The same goes with Holmes.DoubleM wrote:You do know that Boxrec, while a valuable tool, is extremely incomplete... Right? Some of those fighters with bad looking records probably had a shitload of fights that went unrecorded.Grimm wrote:Atleast the numbers you put up there have decent records.DoubleM wrote:
Bums? Take it you only read half my post then. Those 'bums' were actually top bantamweights of the time... At least as good as Witherspoon, Berbick, Weaver and co. They were just less well known because well, in general, the lighter guys are less popular.
Jeez. I mean if you want to start picking a great fighter apart, I can do that to Larry Holmes too. Who says Holmes beat better competition anyway? His whole title reign opposition was full of inexperience. 13-0-0, 24-0-1, 18-1-1, 10-2-2, 22-0-0, 10-0-0, 14-1-0, 15-0-0, 21-2-0, 25-0-0, 14-0-0, 16-0-0, 27-0-0... I mean come on. If you want to criticize anybody, criticize Holmes. At least Jofre's opposition had some fights under their belts.
I would prefer it if you didn't call any fighter a 'bum'. But if you want to call someone a bum, pick Lorenzo Zanon as your target, Tex Cobb, Scott LeDoux, Ossie Ocasio or some of the other title challengers from Holmes' reign.
Alot of Jofre's opponents were past there best had an ass load of losses or very little fights.
He fought guys with records like 0-0-0,11-4-2,19-8-1,41-17-2,46-27-1,47-22, 4-10-1.
The guys Holmes fought were not as bad as this in any way.
But what do they matter? Duran fought a load of 'bums', so did Robinson, Greb... Like Jofre, they also beat the ones that counted, and that's all that matters.
GREATEST BOXERS
Except his challengers were actually weaker I should imagine, mainly due to experience. Here are some statistics:Grimm wrote:The same goes with Holmes.DoubleM wrote:You do know that Boxrec, while a valuable tool, is extremely incomplete... Right? Some of those fighters with bad looking records probably had a shitload of fights that went unrecorded.Grimm wrote: Atleast the numbers you put up there have decent records.
Alot of Jofre's opponents were past there best had an ass load of losses or very little fights.
He fought guys with records like 0-0-0,11-4-2,19-8-1,41-17-2,46-27-1,47-22, 4-10-1.
The guys Holmes fought were not as bad as this in any way.
But what do they matter? Duran fought a load of 'bums', so did Robinson, Greb... Like Jofre, they also beat the ones that counted, and that's all that matters.
Holmes' successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
526
Holmes' number of defenses:
20
Jofre's successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
373
Jofre's # of defenses:
9
Look at the difference. Holmes had more than double the amount of defenses Jofre did, his opponents didn't have that many less fights, especially when one considers that 59 of Holmes' numbers comes from a totally spent Muhammad Ali.
Average # of Jofre's title opponents' fights: 41.4
Average # of Holmes' title opponents' fights: 26.3
A telling difference in quality, I think.
--
But wait; my argument here is not that Holmes had weak opposition, but that Jofre's was slightly better. And he did a lot more while past his best and above his natural weight.
Did a lot more while past his best?DoubleM wrote:Except his challengers were actually weaker I should imagine, mainly due to experience. Here are some statistics:Grimm wrote:The same goes with Holmes.DoubleM wrote: You do know that Boxrec, while a valuable tool, is extremely incomplete... Right? Some of those fighters with bad looking records probably had a shitload of fights that went unrecorded.
But what do they matter? Duran fought a load of 'bums', so did Robinson, Greb... Like Jofre, they also beat the ones that counted, and that's all that matters.
Holmes' successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
526
Holmes' number of defenses:
20
Jofre's successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
373
Jofre's # of defenses:
9
Look at the difference. Holmes had more than double the amount of defenses Jofre did, his opponents didn't have that many less fights, especially when one considers that 59 of Holmes' numbers comes from a totally spent Muhammad Ali.
Average # of Jofre's title opponents' fights: 41.4
Average # of Holmes' title opponents' fights: 26.3
A telling difference in quality, I think.
