Larry Holmes?

[NYDominican]

On January 22, 1988, 38 year old Larry Holmes fought 21 year old Mike Tyson. Mike beat Larry by a 4th round knockout. Holmes at 38 years old was clearly past his prime.


Had a prime Larry fought a prime Mike, what advantages would Holmes had over Tyson?


What advantages would Mike had over Larry?


What do you see happening in this fight?


Who would win? Why?



Please explain.

[dr_devious]

Larry Holmes would win by late stoppage or points for me. Holmes was an all round great fighter, superb skills, chin and decent power. He'd probably survive some rocky moments in the first half of the fight and establish control about mid way, and come on strong down the stretch.

[Nile4000]

On January 22, 1988, 38 year old Larry Holmes fought 21 year old Mike Tyson. Mike beat Larry by a 4th round knockout. Holmes at 38 years old was clearly past his prime.


Had a prime Larry fought a prime Mike, what advantages would Holmes had over Tyson?


What advantages would Mike had over Larry?


What do you see happening in this fight?


Who would win? Why?



Please explain.

Larry's advantage would be his jab. Mike's advantage would be a blend of speed and power Larry hasn't seen before. I see the fight lasting 12, 13 rounds tops. Larry would win by TKO, possibly KO. Why? He wouldn't fear Mike like a lot of his opponents, and, having survived Shavers, wouldn't be totally in awe of his power. Tyson would win a couple of the early rounds, but around the fifth, sixth round, Larry would establish control. Ninth, Tenth, Larry hurts Mike, and Twelth, Thirteenth, Holmes puts him out, or stops him.

[SenorPipino]

Holmes by late KO.

Tyson couldn't deal with Douglas' pretty decent jab. Buster used Tyson's head for a speed bag.

Holmes had a terrific jab. Unleashing the dogs, as he referred to it.

Big and mobile, with good speed, Holmes would bully Tyson into submission around the 12th round. Psychologically, Tyson would have quit trying to compete by the 6th.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Not sure what would have happened if Larry was at his best but Holmes fought on for year's after the Tyson viciously knocked him out and No-One ever did that too big Larry again

[Kalan]

This would always be a VERY tough fight for Holmes because of their styles... Holmes wasn't a super big, tall, and powerful Heavyweight.. It wouldn't be like Ali-Frazier because Tyson was so much faster and much stronger than Frazier.. Tyson's big right hand was more powerful than Smokin's right.. You saw what happened to Michael Spinks, Carl "The Truth" Williams, and Tyrell Biggs.. They weren't super big or strong guys.. Tyson ran over them.

Buster Douglas was a different kettle of fish.. That extra 20 pounds Douglas had was a killer.. Buster was a legitimate 232 in perfect condition. His weight was well distributed and he was very strong and fast -- and he had skills.. But Douglas was a very funny guy.. He would throw hard in the gym, but always saved his energy in fights.. He threw weak punches because he was fearful of running out of gas -- which happened to Buster often. For example, against Tucker he was dead in the water when he got knocked out.. Anytime you're looking to save or conserve energy, you're in trouble.

The Tyson fight was the only fight Buster threw hard the whole fight.. He was in perfect condition and did his roadwork and hard training for months.. He wasn't afraid of running out of gas like usual.. Lennox Lewis was almost always in perfect condition.. He was a very big, tall man, and he was a puncher.. I don't know exactly why Holyfield beat Mike.. Holy wasn't big, tall, or a lot stronger than Tyson -- but he was very confident of beating Mike for some reason.. Maybe his skill level at that time -- or maybe Holyfield hit his exact peak for his 2 Tyson fights. He sure as Hell looked strong.

But the worst style for Mike Tyson was a very big, very tall, very strong, hard punching, fast, and very skilled Heavyweight... That wasn't Larry Holmes.

[SenorPipino]

A tall guy (Holmes was 6'3") with a great jab and good mobility was the worst style for the smallish Tyson.

Holmes had just too much of everything---including heart---for the mentally fragile Tyson to deal with.

While not a big guy, Holyfield had Tyson's number because A) he was more skilled B) superbly confident in himself while Tyson always doubted himself C) had no fear of Tyson. Holyfield couldn't be bullied.

