What ATG fighter had the weakest opposition?

[Counter-puncher]

What two so called heavyweight All Time Greats never beat another Hall Of Fame fighter is his undisputed prime?

Tyson and Holmes?

[ThatOne]

IMHO, Marciano and Holmes.

Tyson is a good answer but he beat a prime Michael Spinks who was a ATG light heavyweight but not an ATG heavyweight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

IMHO, Marciano and Holmes.

Tyson is a good answer but he beat a prime Michael Spinks who was a ATG light heavyweight but not an ATG heavyweight.

Which is why Spinks can't be classified as, "in-prime." He was out of his natural weightclass (not to mention his knee troubles). At any rate, the question is subjective, & could garner many answers.

[Ambling Alp]

Counterpuncher wrote,
I really like Larry, always have. but I think i would rate his level as comp as being at least as bad as any ATG I have seen.

I wonder if Rondon, Finnegan Tiger and Quarry to name the only Foster victims I remember, were not a better top 4 than Larry could claim for himself? anyone?[/quote]

No. The top 4 that holmes beat was better. Some of foster's opponents are slightly underrated,but still overall they weren't as good as Holmes. There was a also more depth in Holmes oppoents. Besides norton, he beat Shavers twice, Cooney, Witherspoon, Williams, Weaver, Berbick,Snipes, and Mercer. They were far from legends, but were all good fighters.

If you aren't going to count great light heavyweights that moved up in weight classes,there are several great heavwyeights that did not beat anyone better than Norton, whom Holmes beat.

Jeffries,Dempsey,Louis,Marciano,Tyson, and Lewis (Holyfield was way past it when Lewis beat him.) never beat anyone better. As previously mentioned, there are several guys in other weight classes who fought much weaker overall competition.

Holmes didn't fight the best overall competition, but it's ridiculaus to even consider him as fighting the weakest.

[raylawpc]

I disagree with your statement as to Jeffries, certainly.

Until the 1980s, top-ten ATG heavyweight lists frequently (and perhaps always) included Fitzsimmons and Corbett and, sometimes, Peter Jackson. Jeffries defeated all three - Fitz and Corbett twice.

[Ambling Alp]

I don't think any of the three were better than Norton, though I suppose that is arguable. You also have to look at the circumstances regarding when the bouts took place. (If you are not going to do that, you could just say that Holmes beat Ali and that's that.)

I would say that Norton was closer to his best when he fought Holmes than those three were when they fought Jeffries. While he was 35, Norton fought a great fight when he fought Holmes. Just watching film of the Holmes-Norton fight shows that.

Corbett was really only fighting sporadically when he he fought Jeffries. Fitz had not fought in two years when he fought Jeffries the first time. Neither Corbett or Fitz were "shot" when they fought Jefrries, but it's doubtful that they at their best either.

As for Jackson, well there is no question he was past it when he fought Jeffries.

This isn't to say that Jeffries wouldn't have beaten all three of them even if if they were all at their best; I think he would have anyway. However, that's not the issue here.

[raylawpc]

I don't think any of the three were better than Norton, though I suppose that is arguable. You also have to look at the circumstances regarding when the bouts took place. (If you are not going to do that, you could just say that Holmes beat Ali and that's that.)

I would say that Norton was closer to his best when he fought Holmes than those three were when they fought Jeffries. While he was 35, Norton fought a great fight when he fought Holmes. Just watching film of the Holmes-Norton fight shows that.

Corbett was really only fighting sporadically when he he fought Jeffries. Fitz had not fought in two years when he fought Jeffries the first time. Neither Corbett or Fitz were "shot" when they fought Jefrries, but it's doubtful that they at their best either.

As for Jackson, well there is no question he was past it when he fought Jeffries.

This isn't to say that Jeffries wouldn't have beaten all three of them even if if they were all at their best; I think he would have anyway. However, that's not the issue here.

I am looking at when the bouts took place.

Fitz was widely expected to beat Jeffries in 1899; and many predicted Jackson would beat Jeff in '98. Regarding Fitz, don't forget that the year after losing to Jeff, Fitz defeated Gus Ruhlin and destroyed Tom Sharkey in two rounds. Fitz was far from finished when he fought Jeff.

Jeffries was favored to beat Corbett for the reasons you stated. However, sportswriters were unanimous in their opinion that Corbett fought the best fight of his career against Jeff in 00, yet Jeff won. (Corbett also wrote that the 1900 loss to Jeffries was his best effort as a fighter.)

So I think your premise that Fitz and Corbett were "past their best" when they fought Jeff is faulty.

And let's not forget that Jeff twice defeated Tom Sharkey when Sharkey was in his prime, and at the top of his game.

[Ambling Alp]

Corbett had not had a fight in more than a year and half when he fought Jeffries. He had not had actually won a fight in 6 years. Given the circumstances, Corbett fought a great fight. However, to think that he was better than Ken Norton at this time is silly.

Sure Fitz was the favorite when he defended Jeffries. Usually the champion is. Most people didn't realize how good Jeffries was. However, that does not change the fact that he had not fought in two years. To think that he was better than Ken Norton at this time is silly.

