Holmes vs Cooney

[hhaehre]

A legit well deserved win over Cooney and I've never said otherwise. He took a lot of punishment while showing heart, but no, quite the opposite of a master class performance.

And sure, if some Rocky fanboy come out here touting Rocky as some kind of master wunderkind boxer, of course I would set him straight. Rocky fans tend to be smarter than Holmes fans though, so we seldom see that.

I've actually never thought of Holmes as a master boxer, he did not have the natural flow or talent of a Louis and he did not have much of a punch. What he did have was an indomitable will to win. Sure he struggled against many guys but he always won. Holmes had a heart as big as any fighter and the fact that he came out of retirement to fight a prime Tyson on short notice should really dismiss the notion that he ducked Page or Dokes. He wasn't a human high-light reel like Louis or Tyson but so what ? In my opinion the Cooney fight was probably his best effort but I don't judge Larry on style, he was never that kind of fighter. BTW, he clearly beat Norton, a few good rounds at the end of a 15 rounder does not win a fight.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I've actually never thought of Holmes as a master boxer, he did not have the natural flow or talent of a Louis and he did not have much of a punch. What he did have was an indomitable will to win. Sure he struggled against many guys but he always won. Holmes had a heart as big as any fighter and the fact that he came out of retirement to fight a prime Tyson on short notice should really dismiss the notion that he ducked Page or Dokes. He wasn't a human high-light reel like Louis or Tyson but so what ? In my opinion the Cooney fight was probably his best effort but I don't judge Larry on style, he was never that kind of fighter. BTW, he clearly beat Norton, a few good rounds at the end of a 15 rounder does not win a fight.

- I agree about the heart and the will, but plenty of lesser fighters also have heart and will.

As to always winning, you mean always winning on the cards. The Norton fight still a point of controversy with Norton supporters, and then the W brothers, The Truth and Spoon.

I've seldom mentioned any specific fighter that Holmes "ducked." I've provided over a dozen names of prime, top 10 contender/Champ types, some in the HOF, that Holmes never matched up with in his "era" which spans from 73-85. Makes his un-unified belt look cheesy and makes me wonder what was really in that jockstrap he was want to brag about.

Larry turned pro in 73 after two years of prior development in the Ali camp. By the end of 75 at age 24, in spite of 4 yrs of being one of Ali's primary sparring partners, he's barely removed from being a regional fighter with the only quality victory a KO of Rodney Bobick, who might have had an 90th boxrec ranking in the day had that been available. No wonder Kevin Johnson proclaims himself the new Larry Holmes!

Ernie Shavers the first ranked fighter at age 28 he ever beats, so from 75-78, one of the storied years of boxing,it's the era of the Golden 4, not the Golden 5. And so on and so forth as Larry marches on ignoring many of the best.

So, at my end, I'm just de-mytholizing Larry with a "Just the facts, Ma'am" approach, like debunking the short notice of the Tyson fight. Larry is seen on too many interviews to mention at fight cards including Tyson cards talking about the fight more than a year in advance. He was stalking and studying Tyson intensely, planning the day, all while playing the gym rat in his own private gym, working on specific techniques.

Ya basta, por favor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hhaehre]

As to always winning, you mean always winning on the cards. The Norton fight still a point of controversy with Norton supporters, and then the W brothers, The Truth and Spoon.

Norton he beat no matter how you slice and dice it, overrated fight though despite a killer 15th. The Truth and Spoon were two close fights, I gave Holmes the Spoon fight but Williams beat him imo. Homes was screwed against Spinks the second time so it all evens out.
To me Holmes is like Lewis, boring to watch but for the most part he got the job done.

So, at my end, I'm just de-mytholizing Larry with a "Just the facts, Ma'am" approach, like debunking the short notice of the Tyson fight. Larry is seen on too many interviews to mention at fight cards including Tyson cards talking about the fight more than a year in advance. He was stalking and studying Tyson intensely, planning the day, all while playing the gym rat in his own private gym, working on specific techniques.

Pushing 40 Holmes took on a prime Tyson after a near 2 year layoff. That to me shows no fear but above all it shows that Holmes would fight anybody if the price was right. Holmes was a businessman throughout his career and I am sure that explains a lot of the choices he made.

