I hate to say it, but Larry Holmes=overrated???

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:07

question to boxred,

since when did we get these hot heads newbies????

they remind me of myself when i first joined. :P

i would love to see ur top 10 heavyweight rankings of all time, i would love to see how u sit on the gleam of things

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:08

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:question to boxred,

since when did we get these hot heads newbies????

they remind me of myself when i first joined. :P

i would love to see ur top 10 heavyweight rankings of all time, i would love to see how u sit on the gleam of things

All you need is to look at the above post for my top 10 heavyweights.

flboxing · Post by **flboxing** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:08

flboxing wrote:Brockton, you back up nothing. Your "quotes" you've used so far are only your own. You show no proof on where they can be found, just like your psi.

Amazing how you still choose to ignore showing proof.

Only the fourth post I've asked for it.

Marciano is not a top-5 heavyweight of all time. The fact is he is a small heavyweight, if you want PROOF look at his weight/height, and would have a lot of trouble with the "top" heavyweights of the past 15 years.

You can make any case you want about his training today or his weight of today, but he is still very SHORT. Can't change that. Marciano also had trouble in the fights and did not cake walk through them like you say he did.

If anyone has not seen the fights, I will provide the PROOF and send you a copy of the fights. Unlike Brocton, I have no fear in proving my point and will give you more than just an opinion.

Marciano, I repeat, was a very good boxer, but would not be anything more than a cruiserweight in today's world. Probably would be better for him to drop down to light heavyweight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:13

ur list was ok until i read evander holy 4th!!!!!!!!

holyfield is never rated in the top 10. i rate holy 15th

- the guy lost to riddick bowe twice in his prime, lost to michael moorer in his prime, and nearly lost to late sub smokin bert cooper. i could also had holy had loads of trouble with a shot holmes and foreman.

what the hell did holy do besides beat a washed up tyson???

these following fighters would beat holyfield

louis, ali, marciano, prime tyson, liston, holmes , frazier, prime foreman, lewis, jeffries, charles, dempsey, johnson, etc

- i cannot believe u dont have dempsey in ur top 10, i rate dempsey 6th. u have any logical reasons for not rating dempsey in top 10????

looks like im going to have to educate u on dempsey, but i think barry will beat me to it.

- jack johnson is far too low, marciano is too low , lennox lewis is too high IMO

- i simply misread ur post regarding 7-7. u still havnt proved to me moore and walcott were past there best btw.

here are my top 10 heavies

1. joe louis
2. muhammad ali
3. rocky marciano
4. jack johnson
5. larry holmes
6. jack dempsey
7. george foreman
8. joe frazier
9. mike tyson
10, sonny liston

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:17

flboxing wrote:
flboxing wrote:Brockton, you back up nothing. Your "quotes" you've used so far are only your own. You show no proof on where they can be found, just like your psi.
Amazing how you still choose to ignore showing proof.

Only the fourth post I've asked for it.

Marciano is not a top-5 heavyweight of all time. The fact is he is a small heavyweight, if you want PROOF look at his weight/height, and would have a lot of trouble with the "top" heavyweights of the past 15 years.

You can make any case you want about his training today or his weight of today, but he is still very SHORT. Can't change that. Marciano also had trouble in the fights and did not cake walk through them like you say he did.

If anyone has not seen the fights, I will provide the PROOF and send you a copy of the fights. Unlike Brocton, I have no fear in proving my point and will give you more than just an opinion.

Marciano, I repeat, was a very good boxer, but would not be anything more than a cruiserweight in today's world. Probably would be better for him to drop down to light heavyweight.

heavyweight division isnt about size

marciano was way stronger than his body weight, and most of the fighters can attest to this that fought him. he had the strength to take onthe big guys.