--
But wait; my argument here is not that Holmes had weak opposition, but that Jofre's was slightly better. And he did a lot more while past his best and above his natural weight.
What about Holmes giving Holyfield hell and beating Ray Mercer.
Holmes title opponents may have had fewer fights but they had better records.
Jofre won the featherweight title way past his prime and beat a great fighter in Vicente Salvidar. Ray Mercer is nothing in comparison (who guess what - yep, had only eighteen fights).Grimm wrote:Did a lot more while past his best?DoubleM wrote:Except his challengers were actually weaker I should imagine, mainly due to experience. Here are some statistics:Grimm wrote: The same goes with Holmes.
Holmes' successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
526
Holmes' number of defenses:
20
Jofre's successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
373
Jofre's # of defenses:
9
Look at the difference. Holmes had more than double the amount of defenses Jofre did, his opponents didn't have that many less fights, especially when one considers that 59 of Holmes' numbers comes from a totally spent Muhammad Ali.
Average # of Jofre's title opponents' fights: 41.4
Average # of Holmes' title opponents' fights: 26.3
A telling difference in quality, I think.
--
But wait; my argument here is not that Holmes had weak opposition, but that Jofre's was slightly better. And he did a lot more while past his best and above his natural weight.
What about Holmes giving Holyfield hell and beating Ray Mercer.
Holmes title opponents may have had fewer fights but they had better records.
Holmes' opponents had better records? Like who? You can't seriously tell me that a fighter with 16-0-0 is better than one with 53-6-6, for instance. In the age where being undefeated means very, very little, Holmes' challengers were nothing special. 10-0-0? 14-0-0? Give me a break.
-
MEISINGER
- Heavyweight
This is the trivial bullsquirt I was talking about.Talk about skill,weakness,strengths ,speed,agility,offense,defense.This trivial crap is for the birds.They came from different eras where the amount of fights a fighter had can not be compared.Fighters of the last 25 years do not normally fight 100 fights anymore.So this point is wasted.Use common variables in this discussion because these points are futile.
And if you want to talk about 'which great fighter did so-and-so' beat - how about this one; which great fighter did Holmes beat?
Norton? I never thought he was as good as they said, but hey - even if he was great, he was past his best and arguably won his fight with a prime Holmes.
Don't even say Muhammad Ali... He wasn't just shot... He was a fuckin' watering can.
Leon Spinks? Hehe. Michael Spinks, I'll give you that one, Holmes won their second fight unofficially. But Spinks was an ex light heavyweight and, like Holmes at that stage, was probably past his best.
The bottom line for me is this: Jofre faced better competition, accomplished more, and looks better on film.
Norton? I never thought he was as good as they said, but hey - even if he was great, he was past his best and arguably won his fight with a prime Holmes.
Don't even say Muhammad Ali... He wasn't just shot... He was a fuckin' watering can.
Leon Spinks? Hehe. Michael Spinks, I'll give you that one, Holmes won their second fight unofficially. But Spinks was an ex light heavyweight and, like Holmes at that stage, was probably past his best.
The bottom line for me is this: Jofre faced better competition, accomplished more, and looks better on film.
Neither did the guys in Jofre's day. He was only from the '60s/'70s, you know. And if you want to involve actual fighting ability, then in a pound-for-pound sense Jofre was most probably better than Holmes.MEISINGER wrote:This is the trivial bullsquirt I was talking about.Talk about skill,weakness,strengths ,speed,agility,offense,defense.This trivial crap is for the birds.They came from different eras where the amount of fights a fighter had can not be compared.Fighters of the last 25 years do not normally fight 100 fights anymore.So this point is wasted.Use common variables in this discussion because these points are futile.
Mercer was 18-0 against good opposition though.DoubleM wrote:Jofre won the featherweight title way past his prime and beat a great fighter in Vicente Salvidar. Ray Mercer is nothing in comparison (who guess what - yep, had only eighteen fights).Grimm wrote:Did a lot more while past his best?DoubleM wrote: Except his challengers were actually weaker I should imagine, mainly due to experience. Here are some statistics:
Holmes' successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
526
Holmes' number of defenses:
20
Jofre's successful title defenses; their collective # of fights at the time of loss:
373
Jofre's # of defenses:
9
Look at the difference. Holmes had more than double the amount of defenses Jofre did, his opponents didn't have that many less fights, especially when one considers that 59 of Holmes' numbers comes from a totally spent Muhammad Ali.