[Counter-puncher]

He was a very big, tall man, and he was a puncher.. I don't know exactly why Holyfield beat Mike.. Holy wasn't big, tall.......

Maybe have a think to yourself that your criteria need widening

[Kalan]

I don't think so... Tyson was a 23 to1 favorite to beat Holyfield... But I had the underdog Holyfield..

I knew Evander could stay with Tyson on the inside and outbox him from the outside... But if the Holyfield who lost to Moorer and Bowe showed up??? Tyson had a great shot to beat him... Holy only weighed 205 for his first Bowe fight.. He got his strength way up for the rematch and used his boxing ability better.

But nobody is really sure why any fighter will peak for one opponent and really not fight his best against another opponent... Consistency is very rare, but I believe Holylfield had been targeting Tyson all his life -- and that's why he arrived in such perfect condition and was mentally ready.

[Kalan]

A tall guy (Holmes was 6'3") with a great jab and good mobility was the worst style for the smallish Tyson

Smallish Tyson??? Tyson was bigger than Holmes prime for prime... and he was one HELL of a lot more powerful.

"Great" is not a style... It's a degree of ability... Boxers with jabs and mobility were Pinklon Thomas... Truth Williams (who fought a near draw with Holmes)... Tyrell Biggs... Michael Spinks (who beat Holmes)... Henry Tillman... Tony Tubbs... Tony Tucker... Trevor Berbick... Larry Holmes... and Bruce Seldon.

Except for Tucker, who was big, tall, strong guy, those were some of the easiest fights Tyson had.. Jabbers with speed and mobility were Tyson's meat.

James Smith was a big, strong guy despite his lack of speed, skill, mobility and a jab.. Smith was one of Tyson's tougher opponents and so was Ruddock, another big, slow guy.. Tyson was wasn't big for his era -- but in the 1950's and 1960's he would have been HUGE, fearsome, and destructive... Sonny Liston was the most fearsome and avoided Heavyweight of the 1950's and Sonny went 210 in his prime decade.. Tyson was 210 when he was 16 years old.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

A tall guy (Holmes was 6'3") with a great jab and good mobility was the worst style for the smallish Tyson

Smallish Tyson??? Tyson was bigger than Holmes prime for prime... and he was one HELL of a lot more powerful.

"Great" is not a style... It's a degree of ability... Boxers with jabs and mobility were Pinklon Thomas... Truth Williams (who fought a near draw with Holmes)... Tyrell Biggs... Michael Spinks (who beat Holmes)... Henry Tillman... Tony Tubbs... Tony Tucker... Trevor Berbick... Larry Holmes... and Bruce Seldon.

Except for Tucker, who was big, tall, strong guy, those were some of the easiest fights Tyson had.. Jabbers with speed and mobility were Tyson's meat.

James Smith was a big, strong guy despite his lack of speed, skill, mobility and a jab.. Smith was one of Tyson's tougher opponents and so was Ruddock, another big, slow guy.. Tyson was wasn't big for his era -- but in the 1950's and 1960's he would have been HUGE, fearsome, and destructive... Sonny Liston was the most fearsome and avoided Heavyweight of the 1950's and Sonny went 210 in his prime decade.. Tyson was 210 when he was 16 years old.

TYSON WAS NOT BIGGER THEN HOLMES................................ BE REAL MATE THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE HOLMES WAS THE BIGGER FIGHTER

[Kalan]

Especially Mike Tyson... Mike didn't have the height, weight, or reach to deal with guys like Douglas or Lewis... Guys who could box his ears off. Big, slow, crude guys like Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, and BoneCrusher Smith, Mike could out-box and out-speed them.. They weren't a problem. Guys like Mercer and McCall didn't get bullied by Lennox Lewis because they were physically a lot bigger than Mike.

Guys like Holmes, Williams, and Spinks didn't have the size or strength to overpower Tyson... Mike was big and strong enough to run them over like a tank.