- marcianos natural weight was 210lb NO WAY DOES HE MAKE LIGHT-H. far too big. he was totally sucked out at 185.

right now we are in the weakest era of heavyweight boxing history

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:19

i am searching for official proof so u wont bitch and cry "its not reliable"

- let me ask u, will ur opinion change of marciano if i prove this to be true???

flboxing · Post by **flboxing** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:21

Ok Brockton, this is the last time I am responded since you still show no proof and choose to ignore questions.

WHERE IS THE PROOF ON MARCIANO's PSI?

I find it hard to believe you cannot see the question this time so your little puny excuses are worthless from now on. Try to debate with logical statements that you can actually support and quit "nut-hugging" (boxrec forum term) Marciano.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: these following fighters would beat holyfield

louis, ali, marciano, prime tyson, liston, holmes , frazier, prime foreman, lewis, jeffries, charles, dempsey, johnson, etc

- i cannot believe u dont have dempsey in ur top 10, i rate dempsey 6th. u have any logical reasons for not rating dempsey in top 10????

looks like im going to have to educate u on dempsey, but i think barry will beat me to it.

here are my top 10 heavies

1. joe louis
2. muhammad ali
3. rocky marciano
4. jack johnson
5. larry holmes
6. jack dempsey
7. george foreman
8. joe frazier
9. mike tyson
10, sonny liston

Dempsey is my favorite heavyweight of all-time, so no need to school me in it. He would be # 11 on that list. Usually he would be # 10, but Sonny Liston was just such a pulverizing guy. I would have no problem removing Sonny Liston and having Dempsey at # 10.

About Holyfield, he was in everyone's top ten list before he fought Lennox Lewis. A 36 year old Holyfield looked dreadful in securing a bogus draw with Lewis in the first fight but did enough in my mind and most ringside observers to get at least a draw in the second fight at age 37. For me, everything he did after the Bowe III fight was just icing on the cake. The guy was already past his best and kept coming back for more. Just because he fights well past his time (IE Ezzard Charles), it does not take him down my list. In his prime, Holyfield only really had problems with fighters larger than himself, so take that for what it is worth.

And the heavyweight division is ALL about size. That is why the cruiserweight division was created, because heavyweights were getting too big.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:24

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: marcianos natural weight was 210lb NO WAY DOES HE MAKE LIGHT-H. far too big. he was totally sucked out at 185.

right now we are in the weakest era of heavyweight boxing history

I find this hard to believe about Marciano's weight. Given there was no weight limit for a heavyweight, it would have been stupid for Marciano to drain himself like that. He trained like hell so he weighed in at what he weighed in at.

And yes, sadly, this is the worst (at least most boring) era of heavyweight boxing, historically.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:28

And the heavyweight division is ALL about size. That is why the cruiserweight division was created, because heavyweights were getting too big.

ur falsely misleaded. its mainly because cruiserweight division is so watered down.

besides most of the heavies would fight better 30-50lbs lighter. heavies today cant keep up with guys of the past like demsey and marciano.

holy wasnt that much past his prime vs lewis. and lewis beat him solidly in both fights.

holy in his prime lost to riddick bowe and michael moorer(who was kayoed by a shot foreman). holy barely beat shot holmes and foreman, and wa nearly knocked out by cooper. imagine if marciano and dempsey got holy in trouble like cooper did, bye bye holyfield.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:30

well a trainer once said to a 22 year old rock who wanted to become a fighter "ur too big for light-H and too small for heavy, forget it kid"

he was apparentley wrong about too small for heavyweight

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:46

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
And the heavyweight division is ALL about size. That is why the cruiserweight division was created, because heavyweights were getting too big.
ur falsely misleaded. its mainly because cruiserweight division is so watered down.

besides most of the heavies would fight better 30-50lbs lighter. heavies today cant keep up with guys of the past like demsey and marciano.

holy wasnt that much past his prime vs lewis. and lewis beat him solidly in both fights.

holy in his prime lost to riddick bowe and michael moorer(who was kayoed by a shot foreman). holy barely beat shot holmes and foreman, and wa nearly knocked out by cooper. imagine if marciano and dempsey got holy in trouble like cooper did, bye bye holyfield.