Jackson? Well by the time he fought Jeffries, he was a drunk who had not been a serious fighter for years. He had not had a fight in three years. He had one fight in the last 6 years. This win is almost meaningless. Better at this time than than Ken Norton? Come on.

Sharkey? Yes a good fighter. Better than Ken Norton? Not worth arguing about.

Beating Corbett, Fitz, and Sharkey were good wins. Jeffries fought good overall competition in his career. Not arguing that at all. I had just mentioned earlier that Jeffries and some others had not beaten anyone better than Ken Norton. This was in response to other people's criticizing Holmes' competition. Thats all.

[raylawpc]

Corbett had not had a fight in more than a year and half when he fought Jeffries. He had not had actually won a fight in 6 years. Given the circumstances, Corbett fought a great fight. However, to think that he was better than Ken Norton at this time is silly.

Sure Fitz was the favorite when he defended Jeffries. Usually the champion is. Most people didn't realize how good Jeffries was. However, that does not change the fact that he had not fought in two years. To think that he was better than Ken Norton at this time is silly.

Jackson? Well by the time he fought Jeffries, he was a drunk who had not been a serious fighter for years. He had not had a fight in three years. He had one fight in the last 6 years. This win is almost meaningless. Better at this time than than Ken Norton? Come on.

Sharkey? Yes a good fighter. Better than Ken Norton? Not worth arguing about.

Beating Corbett, Fitz, and Sharkey were good wins. Jeffries fought good overall competition in his career. Not arguing that at all. I had just mentioned earlier that Jeffries and some others had not beaten anyone better than Ken Norton. This was in response to other people's criticizing Holmes' competition. Thats all.

We will have to agree to disagree. Comparing eras is a risky business. I am convinced however, that the fans at the turn of the century viewed Mssrs. Corbett, Fitrzsimmons, and Sharkey - especially the latter two, as favorably or more favorably than fans in the late 1970s viewed Kenny Norton. If you bother to read the newspapers from the times, you will find that, especially in the case of Fitz, a lot of sportwriters circa 1900 to 1902 believed Fitz might beat Jeff in a rematch.

Regarding Norton - someone whom I acutally knew many years ago and admired greatly (still do for that matter) - by the time of the fight with Holmes he was moving past his prime. Everybody who followed the sport back then knew that Holmes caught Norton at just the right time. In fact, the public attitude to Corbett circa 1900 and Norton circa 1979 is probably pretty analogous. Fitz, however, was nowhere near done in 1899, and Sharkey was at his absolute peak in 1898 and 1899 when Jeffries beat him.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, I was following the sport at the time. Going into the fight, Norton was still thought of as an elite fighter. He had looked very good in his last few fights. He fought a great fight against Holmes; one of the greatest heavyweight fights ever. It did accerlate Norton's decline. There weren't a lot of guys who would have beat Norton in that fight.

Yes I guess we will have to agree to disagree. (Yet again.)

[milmascaras1]

i would have to say finito lopez and rocky marchiano fit comfortably into this category!

[ThatOne]

Jonesy- Larry Holmes' record against other Hall Of Fame boxers was two wins and four losses. The two win coming against Ken Norton and a shot Ali* and the four losses coming against Michael Spinks (twice), Mike Tyson, and Evander Holyfield. He was past if for alll four of his losses.

Muhammad Ali's record against other Hall Of Famers is 8-2 with wins against Archie Moore, Sonny Liston (twice), Floyd Patterson (twice), George Foreman, Joe Frazier, and Ken Norton. The lone losses were to Ken Norton and Joe Frazier, losses that he avenged and losses that came after his prime.

Muhammad Ali's signature wins came over the 35-1 Sonny Liston, the 30-1 Joe Frazier, and the 40-0 George Foreman. Larry Holmes never faced these gentlemen.

Larry Holmes is a great fighter but his list of big wins is nowhere as big as Ali's.



*If Ali "owns" the loss against Holmes then Holmes surely "owns" the loss against Tyson. Ali was sick for that fight; Holmes fought another decade after the Tyson loss.

[Ezzard]

Norton did what many great fighters have done over the years… Roll back the years for one last great performance. Pull it all out knowing that they were already in the autumn of their careers. Ezzard Charles did this in his first fight with Marciano. Duran did it a number of times. Yes, they are past their peak but for a portion of the fight they are able to recapture the flame of youth for a brief moment.

[Ezzard]

Of the top 25 P4p fighters on boxrec, I would say Holmes or Foster had the weakest opposition during their title run. I would say Foster would slightly beat out Holmes for weakest overall, when you consider the fighters Holmes faced AFTER he was champion. But looking through the top 25, all of them took on decent opposition, particularly when compared with some of the pampered champions of today

I really like Larry, always have. but I think i would rate his level as comp as being at least as bad as any ATG I have seen.

I wonder if Rondon, Finnegan Tiger and Quarry to name the only Foster victims I remember, were not a better top 4 than Larry could claim for himself? anyone?

Finnegan could/would have been a belt holder in another era.

[Ezzard]

I don’t think Jeffries and Dempsey had poor opposition.

Dempsey decimated the division on his way up. He should have fought Wills but who didn’t miss a fight. Jeffries didn’t have many fights but they are pretty much all high quality opponents. He should have defended against the top black fighters of the era but his opposition wasn’t poor.