TYSON WAS NOT BIGGER THEN HOLMES................................ BE REAL MATE THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE HOLMES WAS THE BIGGER FIGHTER

We're not talking about weight, but natural SIZE... Prime Larry Holmes weighed 209 for Ken Norton and Tyson was never that light since he turned pro at 18.. Being big and fat doesn't give you strength and power.. I would argue that George Foreman was at his MOST powerful in Foreman-Frazier 1 at 217.. He was brutal.. He was sharp and looked much faster.. He was more mobile and quicker on his feet than I'd ever seen him... All the fat was off... You can go a lot longer that way without gassing -- as long as you don't kill yourself taking it off in the last month and do it over several months.

Buster Mathis said he felt a lot stronger, faster, and punched harder at 220 than 250.. But he only got his weight down for 2 or 3 fights.. He was addicted to sweets and snack foods and couldn't help himself.. Cus D'Amato told him he'd never be champion if he didn't get that fat off and keep it off.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Especially Mike Tyson... Mike didn't have the height, weight, or reach to deal with guys like Douglas or Lewis... Guys who could box his ears off. Big, slow, crude guys like Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, and BoneCrusher Smith, Mike could out-box and out-speed them.. They weren't a problem. Guys like Mercer and McCall didn't get bullied by Lennox Lewis because they were physically a lot bigger than Mike.

Guys like Holmes, Williams, and Spinks didn't have the size or strength to overpower Tyson... Mike was big and strong enough to run them over like a tank.

TYSON WAS NOT BIGGER THEN HOLMES................................ BE REAL MATE THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE HOLMES WAS THE BIGGER FIGHTER

We're not talking about weight, but natural SIZE... Prime Larry Holmes weighed 209 for Ken Norton and Tyson was never that light since he turned pro at 18.. Being big and fat doesn't give you strength and power.. I would argue that George Foreman was at his MOST powerful in Foreman-Frazier 1 at 217.. He was brutal.. He was sharp and looked much faster.. He was more mobile and quicker on his feet than I'd ever seen him... All the fat was off... You can go a lot longer that way without gassing -- as long as you don't kill yourself taking it off in the last month and do it over several months.

Buster Mathis said he felt a lot stronger, faster, and punched harder at 220 than 250.. But he only got his weight down for 2 or 3 fights.. He was addicted to sweets and snack foods and couldn't help himself.. Cus D'Amato told him he'd never be champion if he didn't get that fat off and keep it off.

You my friend is getting worst

[RScarf1]

When Holmes beat Norton, I think that version of Holmes beats Tyson.

[Kalan]

I don't... Tyson runs over that version like a freight train running over Molly Bee -- or like Foreman ran over Norton. Styles make fights.

Norton made it easy for Foreman by leading with his head -- and a boxer would never do that... But Tyson was an attacker. Holmes was made to order for him

[Tony1244]

I don't know, that's my answer. It may have been a very close, tough fight like Ali-Frazier 1 and 3.

If I remember correctly, Holmes won a round or 2 from Tyson. Has my memory served me well?

[Kalan]

Holmes did well early in the Tyson fight... But it was evident that he lacked the size and strength to hold Mike off for long... Tyson was coming very hard.

[Tony1244]

Holmes did well early in the Tyson fight... But it was evident that he lacked the size and strength to hold Mike off for long... Tyson was coming very hard.

Perhaps if Holmes had the legs and reflexes he had had 10 years earlier, Larry would have kept winning rounds.

[Nile4000]

Holmes did well early in the Tyson fight... But it was evident that he lacked the size and strength to hold Mike off for long... Tyson was coming very hard.

Perhaps if Holmes had the legs and reflexes he had had 10 years earlier, Larry would have kept winning rounds.

Prime Larry beats Mike.

[northern]

Put both men in their primes and I say Holmes would outbox and outclass Tyson by far.

Advantages for Holmes would be that he had a better boxing skill set to use and better all round boxing ability, better sparring partners to help him prepare when you consider he was a sparring partner of both Ali and Frazier when both were at their peaks.
I'd even go as far to say his physical training would be better, not as intense as Tyson by any measure but crafted to suit a fight that he would control and win over the longer rounds.