Average # of Jofre's title opponents' fights: 41.4
Average # of Holmes' title opponents' fights: 26.3
A telling difference in quality, I think.
--
But wait; my argument here is not that Holmes had weak opposition, but that Jofre's was slightly better. And he did a lot more while past his best and above his natural weight.
What about Holmes giving Holyfield hell and beating Ray Mercer.
Holmes title opponents may have had fewer fights but they had better records.
Holmes' opponents had better records? Like who? You can't seriously tell me that a fighter with 16-0-0 is better than one with 53-6-6, for instance. In the age where being undefeated means very, very little, Holmes' challengers were nothing special. 10-0-0? 14-0-0? Give me a break.
Is that too inexperienced?
People like you are the reason that fighters are so overprotected.
Lot's of fighters have won titles with fewer fights than this.
Is that your only comeback? I think we will have to agree to disagree then.Grimm wrote:Mercer was 18-0 against good opposition though.DoubleM wrote:Jofre won the featherweight title way past his prime and beat a great fighter in Vicente Salvidar. Ray Mercer is nothing in comparison (who guess what - yep, had only eighteen fights).Grimm wrote: Did a lot more while past his best?
What about Holmes giving Holyfield hell and beating Ray Mercer.
Holmes title opponents may have had fewer fights but they had better records.
Holmes' opponents had better records? Like who? You can't seriously tell me that a fighter with 16-0-0 is better than one with 53-6-6, for instance. In the age where being undefeated means very, very little, Holmes' challengers were nothing special. 10-0-0? 14-0-0? Give me a break.
Is that too inexperienced?
People like you are the reason that fighters are so overprotected.
Lot's of fighters have won titles with fewer fights than this.
Better yet.DoubleM wrote:And if you want to talk about 'which great fighter did so-and-so' beat - how about this one; which great fighter did Holmes beat?
Norton? I never thought he was as good as they said, but hey - even if he was great, he was past his best and arguably won his fight with a prime Holmes.
Don't even say Muhammad Ali... He wasn't just shot... He was a fuckin' watering can.
Leon Spinks? Hehe. Michael Spinks, I'll give you that one, Holmes won their second fight unofficially. But Spinks was an ex light heavyweight and, like Holmes at that stage, was probably past his best.
The bottom line for me is this: Jofre faced better competition, accomplished more, and looks better on film.
If you want to talk about which fighter did so and so beat.
Who the Hell did Jofre beat?
Don't say Salvidir that's the Equivilent of Holmes beating Ali.
-
MEISINGER
- Heavyweight
Jofre began career in 1957 his first real opponent was robert castro in dec 1958.jofre fought his first top 10 opponent in march of 1961 before winning the title in 1962.after losing twice to harada and drawing with manny elias he fought a string of bums,before winning a fraction of the featherweight title against legra.defended title once before being stripped for refusing to face quality opposition.finished his career against club fighters in brazil.
in jofres era fighters averaged 70 plus fights now fighters average 40.
the comparrison in these numbers are worthless.
both jofres and holmes were great fighters but picking apart a mans record instead of his skills is ignorant.but both were greats.
in jofres era fighters averaged 70 plus fights now fighters average 40.
the comparrison in these numbers are worthless.
both jofres and holmes were great fighters but picking apart a mans record instead of his skills is ignorant.but both were greats.
Erm... I was actually saying it like that as a comeback since is was you who said in the first place; "which great fighter did Jofre beat?"Grimm wrote:Better yet.DoubleM wrote:And if you want to talk about 'which great fighter did so-and-so' beat - how about this one; which great fighter did Holmes beat?
Norton? I never thought he was as good as they said, but hey - even if he was great, he was past his best and arguably won his fight with a prime Holmes.
Don't even say Muhammad Ali... He wasn't just shot... He was a fuckin' watering can.