[I Feel Fine]

I have been critical of Holmes, but I do rate him a top 5 Heavyweight, and I think he was clearly winning this fight at the time of the stoppage. I do not see the argument for Cooney being ahead, with or without the point deductions.
Cooney was no great fighter, but I do think he earned his title shot, and he fought as well as he could have.

[Ambling Alp]

Thats pretty much how I saw it. A competitive fight, but Holmes was clearly the better man. Cooney did show some guts after being in big trouble in the 2nd round. While he wasn't nearly as skilled as Homes, Cooney wasn't the clumsy stiff that some people make out to be.

As a side note, something that I found interesting about this fight:After one low blow, Cooney got penalized two points. I don't remember a fighter being penalized two points at one time in any other fight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

~ time: 2:52 | referee: Mills Lane | judge: Duane Ford 113-111 Holmes | judge: Dave Moretti 113-111 Holmes | judge: Jerry Roth 115-109 Holmes~
~ WBC heavyweight title ~
Cooney had 3 points deducted for low blows

From Boxrec.

Far from being ahead on points. But it is one of those boxing lore's
that some writers and HBO may be fond of establishing. Regardless
of the low blow deductions...Holmes was in control, and the Roth
score cards are more realistic than the other two Judges who seemed
to be pro Cooney. I say this as I have a copy of this fight that allows
you to see the judges cards after each round. And they score big
for Cooney all to often.

I think you & I have the same copy. Do the judges briefly explain why they scored the rounds as they did each time? If so, we surely do.

I agree Cooney got the chocolates a little too often from them --- not to say he wasn't at least reasonably competitive. I think history has dismissed his effort in that fight, but he was in it for most of those thirteen rounds.

[Robinson]

~ time: 2:52 | referee: Mills Lane | judge: Duane Ford 113-111 Holmes | judge: Dave Moretti 113-111 Holmes | judge: Jerry Roth 115-109 Holmes~
~ WBC heavyweight title ~
Cooney had 3 points deducted for low blows

From Boxrec.

Far from being ahead on points. But it is one of those boxing lore's
that some writers and HBO may be fond of establishing. Regardless
of the low blow deductions...Holmes was in control, and the Roth
score cards are more realistic than the other two Judges who seemed
to be pro Cooney. I say this as I have a copy of this fight that allows
you to see the judges cards after each round. And they score big
for Cooney all to often.

I think you & I have the same copy. Do the judges briefly explain why they scored the rounds as they did each time? If so, we surely do.

I agree Cooney got the chocolates a little too often from them --- not to say he wasn't at least reasonably competitive. I think history has dismissed his effort in that fight, but he was in it for most of those thirteen rounds.

GI
I think we have the same copy also mate. Yeah they do, and I can not help
to think that they are showing some bias towards Cooney.
Roth was the only judge I really agreed with during the fight while they showed
their scoring and gave their reasoning.
I know BRR dis agree's, after all Holmes is one of the worse HWs ever and
is not even a true HW champion...just an alphabet champ. I wonder if
we can say that any fighter that drew a colour line shouldnt be called champ
also....as they are only just 'ABC' champs.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I know BRR dis agree's, after all Holmes is one of the worse HWs ever and
is not even a true HW champion...just an alphabet champ. I wonder if
we can say that any fighter that drew a colour line shouldnt be called champ
also....as they are only just 'ABC' champs.

- You silly gents must be breathing out of the same bottle of Nitrous Oxide. Not even close to the worst, and he wasn't just an alphabet champ, did you not know he set the record for the most consecutive alphabet heavy defenses?

And no, you don't want to draw a colour line on Holmes since he did turn down a huge match with Coetzee long before he fought Cooney on the basis of Coetzee being a white South African.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"- You silly gents must be breathing out of the same bottle of Nitrous Oxide..." - BRR



That was funny. Unintentional humour is still the best brand of comedy, though, & that remains your forte. Good to see you branching out, nonetheless.

[Robinson]

I did know that BRR....thanks for that. I am curious however
does that make Holmes a better champion than Sullivan, Corbett,
Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey seeing that he did allow 'whites' to
challenge for his title, and never drew a true colour line...just
a Alphabet one.

BRR can I ask where you rate this average HW, Holmes?

Thanks again.

HAL.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I did know that BRR....thanks for that. I am curious however
does that make Holmes a better champion than Sullivan, Corbett,
Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey seeing that he did allow 'whites' to
challenge for his title, and never drew a true colour line...just
a Alphabet one.