Advantages for Tyson, in short - power and intimidation. Tyson at his peak was a monster, without a doubt no-one aside from a few wanted to fight him at his very best. He literally threw aggression at the other person from the word go and it was psychologically damaging even thinking about him. Physically he was always powerful but when he trained well he was second to none in many cases and could and did win a lot of fights on strength and power alone.

In the fight though I see Holmes controlling him and out boxing him, letting him tire himself out much like Ali did against Foreman, though nothing as risky as letting Tyson throwing full power swings at him for round after round. More likely Holmes would outbox Tyson and use his range to control where the fight took place and when Tyson did close the distance he'd use the clinch to let Tyson push him back against the ring ropes or use the clinch to tie him up in the corner so he couldn't get any momentum going with an aggressive attack and constantly had to fight his way out of there.

I'd see a prime Holmes winning by simply outsmarting and outpointing Tyson and dragging the fight into the later rounds to win by points or late TKO/KO. We all saw later in 'Iron' Mike's later career when he met up with talented boxers like: Lewis, Holyfield even the man who shocked the world by beating Tyson the first time - James Douglas, they all proved when you out boxed Tyson, he couldn't come up with an answer for it and he lost.
Holmes will always be underestimated in the history books because he was in the era after Ali, but he did stay in there with some big punching opponents, Ken Norton for example: knocked out or retired 8/10 people before he met Holmes for the tile, only getting a split decision in the eliminator before and losing to Ali himself prior to that. Adding another name for evidence would be Earnie Shavers who at the end of his career could boast 68 victories by KO/TKO and Holmes beat him twice, once by points and later by an 11th round TKO after going down in the 7th round himself.

[Kalan]

Ken Norton for example: knocked out or retired 8/10 people before he met Holmes for the tile, only getting a split decision in the eliminator before and losing to Ali himself prior to that. Adding another name for evidence would be Earnie Shavers who at the end of his career could boast 68 victories by KO/TKO and Holmes beat him twice, once by points and later by an 11th round TKO after going down in the 7th round himself.

Norton was a China-chin so be serious... He was stretched by a 188-pounder named Garcia... Shavers was a much worse China-chin who was crushed by Quarry and Stander so be serious -- those guys don't represent the best Holmes could do or the extent of his skills... Holmes beat Ray Mercer at 42, and was the best Heavyweight of the 20th Century up through the 1980's -- but he wasn't perfect.. Every fighter has somebody who can beat him.. Holmes struggled with Truth Williams and Michael Spinks -- and Tyson ran over them.. His youthful speed, power and attacking ability would crush Holmes' ATG skills.

Holmes was the prototype Heavyweight who Tyson could run over with Blitzkrieg force... In other words Larry wasn't super big or strong.

Tyson getting beat had little to do with how brilliant his conquerors could box... The men who beat him were bigger and stronger than Mike.. They had nothing but sneering contempt for his bullying, snarling, angry glares, and pacing around his corner like a human tiger.. They never displayed a hint of fright.

[northern]

Ken Norton for example: knocked out or retired 8/10 people before he met Holmes for the tile, only getting a split decision in the eliminator before and losing to Ali himself prior to that. Adding another name for evidence would be Earnie Shavers who at the end of his career could boast 68 victories by KO/TKO and Holmes beat him twice, once by points and later by an 11th round TKO after going down in the 7th round himself.

Norton was a China-chin so be serious... He was stretched by a 188-pounder named Garcia... Shavers was a much worse China-chin who was crushed by Quarry and Stander so be serious -- those guys don't represent the best Holmes could do or the extent of his skills... Holmes beat Ray Mercer at 42, and was the best Heavyweight of the 20th Century up through the 1980's -- but he wasn't perfect.. Every fighter has somebody who can beat him.. Holmes struggled with Truth Williams and Michael Spinks -- and Tyson ran over them.. His youthful speed, power and attacking ability would crush Holmes' ATG skills.

Holmes was the prototype Heavyweight who Tyson could run over with Blitzkrieg force... In other words Larry wasn't super big or strong.

Tyson getting beat had little to do with how brilliant his conquerors could box... The men who beat him were bigger and stronger than Mike.. They had nothing but sneering contempt for his bullying, snarling, angry glares, and pacing around his corner like a human tiger.. They never displayed a hint of fright.