I agree that the heavyweight division would be more exciting if it was based around guys 200-215. I had Lewis up 117-111 in the first fight; I had the rematch even at 114-114. Like I said, most ringside observers felt it was a draw or slight for Holyfield. The Ring had it 114-114 also. Holyfield had an off night against Moorer and got screwed on the scorecards. I believe one judge had round 2 10-9 instead of 10-8 for Holyfield (Moorer dropped hard) and one judge had it 10-10, which is not possible with a knockdown. It would have been a draw.

This is from the January issue of Boxing 98, sister magazine of the Ring. It is Holyfield vs. The All-Time Greats. For size, I will just put what they said for outcome:

Vs. Jack Johnson: "The Real Deal wins a unanimous decision in a relatively uneventful encounter. His busier punch rate proves the difference."

Vs. Jack Dempsey: "Holyfield's strategy, along with his superior footwork and combination punching, would be enough to carry him to a hard-fought points victory."

Vs. Gene Tunney: "If a creaky Dempsey was quick enough to drop Tunney for the infamous "Long Count," you have to figure a bigger, quicker-handed Holyfield would have a substantial chance of putting together enough punches to force a stoppage."

Vs. Joe Louis: "In some respects, a Louis-Holyfield pairing would resemble Holyfield's third fight with Riddick Bowe. The Real Deal would get in his share of licks early, maybe even deck Louis, but somewhere along the line, probably in the midst of a bristling exchange, one of Louis' searing shots would either knock out Holyfield or hurt him so badly he'd never recover."

Vs. Rocky Marciano: "It's a tough call, but based on the fact that Holyfield's resume is punctuated with more quality fighters than Marciano's, we're going with The Real Deal on points."

Vs. Sonny Liston: "Providing he fights the right kind of fight, Holyfield overcomes some precarious moments to stop a busted-up Liston late in the fight."

Vs. Muhammad Ali: "Holyfield's strength, heart, and tenacity would give Ali trouble, much in the same way that [Doug] Jones did in 1963. But Ali's speed and 4 1/2-inch reach advantage would carry him to a unanimous decision victory."

Vs. Joe Frazier: "Holyfield can't resist the urge to swap punch-for-punch, and after a bruising, action-packed struggle, Frazier--both eyes reduced to slits, blood seeping from his lips--wins an unpopular split decision."

Vs. George Foreman: "A bigger, smarter, more-at-ease-with-himself Foreman lasted 12 round against Holyfield. The angry, up-tight, smaller version doesn't stick around quite that long. Holyfield via late-TKO."

Vs. Larry Holmes: "Holyfield has his moments, but not enough of them, and loses a close decision in a spirited encounter."

"BOTTOM LINE: Holyfield 6; Heavyweight Greats 4. Not too shabby for an overgrown cruiserweight."

And for Tyson-Holyfield circa 1991: 'DIFFERENT DAY, SAME RESULT.' "... While Tyson always regarded Holyfield as just another opponent, it wasn't that way with Commander Vander. He's been obsessed with Tyson for years, convinced that if he beat him that his place in boxing history would be assured. Guess what. He was right. And no matter when they fought, Holyfield's fixation on beating Tyson, along with all his other qualities, would carry him to victory."

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 25 Oct 2005, 06:52

Vs. Jack Johnson: "The Real Deal wins a unanimous decision in a relatively uneventful encounter. His busier punch rate proves the difference."

If they had even bothered to watch a fight of Johnsons, that would wise up quickly. Johnson fought both offensively and defensively, and could hurt a guy while backing up. He could stop moving and stand and punch in a mere second. Holyfield wouldn't be able to outwork Johnson, as he would be outboxed on the outside and tied up and battered on the inside.