Leon Spinks? Hehe. Michael Spinks, I'll give you that one, Holmes won their second fight unofficially. But Spinks was an ex light heavyweight and, like Holmes at that stage, was probably past his best.
The bottom line for me is this: Jofre faced better competition, accomplished more, and looks better on film.
If you want to talk about which fighter did so and so beat.
Who the Hell did Jofre beat?
Don't say Salvidir that's the Equivilent of Holmes beating Ali.
So you completely missed the point on that one.
Jofre-Salvidar like Holmes-Ali... Jesus. Now I've heard it all.
What a load of absolute shite. If you're gonna pick apart anyone's career, at least get the facts right. By saying Jofre "fought a string of bums" for instance, you are not even telling the truth - and I love it how you say [not exact quote] 'after winning the title and losing twice he fought a string of bums' - not even mentioning Jofre's title defenses. And for your information, today's fighters may average 40 fights, but Holmes reigned twenty five years ago...MEISINGER wrote:Jofre began career in 1957 his first real opponent was robert castro in dec 1958.jofre fought his first top 10 opponent in march of 1961 before winning the title in 1962.after losing twice to harada and drawing with manny elias he fought a string of bums,before winning a fraction of the featherweight title against legra.defended title once before being stripped for refusing to face quality opposition.finished his career against club fighters in brazil.
in jofres era fighters averaged 70 plus fights now fighters average 40.
the comparrison in these numbers are worthless.
both jofres and holmes were great fighters but picking apart a mans record instead of his skills is ignorant.but both were greats.
You strike me as the kind of fan who can't give a good analysis and can't be bothered to delve into and research a fighter's career.
Last edited by DoubleM on 12 May 2006, 22:15, edited 2 times in total.
\DoubleM wrote:Or what? It's not my fault you can't put together a good debate. The amount of my points you've avoided (or just covered up with crap)...
There are no points that were avoided.
It's just that you were giving up and saying we'll agree to disagree.
Don't try to make it seem as if it's something that it's not.
You just pulled a Roberto Duran and said no mas.
I'm only 'giving up' because with you it's like kicking a ball against a brick wall. You have no reasoning at all, you will not accept that you may be wrong, you cannot fathom it and you take no notice of what anyone else says. Anyone who reads through our debate will see that I brought up the better points, and the majority of well schooled boxing historians (of which I am not) will rate Jofre higher than Holmes. Besides, I haven't got time to keep going over the same stuff.Grimm wrote:\DoubleM wrote:Or what? It's not my fault you can't put together a good debate. The amount of my points you've avoided (or just covered up with crap)...
There are no points that were avoided.
It's just that you were giving up and saying we'll agree to disagree.
Don't try to make it seem as if it's something that it's not.
You just pulled a Roberto Duran and said no mas.
The majority of these so called "Boxing historians" have extremely different ratings.DoubleM wrote: I brought up the better points, and the majority of well schooled boxing historians (of which I am not) will rate Jofre higher than Holmes. Besides, I haven't got time to keep going over the same stuff.
Ex: Nat Fleischer, Bert Sugar etc.
Now if you beat crap than your not much more than crap yourself.
Jofre had a few good wins but most were crap.
Nat Fleischer and Bert Sugar are extremely biased in their views and are very overrated. I don't take their opinions seriously at all. There's a list of Sugar's greatest fighters out there somewhere and it's a complete load of bollocks.Grimm wrote:The majority of these so called "Boxing historians" have extremely different ratings.DoubleM wrote: I brought up the better points, and the majority of well schooled boxing historians (of which I am not) will rate Jofre higher than Holmes. Besides, I haven't got time to keep going over the same stuff.
Ex: Nat Fleischer, Bert Sugar etc.
Now if you beat crap than your not much more than crap yourself.
Jofre had a few good wins but most were crap.
You don't know anything about the guy! You only recognized Harada on his record by quickly skimming BoxrecJofre had a few good wins but most were crap.