Ken Norton had a glass chin ? Where are you getting that idea from ? A man who along with Holmes put on arguably one of the best heavy weight fights the sport back in 1978 with both men trading shots and didn't go down during the fight, even by the end of his career he only suffered 4 TKO/KO defeats, two of which were in his last 5 fights.
Going over Garcia, Norton fought him 8 years before he met Holmes in the ring, and at that point of his career he was still building up his experience as a professional, early days defeats rarely take away from the final product, he is a great heavyweight in his own right. Also you were quick to mention Shavers getting crushed by Quarry and Stander but keep in mind Norton fought both men as well - And beat both by TKO in 5 rounds.
Mentioning shavers though, he did get beat by stander early on in his career when he had only really fought inexperienced and over matched opponents and when he first met Quarry, Quarry was on a four fight win streak against experienced opponents and had 3 KO/TKO wins in his last 3 fights. And before you write him (shavers) off not many boxers would lose a fight to Ali then risk another loss against Holmes in their next fight, the man had guts to take a fight like that straight after a big loss.

Tyson didn't fight bigger opponents either Holyfield had to build himself to be a heavyweight, he started as a cruiser weight and unified the division for crying out loud and he completely outclassed Tyson as a boxer and yes in their first fight Tyson was HEAVIER then Holyfield on the scales, Mentioning Douglas if he just got luckier or outweighed him, why did Tyson never fight him again ? he fought 8 men before meeting Holyfield and a few had better records then Douglas, why no rematch? no titles ? Or maybe because they were worried of a repeat of the upset victory that shocked everyone.
Funny thing as well, when Holyfield met Douglas after he beat Tyson that was a serious weight difference, Douglas had 10/11 pounds on Tyson and he had 38 pounds on Holyfield in his next fight.

[Kalan]

Ken Norton for example: knocked out or retired 8/10 people before he met Holmes for the tile, only getting a split decision in the eliminator before and losing to Ali himself prior to that. Adding another name for evidence would be Earnie Shavers who at the end of his career could boast 68 victories by KO/TKO and Holmes beat him twice, once by points and later by an 11th round TKO after going down in the 7th round himself.

Norton was a China-chin so be serious... He was stretched by a 188-pounder named Garcia... Shavers was a much worse China-chin who was crushed by Quarry and Stander so be serious -- those guys don't represent the best Holmes could do or the extent of his skills... Holmes beat Ray Mercer at 42, and was the best Heavyweight of the 20th Century up through the 1980's -- but he wasn't perfect.. Every fighter has somebody who can beat him.. Holmes struggled with Truth Williams and Michael Spinks -- and Tyson ran over them.. His youthful speed, power and attacking ability would crush Holmes' ATG skills.

Holmes was the prototype Heavyweight who Tyson could run over with Blitzkrieg force... In other words Larry wasn't super big or strong.

Tyson getting beat had little to do with how brilliant his conquerors could box... The men who beat him were bigger and stronger than Mike.. They had nothing but sneering contempt for his bullying, snarling, angry glares, and pacing around his corner like a human tiger.. They never displayed a hint of fright.

Ken Norton had a glass chin ? Where are you getting that idea from ? A man who along with Holmes put on arguably one of the best heavy weight fights the sport back in 1978 with both men trading shots and didn't go down during the fight, even by the end of his career he only suffered 4 TKO/KO defeats, two of which were in his last 5 fights.
Going over Garcia, Norton fought him 8 years before he met Holmes in the ring, and at that point of his career he was still building up his experience as a professional, early days defeats rarely take away from the final product, he is a great heavyweight in his own right. Also you were quick to mention Shavers getting crushed by Quarry and Stander but keep in mind Norton fought both men as well - And beat both by TKO in 5 rounds.
Mentioning shavers though, he did get beat by stander early on in his career when he had only really fought inexperienced and over matched opponents and when he first met Quarry, Quarry was on a four fight win streak against experienced opponents and had 3 KO/TKO wins in his last 3 fights. And before you write him (shavers) off not many boxers would lose a fight to Ali then risk another loss against Holmes in their next fight, the man had guts to take a fight like that straight after a big loss.