Vs. Jack Dempsey: "Holyfield's strategy, along with his superior footwork and combination punching, would be enough to carry him to a hard-fought points victory."

Dempsey didn't throw combinations?

Vs. Gene Tunney: "If a creaky Dempsey was quick enough to drop Tunney for the infamous "Long Count," you have to figure a bigger, quicker-handed Holyfield would have a substantial chance of putting together enough punches to force a stoppage."

If that magazine even bothered to care, those 14 seconds of the "Long Count" were just about the only time, give or take 30 seconds, in their 20 three minute round series that Dempsey was in control. Tunney decked him the following round. The "Long Count" as the basis for one fighter to beat another is pretty lacking of fight knowledge and evaluting their whole assets and faults in my opinion.

And I'm not even bother agruing the Marciano or Liston fights, both are a waste of energy and essentially can override the brain thinking on how they could come up with that.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Oct 2005, 07:12

Sherlock wrote:
If they had even bothered to watch a fight of Johnsons, that would wise up quickly. Johnson fought both offensively and defensively, and could hurt a guy while backing up. He could stop moving and stand and punch in a mere second. Holyfield wouldn't be able to outwork Johnson, as he would be outboxed on the outside and tied up and battered on the inside.

Dempsey didn't throw combinations?

If that magazine even bothered to care, those 14 seconds of the "Long Count" were just about the only time, give or take 30 seconds, in their 20 three minute round series that Dempsey was in control. Tunney decked him the following round. The "Long Count" as the basis for one fighter to beat another is pretty lacking of fight knowledge and evaluting their whole assets and faults in my opinion.

And I'm not even bother agruing the Marciano or Liston fights, both are a waste of energy and essentially can override the brain thinking on how they could come up with that.

The writer of the article is Nigel Collins, who is extremely knowledgeable of the fight game ... I also really doubt he would have commented on Holyfield vs. Johnson if he had not seen Jack Johnson fight. About Dempsey's combination punching, he didn't say Dempsey couldn't through combinations. He simply stated Holyfield could do it better.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 25 Oct 2005, 11:32

I also rate Holyfield around 4 or 5.

People like to mention the fact that he lost 2 fights against Riddick Bowe...

But they fail to mention that he had hepatitis in their 3rd fight, yet still managed to make it a close fight.

Not only did Holyfield have a great career, but if you put boxers up prime for prime, #4/5 is an extremely fitting place for him.

I can't imagine Rocky beating Holyfield... With a baseball bat.

theone · Post by **theone** » 25 Oct 2005, 12:48

This is from the January issue of Boxing 98, sister magazine of the Ring. It is Holyfield vs. The All-Time Greats. For size, I will just put what they said for outcome:

Vs. Jack Johnson: "The Real Deal wins a unanimous decision in a relatively uneventful encounter. His busier punch rate proves the difference."

Agree with the winner but i predict Holyfied by mid to late ko instead of decision.

Vs. Jack Dempsey: "Holyfield's strategy, along with his superior footwork and combination punching, would be enough to carry him to a hard-fought points victory."

as much as I love the Mauler, his style seems taylor made for Holyfield. I agree with this one.

Vs. Gene Tunney: "If a creaky Dempsey was quick enough to drop Tunney for the infamous "Long Count," you have to figure a bigger, quicker-handed Holyfield would have a substantial chance of putting together enough punches to force a stoppage."

Now Tunney potentially has the style to beat Holyfield. I can see Tunney out boxing him, and Holyfield doesnt have Dempseys foot speed to catch him. however i dont think he could escape holyfeild all night, and he doesnt have the physical strenght or power to keep Holyfield off him. Holyfield late round ko.

Vs. Joe Louis: "In some respects, a Louis-Holyfield pairing would resemble Holyfield's third fight with Riddick Bowe. The Real Deal would get in his share of licks early, maybe even deck Louis, but somewhere along the line, probably in the midst of a bristling exchange, one of Louis' searing shots would either knock out Holyfield or hurt him so badly he'd never recover."