BRR can I ask where you rate this average HW, Holmes?

Thanks again.

HAL.

- Well, now Hal, sometimes a question is so meaningless as to be considered "poppycock" or "gooblygock" in spite of using a standard grammatical construct.

In short, whoever did your programing put in poor quality data. Might as well be asking why all the great champs during the reign of Genghis Khan drew the colour line.

In the days of Sullivan, there were no black or Mexican or Chinese contenders of note save Ye Olde Chocolate Godfrey. Perhaps other scholars can fill in the details, but supposedly they were scheduled to meet but Godfrey never showed, perhaps getting word there was a bounty on his hide as many matches canceled once authorities got a whiff.

Now, it is true that Peter Jackson landed on American shores with his shiny Commonwealth title spoiling for a fight, and Corbett obliged, but was "untitled" at that point save "local" credentials. Sullivan supposedly did verbally draw the colour line once he got wind of The Black Prince, but was probably drunk and may have been incoherent. It's not like Sullivan was even defending his "title" or even had a title other than a braggart's claim.

Same deal with Corbett who could barely be bothered to defend his "title" in the 5 yrs he claimed it. Hal, it's like this, the title was imaginary and provided by self proclaimed historians who sift through the claimants and deign the "most worthy" claimant. In world where a fighter could be jailed and stiffly fined for prize fighting, most of the fighting took place in exhibitions, private clubs as Corbett belonged to, or in remote locales and quickly forgotten.

In Jeffries' day when the title had become gelled in credibility, there were no coloured contenders of note until near his last fight. The "coloured" title of this period had several claimants and changed hands almost monthly. For the life of me I cannot figure out why the lineal lads haven't bothered to trace the lineal coloured title other than they have drawn the "colour" line, do you think Hal?

As far as I know, when these "coloured claimants" fought and lost to white fighters, their "coloured" title did not transfer, so were they also drawing the "colour" line? I mean, after Marvin Hart beat Jack Johnson, did they slip on the "coloured belt" and then have Hart announce a news conference to denounce the "coloured" challenger to the title and toss the "coloured" belt into the bin in order to fight Jack Root for the "white" lineal title?"

What kind of line can be said to have been drawn on the eve of Jeff's retirement? Has your programming included knowledge of quicksand and sifting sands Hal?

Now, the irony that Jack Johnson did seemingly draw a colour line during his "white lineal" reign is only just now gained traction, but I'm the first to my knowledge to question whether he was drawing the "white" line during his "coloured" reign. What did he ever do with his "coloured" title once he won his "white lineal" title?

Seems to me like Jack was drawing a threat line as he never met the best "white" contenders, champs, and "coloured titleholders," the irony he shares with Mr. Larry. And why is boxrec recognizing a fight between Langford and Jeannette in France as being for a world title? Did Jack also throw one of his titles into the bin to be picked out by Sam and Joe to scrap for?

As to Dempsey, well, again, few "coloured" contenders of note in his reign, Kid Norfolk and Harry Wills being legit contenders, but Jack was hardly his own man making his own decisions. Tex Ritter and Doc Kearns had an iron grip on his career and controlled much of "boxing" which was still considered illegal and had very little political support. When he leaves them to sign for the Wills fight, the politics and financing of the day collapsed the match and Jack fled for Hollywood which was paying him more than boxing was to woo beautiful women and knock out bad guys.

What's a champ to do back in the day, and what do the dozens of champs today do?

I'd put Mr. Larry and JJ midrange of 10-20th rankings well in back of Joe Jeannette and Sam Langford.

[raylawpc]

Just a few responses that immediately spring to mind regarding your “rewriting” of history . . .

Sullivan “supposedly” drew the color line? Look in any Sullivan biography published in the last 100 years, and you’ll find it replete with references to Sullivan drawing the color-line. There was no “supposedly” to it.

No black contenders of note for Sullivan except George Godfrey? Who the heck, then, was Peter Jackson? Jackson was in the US and active during the last four years of Sullivan’s reign, arriving in the US in 1888 and immediately dispatching two fine fighters in the process: George Godfrey and Joe McAuliffe. During that four-year period Jackson defeated Peter Maher, Patsy Cardiff (who famously broke Sullivan’s arm and held him to a draw in 1887), Denver Ed Smith, and Frank Slavin.