Tyson didn't fight bigger opponents either Holyfield had to build himself to be a heavyweight, he started as a cruiser weight and unified the division for crying out loud and he completely outclassed Tyson as a boxer and yes in their first fight Tyson was HEAVIER then Holyfield on the scales, Mentioning Douglas if he just got luckier or outweighed him, why did Tyson never fight him again ? he fought 8 men before meeting Holyfield and a few had better records then Douglas, why no rematch? no titles ? Or maybe because they were worried of a repeat of the upset victory that shocked everyone.
Funny thing as well, when Holyfield met Douglas after he beat Tyson that was a serious weight difference, Douglas had 10/11 pounds on Tyson and he had 38 pounds on Holyfield in his next fight.

Yeah, Norton had a glass chin... If a 188-pound guy with 12 wins knocks you dead there's a little bit of glass in there... He wasn't as tough as Foreman or Frazier -- though Smokin' took more shots than Norton.. But you needed to be a puncher to get Norton out -- and generally have a little size and strength behind you... Then you could run him over and get that glass tinkling.

Early defeats always take away from a boxer... That's because if he has any talent he's being matched to get him to 20 wins... The fact that Norton beat the inept Stander and the washed up and much smaller Quarry means little or nothing.

Stander was a lot EARLIER in his career than Shavers... That was supposed to be another easy win for Shavers... Losing to Ali and Holmes is no feather in the cap of Shavers -- but he was able to avoid a KO by Ali, which I figured wouldn't happen because Shavers was knocked out a lot.

Holyfield not only built himself up to Heavyweight -- for Tyson he built himself up big, powerful, and fast... Those were his 2 peak fights...

Douglas was a 1-fight wonder.. He was very big, tall, fast, strong, and skilled.. His daddy taught him to box from the time he was 3.. Buster was a good athlete.. He never trained or got ready.. He got his act together for 1 fight against Mike -- then immediately went back to being Buster Douglas.. Douglas was 300 pounds when he started training for Holyfield.. Was he ever going to get down to weight??? HELL NO. He canned the title right there.

[northern]

Yeah, Norton had a glass chin... If a 188-pound guy with 12 wins knocks you dead there's a little bit of glass in there... He wasn't as tough as Foreman or Frazier -- though Smokin' took more shots than Norton.. But you needed to be a puncher to get Norton out -- and generally have a little size and strength behind you... Then you could run him over and get that glass tinkling.

Early defeats always take away from a boxer... That's because if he has any talent he's being matched to get him to 20 wins... The fact that Norton beat the inept Stander and the washed up and much smaller Quarry means little or nothing.

Stander was a lot EARLIER in his career than Shavers... That was supposed to be another easy win... Losing to Ali and Holmes is no feather in the cap of Shavers -- but he was able to avoid a KO by Ali, which I figured wouldn't happen because Shavers was knocked out a lot.

Holyfield not only built himself up to Heavyweight -- for Tyson he built himself up big, powerful, and fast... Those were his 2 peak fights...

Douglas was a 1-fight wonder.. He was very big, tall, fast, strong, and skilled.. His daddy taught him to box from the time he was 3.. Buster was a good athlete.. He never trained or got ready.. He got his act together for 1 fight against Mike -- then immediately went back to being Buster Douglas.. Douglas was 300 pounds when he started training for Holyfield.. Was he ever going to get down to weight??? HELL NO. He canned the title right there.

Let's just remind ourselves this is a heavyweight fight, the heavyweight division is one that a fight can change with one punch, these men are in the biggest division because they have one punch knockout power, any heavyweight that steps into a ring to compete has stopping power that should be obvious.
Also lets be clear - I'm not comparing Norton to Frazier or foreman am I? I'm speaking for his record against people he actually fought, not comparing him against other heavyweights outside of the debate.