I really dont think Louis's punches would effect Holyfield like it did his other opponents. Holyfield is much stronger and may have a much better chin than anyone the brown bomber had ever faced. but lesser fighters than Holyfield have hurt and dropped Louis. The difference with the Bowe fight was Bowe size reach and the fact that he was alot more mobile than Louis was. The fighters would go toe to toe, but i think Holyfields size, chin and power would win it for him by late tko.

Vs. Rocky Marciano: "It's a tough call, but based on the fact that Holyfield's resume is punctuated with more quality fighters than Marciano's, we're going with The Real Deal on points."

Like Dempsey, Marciano's style would feed into Holyfields streghts. The rock would be rocked repeatedly, severely cut and stopped late in the fight, alot like what happened to Tyson.

Vs. Sonny Liston: "Providing he fights the right kind of fight, Holyfield overcomes some precarious moments to stop a busted-up Liston late in the fight."

Liston I think had the right blend of size power reach and mobility to win a clear cut decision against Holyfield.

Vs. Muhammad Ali: "Holyfield's strength, heart, and tenacity would give Ali trouble, much in the same way that [Doug] Jones did in 1963. But Ali's speed and 4 1/2-inch reach advantage would carry him to a unanimous decision victory."

Agreed.

Vs. Joe Frazier: "Holyfield can't resist the urge to swap punch-for-punch, and after a bruising, action-packed struggle, Frazier--both eyes reduced to slits, blood seeping from his lips--wins an unpopular split decision."

fraziers style would have him in trouble early against Holyfield but as the fight progreesed his tenacity and stamina would allow him to outwork Holyfield and take a well deserved unanimous decision.

Vs. George Foreman: "A bigger, smarter, more-at-ease-with-himself Foreman lasted 12 round against Holyfield. The angry, up-tight, smaller version doesn't stick around quite that long. Holyfield via late-TKO."

Despite popular belief, the young foreman was the much better fighter. he would be able to catch Holifield force him into a slugfest and batter him senseless. The young Foreman was stronger faster and a very underrated boxer. As was his stamina. Goerge went eight rounds against Ali throwing nothing but power shots in over 100 degree temparatures. The same against Young in Puerto Rico for twelve rounds, although by that time it was obvious he was not the same fighter since fighting Ali.
Foreman wins this one easy, ko two. in fact i believe only the only fighter in history who beats prime foreman is Ali.

Vs. Larry Holmes: "Holyfield has his moments, but not enough of them, and loses a close decision in a spirited encounter."

Agreed.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 25 Oct 2005, 13:46

Whoa, people are going all over the place here.

Holyfield the #4 all time heavyweight? I loved the Real Deal but that's a ridiculous ranking. I don't even consider him the loser in the Bowe trilogy as he clearly was gonna KO Bowe in the 3rd fight if he hadn't been abysimally sick. BB you are wrong about the Lewis fight . . .Evander was way past his best. Compare the Holyfield of Bean-Lewis-Ruiz to the guy who fought Dokes-Foreman-Douglas. VERY different fight

BUT

he actually benefitted from fighting in an era of bigger behemoth fighters, as he always had the speed and stamina advantage. He also was a helluva boxer with a big punch arsenal and good ring sense. Against guys like Foreman, Mercer, Tyson and even Rahman later in his career etc. . . . guys who tired in the late rounds, who relied on the big bomb, Evander could outsmart and outspeed them all night. Against the smaller guys-Bean, Moorer, Qawi, Dokes, Cooper . . .he had problems. Evander vs Marciano is a bad style matchup for Holyfield. Evander could outbox him early but it would end up a brawl like the Qawi and Cooper fights did, and Marciano was a big class above those two. He had the better stamina, bigger punch, and was just as tough. This was one HW Evander would not out-due in heart. Evander would wear down over time and get TKO'd late in a great fight.

theone · Post by **theone** » 25 Oct 2005, 14:00

Marciano was a big class above those two. He had the better stamina, bigger punch, and was just as tough. This was one HW Evander would not out-due in heart. Evander would wear down over time and get TKO'd late in a great fight.