No black contenders for Jeff? As early as 1901, newspapers were calling for Jeff to fight Denver Ed Martin. After Jack Johnson’s 1903 wins over Sam McVey, a number of West Coast managers began calling for Jeff to fight Johnson, notably the LA promoter Uncle Tom McCarty. (Before McVey lost to Johnson, some touted McVey as a logical contender since he was the only man who seemed capable of matching Jeffries’ formidable physical strength.)

In fact, I agree with you that Larry Holmes is a largely overrated heavyweight champion, who won the title on a bad decision (I thought Kenny won), and campaigned in one of the weakest eras in heavyweight history. But I can hold that opinion without the necessity of re-writing the history of the heavyweight title over the last 120 years.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams (1770).

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Just a few responses that immediately spring to mind regarding your “rewriting” of history . . .

Sullivan “supposedly” drew the color line? Look in any Sullivan biography published in the last 100 years, and you’ll find it replete with references to Sullivan drawing the color-line. There was no “supposedly” to it.

No black contenders of note for Sullivan except George Godfrey? Who the heck, then, was Peter Jackson? Jackson was in the US and active during the last four years of Sullivan’s reign, arriving in the US in 1888 and immediately dispatching two fine fighters in the process: George Godfrey and Joe McAuliffe. During that four-year period Jackson defeated Peter Maher, Patsy Cardiff (who famously broke Sullivan’s arm and held him to a draw in 1887), Denver Ed Smith, and Frank Slavin.

No black contenders for Jeff? As early as 1901, newspapers were calling for Jeff to fight Denver Ed Martin. After Jack Johnson’s 1903 wins over Sam McVey, a number of West Coast managers began calling for Jeff to fight Johnson, notably the LA promoter Uncle Tom McCarty. (Before McVey lost to Johnson, some touted McVey as a logical contender since he was the only man who seemed capable of matching Jeffries’ formidable physical strength.)

- Just a few responses that immediately spring to mind regarding your “rewriting” of my post.. ..

First off, I acknowledged that JL may have drawn the colour line, specifically with regards to Jackson, so why do you feel the need to rewrite it as though you're adding a contribution? At any rate, JL wasn't fighting anyone until Corbett from before Jackson arrives on US shores. Looks to me like Jackson is in a long line of duckees, but most the wrong skin colour, not worthy of the being ducked status, right?

If JL has all these quotes, let's hear who's he's drawing it against? I'm guessing most will be attributed to Jackson or just general pontification of era philosophy regarding mixing of races.

As to Jeff, so what if Johnson beat 18 yr old McVea. Are you serious? Sounds like boxing writers must have been as stupid then as they are now. I thought Johnson got some traction with wins over Childs, Gardner and Martin, not the baby McVey.

As to Martin, I don't see that he was making much of a splash prior to 1901 with his career until he KOs Hank Griffin late in the year. Nice, but Jeff had easily handled Griffin the month before. Jeff then KOs Kennedy a couple weeks later and Ruhlin a couple of months later to finish the year. How the hay does beating Griffin after Jeff put Martin ahead of Ruhlin which was a rematch of an unresolved draw when both were novices?

If anything, Choynski's the guy being ignored, but of course poor Joe the wrong skin colour to whine about. Martin spends most of 1902 in England after beating Childs. What's Jeff supposed to do? This is old ground as I've already talked about the box rec entry noting Martin was scheduled to meet the winner of the Jeff/Fitz rematch.

Sure don't sound like drawing the colour line, but not to put too fine a point on it, Martin falls apart after returning to the US in late 1902. Was Jeff obliged to give him a charity match?

Back to Johnson, again, as I mention, the ONLY credible black contender who finally arrives circa 1903. Great, Jeff was on the last leg his "Rocky" like series with Corbett, Fitz, Sharkey, knocking out Corbett. We can see the start of ennui in his career since he only fights once from 02-04 and retires.

Maybe he should have fought Johnson in 04 instead of Munroe, but it was my understanding that he'd agreed to fight the winner of Hart/Johnson which Johnson lost with Jeff in attendence. Where's the cry that Jeff ducked Hart now? Oh, that's right, wrong skin colour.