-
MEISINGER
- Heavyweight
DoubleM wrote:What a load of absolute shite. If you're gonna pick apart anyone's career, at least get the facts right. By saying Jofre "fought a string of bums" for instance, you are not even telling the truth - and I love it how you say [not exact quote] 'after winning the title and losing twice he fought a string of bums' - not even mentioning Jofre's title defenses. And for your information, today's fighters may average 40 fights, but Holmes reigned twenty five years ago...MEISINGER wrote:Jofre began career in 1957 his first real opponent was robert castro in dec 1958.jofre fought his first top 10 opponent in march of 1961 before winning the title in 1962.after losing twice to harada and drawing with manny elias he fought a string of bums,before winning a fraction of the featherweight title against legra.defended title once before being stripped for refusing to face quality opposition.finished his career against club fighters in brazil.
in jofres era fighters averaged 70 plus fights now fighters average 40.
the comparrison in these numbers are worthless.
both jofres and holmes were great fighters but picking apart a mans record instead of his skills is ignorant.but both were greats.
You strike me as the kind of fan who can't give a good analysis and can't be bothered to delve into and research a fighter's career.
you are being ignorant.i think it is you who is skimming through records and not looking into this situation.i was showing how any fighters record can be made out to look like crap.and i state so in my post.
if you were not so arogant and pompous you would see that in my post.i state that both were all time greats and looking at a mans record is not a way to determine his skills.
if you had any knowledge on the situation and ever watched fights instead of read a forum you then could discuss the skills of both men instead of your weak pathetic RECORD ANALYSIS.
please read a post completely before telling someone they are full of shite.
Actually I did know what you were on about. If you read my post closely you will see I was merely picking you up by saying if you are going to shit on someone's record, at least get the facts half straight. Twat.MEISINGER wrote:DoubleM wrote:What a load of absolute shite. If you're gonna pick apart anyone's career, at least get the facts right. By saying Jofre "fought a string of bums" for instance, you are not even telling the truth - and I love it how you say [not exact quote] 'after winning the title and losing twice he fought a string of bums' - not even mentioning Jofre's title defenses. And for your information, today's fighters may average 40 fights, but Holmes reigned twenty five years ago...MEISINGER wrote:Jofre began career in 1957 his first real opponent was robert castro in dec 1958.jofre fought his first top 10 opponent in march of 1961 before winning the title in 1962.after losing twice to harada and drawing with manny elias he fought a string of bums,before winning a fraction of the featherweight title against legra.defended title once before being stripped for refusing to face quality opposition.finished his career against club fighters in brazil.
in jofres era fighters averaged 70 plus fights now fighters average 40.
the comparrison in these numbers are worthless.
both jofres and holmes were great fighters but picking apart a mans record instead of his skills is ignorant.but both were greats.
You strike me as the kind of fan who can't give a good analysis and can't be bothered to delve into and research a fighter's career.
you are being ignorant.i think it is you who is skimming through records and not looking into this situation.i was showing how any fighters record can be made out to look like crap.and i state so in my post.
if you were not so arogant and pompous you would see that in my post.i state that both were all time greats and looking at a mans record is not a way to determine his skills.
if you had any knowledge on the situation and ever watched fights instead of read a forum you then could discuss the skills of both men instead of your weak pathetic RECORD ANALYSIS.
please read a post completely before telling someone they are full of shite.
And if it's a technical analysis you want, so be it. Name me a couple of greats and I'll predict a winner based on actual ability. I've seen many, many fights and I am not a Boxrec ranger...
-
MEISINGER
- Heavyweight
lets then hear an argument on jofres and holmes skills.that is all i have been asking.i want to hear what you have to say about their skills.
i believe both to be fantastic fighters but why do you rate jofres skils better than larry's?
i also want to apologize for being rude to you.it appears that so many posters want to talk about records and not the actual fighter.i apologize to you if you truly are a fan and not one of these haters.
please lets discuss the skills that you see in jofres.
i will discuss the skills i see in holmes that makes me believe he was slightly better.
i believe both to be fantastic fighters but why do you rate jofres skils better than larry's?
i also want to apologize for being rude to you.it appears that so many posters want to talk about records and not the actual fighter.i apologize to you if you truly are a fan and not one of these haters.
please lets discuss the skills that you see in jofres.
i will discuss the skills i see in holmes that makes me believe he was slightly better.