And early defeats do take away from a boxer do they ? So to mention a modern boxer - Alvarez who is considered one of the best pound for pound boxers today - Who lost to Floyd Mayweather, or should we consider someone else ? Lomachenko maybe ? He lost his second professional fight but won everything else since is he any less of a future great ?, Maybe Manny Pacquiao ? His first loss came against a boxer called Rustico Torrecampo who had a record of 11-4-5, no-one remembers much about it and Pacquiao is still one of the best today.

and to build up your contradictions further in one sense your saying Norton beat them (Stander and Quarry) while they were washed up ? But then Shavers was one of the last men to defeat Norton in his last few fights long after Norton had fought his wars with Holmes among others. Both men had their ups and downs but neither was a push over or an easy fight and it's damn right disrespectful to say or imply that about either.

Just to clarify about Holyfield, he was normally the smaller man in his fights, Chris Byrd and James Toney back in the early 2000's were the only ones he outweighed as a heavyweight. And as for his peak I would have said that was against Lennox Lewis really, two genuine world level boxers competing against one another, not a boxer vs brawler match up like Holyfield vs Tyson.

And just to clarify about Douglas he may have canned the title after his fight with Tyson when he lost to Holyfield, but the fact is: he beat Tyson when he (Tyson) was at his most fierce and he came back after losing to Holyfield and a 6 year lay off, even winning 8 out of his last 9 fights, all of which were 10 rounds and the sole losing effort in a 12 round fight for the then popular IBA title, that's a pretty damn good way to go out.

[Kalan]

Let's just remind ourselves this is a heavyweight fight, the heavyweight division is one that a fight can change with one punch, these men are in the biggest division because they have one punch knockout power, any heavyweight that steps into a ring to compete has stopping power that should be obvious. Also lets be clear - I'm not comparing Norton to Frazier or foreman am I? I'm speaking for his record against people he actually fought, not comparing him against other heavyweights outside of the debate.

And early defeats do take away from a boxer do they ? So to mention a modern boxer - Alvarez who is considered one of the best pound for pound boxers today - Who lost to Floyd Mayweather, or should we consider someone else ? Lomachenko maybe ? He lost his second professional fight but won everything else since is he any less of a future great ?, Maybe Manny Pacquiao ? His first loss came against a boxer called Rustico Torrecampo who had a record of 11-4-5, no-one remembers much about it and Pacquiao is still one of the best today.

and to build up your contradictions further in one sense your saying Norton beat them (Stander and Quarry) while they were washed up ? But then Shavers was one of the last men to defeat Norton in his last few fights long after Norton had fought his wars with Holmes among others. Both men had their ups and downs but neither was a push over or an easy fight and it's damn right disrespectful to say or imply that about either.

Just to clarify about Holyfield, he was normally the smaller man in his fights, Chris Byrd and James Toney back in the early 2000's were the only ones he outweighed as a heavyweight. And as for his peak I would have said that was against Lennox Lewis really, two genuine world level boxers competing against one another, not a boxer vs brawler match up like Holyfield vs Tyson.

And just to clarify about Douglas he may have canned the title after his fight with Tyson when he lost to Holyfield, but the fact is: he beat Tyson when he (Tyson) was at his most fierce and he came back after losing to Holyfield and a 6 year lay off, even winning 8 out of his last 9 fights, all of which were 10 rounds and the sole losing effort in a 12 round fight for the then popular IBA title, that's a pretty damn good way to go out.

Not every Heavyweight is a good puncher... Jack Sharkey had a very low KO ratio as several Heavyweight Champions did.. Sharkey hit Carnera real good but couldn't hurt him.. Carnera plowed Sharkey when he caught him a good one, but they were both wiped out by Louis.. I've often heard the argument that any Heavyweight can hit.. Or anyone who weighs over 200 pounds can hit.. Yes, if they're fighting a little guy.. A tough Heavyweight may be able to take about anything they can throw..

Canelo didn't suffer ANY early defeats... He had over 40 fights including several World Title Fights before he lost to Mayweather... Lomachenko fought for the World Featherweight Title in his 2nd and 3rd professional fights.. He was robbed in his 2nd pro fight, and everybody knows it... It's hardly a real fight if your opponent deliberately weighs Heavier than the contract weight and gives up his world title -- and the officials are corrupt as Hell.

Douglas did nothing after beating Tyson... He beat ZERO ranked Heavyweights or anyone of any note... He put himself in the top bracket when he beat Tyson -- but never got back on the wagon.