Seems like Johnson got a bit unlucky in 04 not to get a shot, but fell apart like Martin on the eve of his shot, losing to Jeannette after Hart. He then is quite fortunate to corner the smallest fighter in heavy history to lift his title from, so it's hard for me to feel too sorry for Johnson with other noted white contenders not granted a shot at Jeff not to mention all the true contenders Johnson ignored in his title reign.

[raylawpc]

You wrote: "In the days of Sullivan, there were no black or Mexican or Chinese contenders of note save Ye Olde Chocolate Godfrey."

Jackson came on the scene in 1888 and immediately made a name for himself here by KOing the top American black - George Godfrey - and other fine fighter in Joe McAuliffe. The idea there were "no black . . . contenders of note save . . . Godfrey" is simply wrong. Sully's reign as champion lasted another four years.

What difference does it make against whom Sully drew the color-line? You said he only "supposedly" did it - probably when he was drunk. That is simnply wrong. He stated very publicly in 1892 that he would not fight any black boxer. Period.

The call for Jeff to fight Martin came about in December 1901 after Jeffries beat Ruhlin and after Martin had defeated Griffith. Take a look at the Chicago Daily Inter Ocean, 12/28/1901 p. 4, and the Chicago Chronicle, 12/30/1901 p. 10. Jeff said he would fight Martin in a four round challenge match - as he did Griffith - but he would not defend the title against him.

The fact that you think that in 1903 that Johnson and Mcvey were not viable contenders for Jeffries does not mean that the LA papers were not calling for matches with Jeff, or that LA promoters were not intrigued by those match-ups. Take a look at the LA Times 10/29/03 and 10/30/03.

Jeffries did not witness Johnson v. Hart. Jeff was in New York performing in "Davey Crockett" when the fight took place.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams (1770).

[Collins2000]

You are casting pearls before swine, Ray.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

You wrote: "In the days of Sullivan, there were no black or Mexican or Chinese contenders of note save Ye Olde Chocolate Godfrey."

Jackson came on the scene in 1888 and immediately made a name for himself here by KOing the top American black - George Godfrey - and other fine fighter in Joe McAuliffe. The idea there were "no black . . . contenders of note save . . . Godfrey" is simply wrong. Sully's reign as champion lasted another four years.

What difference does it make against whom Sully drew the color-line? You said he only "supposedly" did it - probably when he was drunk. That is simnply wrong. He stated very publicly in 1892 that he would not fight any black boxer. Period.

- How divinely disingenuous of you to quote me out of context after I already set you straight.

I followed up with mention of Jackson. Yes, Sully was a besotted mess since before his last fight on US shores in 1886. He has one fight in England the next year, and no others. In short, while Jackson was busy fighting in America, Sullyboy was busy emptying saloons until his 1892 defeat by Corbett, a five year layoff save exhibitions and plays. That I said "supposedly ducked" really irks you. Too bad since I don't know of any direct quotes of his, much less the context. Already addressed all of this.

So, JL was also ducking Jackson after Corbett now? We'll try a little experiment. I'm gonna draw the colour line against Popkins. Not gonna fight him because he's black with racist comments. But I ain't fightin' anyone, so am I really drawing the colour line?

No, me be busy laughin'. The only black contender in the country I've ever heard of when Sullivan was still active was Old Chocolate. Maybe he was ducking OC, they fought out of the same area, but JL moved quickly on to distant locals. I'm laughing at the notion there was all these black contender types lined up that he wouldn't fight. It's a fallacy save for Godfrey possibly.

Blame Corbett for not giving Jackson a shot at the title, not Sullivan He pulled a Jim Jeffries and retired in 1897. They just didn't know what to do with his title. Maybe had Jackson or Corbett won their fight, the winner would've been given recognition. So Corbett lured him out in his last bout.

Much adu over nutin' whatsoever.

[dempseyfire]

You are casting pearls before swine, Ray.

You can say that again.

[Ezzard]

I'm surprised to see Holmes taking such a battering from posters.

As a fighter Holmes had probably the greatest jab ever seen on a champion: not as quick as Ali's, not as powerful as Liston's, but a best of both.

He had a great chin with fantastic recuperative powers. He also had great mental strength, overcame adversity in the ring and continued to win despite sporting a spare tyre around his waistline for a number of years (and having the silhouette of a pear)...

