the lineal champ. Hence norton wbc award was not a lineal title, you can't have 2 lineal champs. Either you believe Norton was the real champ and ali was an imposter (ignoring that ali beat norton in their last fight) or you accept ali was lineal like the rest of the boxing world. Once you accept that, holmes can't become lineal from beating a guy who never won a title (shavers) or another who didn't hold a lineal title for years by the time they met up Norton losing to larry doesn't get larry a lineal title because from a linear perspective, norton had no title, he was given a wbc title for nothing, but it wasn't lineal. So where are you at. You have the wba that ali the lineal champ holds. You have holmes with the wbc. Ali would have to have fight Tate or coetzee because they were the top wba contenders not holmes. Ali vacates the belt, so #1 and #2 fight for the lineal championship. Tate wins becoming lineal. Now the wba passed through many hands, but larry purposely avoids fighting the wba champion until tyson knocks him out. So larry never bcomes lineal. He wins, he has good fights, he does alot of things, but lineal champ is one he couldn't achieve.

 

I dont give a good bollocks about linear, lineal, lined, lined up ,or any other l's.

You stated Holmes was," unknown until he fought Norton".

He was the number one contender ,and had been for nearly two years, so your statement is patently nonsense.

 

no

 

*You did not answer the questions!* Here are your quotes and my questions you hopped around when I asked if you were all fluff or knew your stuff:

1) I said, I beleave Larry set the record for fighting and beating 8 undefeated contenders,,,,you wrote, "Wrong, there are guys who beat way more then that." I asked you to write out these guys names and the heavy title they held, instead you wrote back about Larry being champion,,,that wasn't the question or what you said so again, you said "THERE ARE GUYS WHO BEAT WAY MORE THEN THAT", so this time please write out these guys names and the number they beat or show you made up the statement.

2) In post #75 in Top 10 alltime great heavyweights you wrote about Dempsey being flash ko'd and then wrote this about other "flash ko's" he suffered: "Dempsey got beat by guys like fireman jim flynn by FLASH KO, and was FLASH KO'D by small and smaller guys several times." You were not talking about knockdowns ala Firpo but Dempsey being knocked out, so please write out the names of these smaller guys who you said knocked him out and while your at it,,,,,,,write out the names of these "smaller guys" (Firpo was bigger then Dempsey) you said you were really meaning to mean knocked him down, and the fights you said these smaller guys knocked him down in.

If you are not going to answer you own statements here it doesn't mean your an awful guy Ipay4leavingNot, it just means you make things up as you go along. Waiting for an actual response this time with McVey I think also,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Ok, lets see if IpayforleavingNot actually answers his own statements as written above this time instead of trying to cover up.

 

Hilarious how some of you have built Johnson into this mythological destroying machine when he was anything but. :rofl

I swear reading the Classic forum is like reading a bunch of teenagers talk about some role playing video game that they have invested so much time in they think it is real. :rofl

 

He was undefeated for 10 years and considered the greatest hwt champion by many for decades. Not many people who ever lived can claim this distinction.

 

Again you are completely lost. WBA, WBC, ibf....non of these have anything to do with the lineal championship. Ali retired and the next lineal champion has to be the most deserving. Tate beating Bobick....and that's it and Coetzee beating Spinks....and that's it in no way provide them with the credentials to fight for the championship. A paper title maybe but not the true championship. Ask any boxing fan on the street in 78 or 79 who were the top two contenders and no one...nobody would mention Tate or Coetzee. Norton, Young, Holmes, Shavers and Ali would all be mentioned and Holmes beat three of these four. Actually this is not even debatable. No knowledgable historian would believe Tate was the champion with Holmes, a much greater fighter, fighting and beating the best fighters of the day. In fact no historian would argue this point.

 

He seems enthroed with the idea of lineal but a few through the years of all the alphabet titles, like the Ring, set out to find who at any given time had the most credentialed right to be called champion, as they did with Larry Holmes. Most seasoned fight fans wouldn't be caught dead calling the Jimmy Ellis's, Terrell's, Super Greg Pages, Pink Thomas, etc. champions as their histories and that of the game doesn't warrant it. Still each of us sees things as we do.

 

Impossible, he couldn't have been the number 1 contender for obvious reasons
1) When the #1 contender wba faced off with #2 it was tate and coetzee, not holmes
2) Norton was the #1 contender according to the wbc which is why when spinks the champ, refused to fight the #1 contender norton, norton was given the belt. Anyone with a brain can see that the wbc ranking was full of lies and ******ed. How could Norton rank above Ali, who just lost 2 of his championship belts? How could norton, a man ali beat twice recently, with far less wins and more losses rank above ali, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Ali should have been the wbc #1 but the wbc was too greedy they wanted ali to fight his way back up the rankings to make more money. Holmes couldn't have been ranked above ali or spinks because those guys were the last champs, at best holmes was ranked #3 after beating shavers
wbc ranking was probably like this
champ= ali/spinks
#1 = norton
#2= ali/spinks
#3 holmes/shavers (after holmes won he probably became # 3)

Your statement is non-sense, holmes couldn't have been the #1 contender before beating norton because norton was the #1 that is why he got the belt not holmes.

 

1) Ok you said:

To answer the question Archie Moore fought 12 contenders undefeated and beat 10 of them, losing only to ali and marciano. Carl Guggino beat 8 undefeated guys. Frank Moody fought 29 undefeated fighters. Harry Greb 20. Tiger flowers 18. So larry did not set the record for beating undefeated fighters.

2) Now you are trying to change what I said, I said he was knocked down by lots of guys which he was, and he was ko by flynn, so what. Your just mad because I found other fighters who beat more bums than larry did.

 

Holmes was top ten rated for four straight years before being recognized by the Ring as the Champion in 1980.
Holmes was the number one contender in 1978, and 1979.

You have alphabet soup on the brain. No one but you gives a **** where the corrupt,self appointed bodies rated anyone.




1978Muhammad Ali, Champion

1. Larry Holmes
2. Ken Norton
3. Leon Spinks
4. Ron Lyle
5. Jimmy Young
6. Kallie Knoetze
7. Alfredo Evangelista
8. Gerrie Coetzee
9. Ossie Ocasio
10. Domingo D'Elia

1979
Title Vacant

1. Larry Holmes
2. John Tate
3. Gerrie Coetzee
4. Mike Weaver
5. Earnie Shavers
6. Leroy Jones
7. Lorenzo Zanon
8. Alfredo Evangelista
9. Gerry Cooney
10. Scott LeDoux

 

WRONG
Spinks was the last man to beat ali, he was far more deserving of it than Norton who recently lost to Ali twice. Coetzee beat spinks, last man who beat Ali. And tate beat bobick, a top contender with just 2 loss and 48 wins and then coetzee. Larry's ebst achievement was beating a 40-4 old man and another 60-6 old man. Both past their primes. Shavers wouldn't be mentioned, he had his shot and loss like young and norton. These guys were trashed by ali and washed up. Tate and Coetzee were the upand coming new contenders and rising stars. If Ali didn't retire he'd have to fight Tate, and in that state he was in he would have lose. Holmes became greater afer tate started crack. He didn't fight the best fighters of the 70s, who fought the old washed up shells like old shavers, old ali, old norton, old everyone while skillfullly ducking the true champions like tate and pinky and so on. No historian thinks holmes was lineal nor that he was the true champ, he ducked guys he pulled a riddick bowe to fight a 10-0 frazier jr.