Marciano was just too small and cut too easy for him to go toe toe with a heavyweight Holyfield.

heartandsoulofboxing · Post by **heartandsoulofboxing** » 25 Oct 2005, 14:10

Rory McCloskey wrote: i am probly angering the boxing gods

No, you're just making a fool of yourself.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 14:19

theone wrote:
Marciano was a big class above those two. He had the better stamina, bigger punch, and was just as tough. This was one HW Evander would not out-due in heart. Evander would wear down over time and get TKO'd late in a great fight.
Marciano was just too small and cut too easy for him to go toe toe with a heavyweight Holyfield.

how was marciano too small???? marciano beat bigger men than holyfield and was at his best fighting bigger guys. size wouldnt be an issue.

i agree with everything dempseyfire said

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 14:26

theone wrote

I really dont think Louis's punches would effect Holyfield like it did his other opponents. Holyfield is much stronger and may have a much better chin than anyone the brown bomber had ever faced. but lesser fighters than Holyfield have hurt and dropped Louis. The difference with the Bowe fight was Bowe size reach and the fact that he was alot more mobile than Louis was. The fighters would go toe to toe, but i think Holyfields size, chin and power would win it for him by late tko.

this is starting to get wayyyy out of hand, we have the modern "big is better" clowns taking over the forum.

marciano, braddock, baer all have near equal chins to holyfield. only time braddock was down was when louis knocked him out cold which goes to show u about louis power. baer hadnt been off his feet before he fought louis.

louis was 10x greater puncher than bowe and a harder hitter. louis threw lethal deadly accurate and fast combos.

holyfield is made for louis, because louis will bust him up with his jab and outbox holy, and when holy tries to slug it out, louis will knock holyfield out with deadly combos.

-holyfield never faced a puncher like louis. louis had snap in his punches that other heavyweights like bowe, lewis, and even foreman wish they could have had. foreman had brute power, but he didnt knock guys out cold because he didnt have the snap in his punches like louis did. that snap makes a man go out cold

I really dont think Louis's punches would effect Holyfield like it did his other opponents

louis was the greatest puncher of all time. you actually think holy can stand there and take the brown bombers punches???

- louis jab would bust up holyfield and cut him up badly, and then louis would find the opening and go in for the kill

Louis KO 6 Holyfield- if anyone was to keep holyfield down for the count, it was louis

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Oct 2005, 15:48

flsboxing here you go

"Marciano's knockout blow packs more explosive energy than an armour-piercing bullet and represents as much energy as would be required to spot lift 1000 pounds one foot off the ground."-Boxing Illustrated December 1963

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Oct 2005, 16:01

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:"Marciano's knockout blow packs more explosive energy than an armour-piercing bullet and represents as much energy as would be required to spot lift 1000 pounds one foot off the ground."-Boxing Illustrated December 1963

Well I guess that settles it. Is that better than Ivan Drago?

sharkeysboy · Post by **sharkeysboy** » 25 Oct 2005, 16:01

Good for Larry. His reputation has so improved in the last 20 years that people are beginning to say he's "overrated." I remember when most people just pointed out his short comings. He's come a long way. But I don't agree he's overrated. He was a great champ who was cursed with having to follow the "Greatest."

Nile4000 · Post by **Nile4000** » 25 Oct 2005, 16:27

Larry was, and always will be, a great champ.It's just that near the end of his career, he didn't fight certain fighters he should've fought, and on a lesser extent, didn't unify the title.

I hate to say it, but Larry Holmes=overrated???

Re: I hate to say it, but Larry Holmes=overrated???