Towards the end of his reign he became too fixated on the Marciano record and I didn't want to see him stagger over that finishing line beating up on safe targets (which was what Spinks seemed to be at the time).

Guys like Page and Dokes blew their chances all by themselves. I would have liked to have seen the Witherspoon rematch and a fight with Pinklon Thomas (possibly even a Weaver rematch), but beyond that this guy was a great champion.

Overall he didn't have the charisma to be put alongside Ali and Louis. And to be honest there maybe is a name too many missing from the list for him to merit such a lofty place. BUT after those two Holmes compares well with just about any other heavyweight. There's always going to be differences in opinion on where exactly a guy ranks but Holmes has to be up there with the very best.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

There's always going to be differences in opinion on where exactly a guy ranks but Holmes has to be up there with the very best.

- It's more than differences on opinions though. It's about some who wish to impose their warm and fuzzy view on everyone else completely absent the facts.

Nice to get back on topic, Holmes, though I see strong correlations with the manner Johnson conducted his championship reign, but I digress.

Two common themes emerge from infinite discussions with those for whom rank of greatness is important: 1. He has to show he can overcome adversity by crawling off the canvas after being knocked stupid. 2. He has to beat a prime great.

Mr. Larry accomplished #1, but not #2.

[Ezzard]

Whenever someone starts to mention so-called 'facts' to me I immediately know what to expect... But that's for a different forum.

Jack Johnson was one of the greatest ever HW champions. So was Larry Holmes.

It's good of you to pretend to be objective as a way of smuggling in your prejudices. But feel free to impose...

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Whenever someone starts to mention so-called 'facts' to me I immediately know what to expect... But that's for a different forum.

Jack Johnson was one of the greatest ever HW champions. So was Larry Holmes.

It's good of you to pretend to be objective as a way of smuggling in your prejudices. But feel free to impose...

- Plenty of "greatest ever HW champions."

It's good of you to pretend to know my prejudices. Indeed, imposing my just the facts ma'am approach will continue. Like when the 5 point deductions issued to Cooney are refactored to see who was winning the boxing points, it was Cooney hands down.

Read it and weep........ 8)

[raylawpc]

You wrote: "In the days of Sullivan, there were no black or Mexican or Chinese contenders of note save Ye Olde Chocolate Godfrey."

Jackson came on the scene in 1888 and immediately made a name for himself here by KOing the top American black - George Godfrey - and other fine fighter in Joe McAuliffe. The idea there were "no black . . . contenders of note save . . . Godfrey" is simply wrong. Sully's reign as champion lasted another four years.

What difference does it make against whom Sully drew the color-line? You said he only "supposedly" did it - probably when he was drunk. That is simnply wrong. He stated very publicly in 1892 that he would not fight any black boxer. Period.

- How divinely disingenuous of you to quote me out of context after I already set you straight.

I followed up with mention of Jackson. Yes, Sully was a besotted mess since before his last fight on US shores in 1886. He has one fight in England the next year, and no others. In short, while Jackson was busy fighting in America, Sullyboy was busy emptying saloons until his 1892 defeat by Corbett, a five year layoff save exhibitions and plays. That I said "supposedly ducked" really irks you. Too bad since I don't know of any direct quotes of his, much less the context. Already addressed all of this.

So, JL was also ducking Jackson after Corbett now? We'll try a little experiment. I'm gonna draw the colour line against Popkins. Not gonna fight him because he's black with racist comments. But I ain't fightin' anyone, so am I really drawing the colour line?

No, me be busy laughin'. The only black contender in the country I've ever heard of when Sullivan was still active was Old Chocolate. Maybe he was ducking OC, they fought out of the same area, but JL moved quickly on to distant locals. I'm laughing at the notion there was all these black contender types lined up that he wouldn't fight. It's a fallacy save for Godfrey possibly.

Blame Corbett for not giving Jackson a shot at the title, not Sullivan He pulled a Jim Jeffries and retired in 1897. They just didn't know what to do with his title. Maybe had Jackson or Corbett won their fight, the winner would've been given recognition. So Corbett lured him out in his last bout.

Much adu over nutin' whatsoever.

Don't know of any direct quotes? Try this in March 1892, when Sullivan offered his famous challenge to fight any white fighter - preference Slavin, Mitchell, or Corbett - for a $25,000 purse and $10,000 side bet. "But in this challenge I include all fighters - first come, first serve - who are white. I will not fight a negro. I never have and I never will." That direct enough for you? Is the context okay?

I never said that there was a line of black fighters waiting to challenge Sully. But you said there was only one challenger - Godfrey - and intimated that Jackson came on the scene too late. Ridiculous. Jackson arrived on American shores and established himself as a top heavyweight in 1888 - one year before Sully whipped Kilrain in arguably Sully's best fight and greatest effort.

Blame Corbett for not giving Jackson a shot? Sorry, no can do. Corbett and Jackson met early in Corbett's reign to discuss a title match and it was Jackson who refused to sign with Corbett - holding out for more money and his choice of a site for the fight. So Corbett signed to fight Mitchell instead.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams (1770).

[Ezzard]

Whenever someone starts to mention so-called 'facts' to me I immediately know what to expect... But that's for a different forum.

Jack Johnson was one of the greatest ever HW champions. So was Larry Holmes.

It's good of you to pretend to be objective as a way of smuggling in your prejudices. But feel free to impose...

- Plenty of "greatest ever HW champions."

It's good of you to pretend to know my prejudices. Indeed, imposing my just the facts ma'am approach will continue. Like when the 5 point deductions issued to Cooney are refactored to see who was winning the boxing points, it was Cooney hands down.

Read it and weep........ 8)

You got that bit right, I am weeping...

But those reductions were made because the rules were broken. You'll have to help me here. Is it a fact that points are deducted for trying to gain an unfair advantage? Is it a fact that other than the judges most obervers had Holmes in the lead? Is it a fact that Holmes was ahead on the cards? Or behind? I'm not sure because just like you I stumble blindly from one fact to another and all I can conclude is that somehow your facts are getting in the way of what actually happened.

Have you got any other carefully selected facts to impose upon us?

How about a bit of fun. I say a heavyweight you tell me whether they rate higher or lower than Larry? Just for a bit of a laugh???

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Don't know of any direct quotes? Try this in March 1892, when Sullivan offered his famous challenge to fight any white fighter - preference Slavin, Mitchell, or Corbett - for a $25,000 purse and $10,000 side bet. "But in this challenge I include all fighters - first come, first serve - who are white. I will not fight a negro. I never have and I never will." That direct enough for you? Is the context okay?

I never said that there was a line of black fighters waiting to challenge Sully. But you said there was only one challenger - Godfrey - and intimated that Jackson came on the scene too late. Ridiculous. Jackson arrived on American shores and established himself as a top heavyweight in 1888 - one year before Sully whipped Kilrain in arguably Sully's best fight and greatest effort.

- 1889 was a bareknuckle championship bout. Jackson was not relevant to JL's obvious goal of being the red meat bareknuckle champ.

Jackson arrived too late save for the single and last bout JL fought. The implication has always been that JL ducked black contenders and drew the colour line. I've never cast doubt on what he may have said, but mentioned that quotes of the subject would be likely restricted to Jackson as is the case in your example.

It's bad form to make sweeping conclusions about a fighter on his last leg, especially a fighter like Sullivan who was greatly diminished and afflicted with problems by then.

Jack Dempsey regurgitated similar stock in trade answers to queries about fighting Wills, and then left the care of Kearns and Rickard who wouldn't entertain the fight and signed to fight Wills. His actions did not match his rhetoric as is often the case with people. Context lads, context. Any one can be lifted out of context, and you lifted me out of context.

I happen to admire Peter Jackson on many fronts, so I thank you for the tidbit about forgoing a Corbett challenge because of terms and conditions, however, CONTEXT! I would need to know the terms to evaluate if Corbett made a reasonable offer. Boxrec says the Corbett/Mitchell winner was paid $20,000, and it's difficult to entertain that Jackson would turn down an offer like that for example.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

But those reductions were made because the rules were broken.

- Back to stating the obvious, eh?

One can only imagine your purpose since nobody I can recall has ever disputed the deductions against Cooney, at least on this board, nor is Holmes victory over Cooney disputed. Need to return to the thread header and reread to get back on track.

Per the official judges scores, Cooney was well ahead on the pure boxing points before the deductions.

That you or others may think that Holmes was the better boxer and outboxed Cooney, that is subjective opinion. The judges scores are completely objective facts and part of the record.