Comparing Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard :What's more impressive:

[Cojimar 1946]

I know he fought him, because I watched it, but he avoided Manny for years.

I have a feeling that you prefer defending your arguments and refusing to back down, more than you do watching boxing.

A fight not happening immediately doesn't equal avoidance. If it did than Holyfield would have avoided Lewis and Tyson due to not fighting them earlier. Same with Hearns and Benitez not fighting Duran earlier.

Somehow the fighters in question are not accused of avoiding their opponents.

The fact Pacquiao scored one of his best wins at welterweight years later should render the argument moot anyway

So did Holyfield avoid Tyson and Lewis? Genuinely curious since you seem to think Mayweather not fighting Pacquiao earlier is avoidance

Holyfield could have fought Lewis as far back as 1991

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think Holyfield avoided Lewis. Holyfield always seemed to bewilling to take on anyone. Did Lewis avoid Holyfiled. Doubt it. Things happned. Holyfield was fighting Bowe three times in that time. Lewis had a couple of bad losses which set back a possible match with Holyfield on the backburner.

Saying Holyfield avoided Tyson is ridiculous. Holyfield had already signed to fight Tyson. Then Tyson was sent to prison.
When they finally fight, Holyfield was further past his best than Tyson was past his.

Never said Mayweather ducked Pacquaio or vice versa. My guess is that it was more likely that Mayweather was ducking because Pacquaio always was willing to fight tough opponents. but that is just a guess. It's even possible that they both ducking each other.


The truth is we don't really know why the fight did not happen when it should have. But the bottom line is that it didn't happen when it should. that is what is the most important thing. As fans we missed out on what may have been a great fight. And the winner would deserve to be rated higher than he is.

[Ambling Alp II]

Floyd wasn't the same fighter in 2015 either. He was older than Pac, but i guess aging only affected Pacquiao huh?

First, It is more than a fighter's age that determines how much he is slipping. You should know that. How much punishment he taking in tough fights is a huge factor. Pacquaio had several tough fights during his career. This obviously took a toll on him. Mayweather didn't have that.

Second, yes of course Mayweather was not 100% as good in 2015 as he was in 2009-2011. But he much closer to his best than Pacquiao. This is all common knowledge.

Leonard was obviously past his best when he fought Duran in their 3rd fight. However, he was not as far past his best as Duran was. Which is why nobody makes a big deal of Leonard dominating Duran in their 3rd fight.

[gilgamesh]

Yes, yes. I know there are many factors that play into a fighters aging.

So Floyd loses credit for not having been in as many tough fights, even though his fights hadn't been as tough simply because he was better defensively and took less punishment to begin with.

Any which way it needs to be spun to discredit the achievement i guess.

Duran never got anymore particularly noteworthy victories after losing the 3rd Leonard fight. Pacquiao beat Keith Thurman who was the #1 ranked Welterweight in the world at the time and the significantly younger man. You're not shot if you can beat the #1 guy.

[gilgamesh]

Beating a guy when the matchup is hottest and both fighters are at their best is obviously the Sports fans ideal. It don't always happen that way though, but beating a great fighter especially an All Time Great fighter that still had some great achievements left in him isn't meaningless.

De La Hoya beating Pernell Whitaker wasn't meaningless

Mike Tyson beating Larry Holmes wasn't meaningless

Holyfield beating George Foreman wasn't meaningless

We can always wonder about what might've been if the time changes. If the dates change. If any number of circumstances change, but all we really have to go on is the reality of what happened.

[Ambling Alp II]

That the De La Hoya-Whitaker fight was as close as it was indicated that had Whitaker still been in his prime he would have won.

Tyson-Holmes? I guess you can say that nobody else destroyed an old Holmes like that. But no, it doesn't mean at all that it would have happened has Holmes been remotely close to his prime.

That the fight was as competitive as it was actually helps Foremans cause more than Holyfield's.

But when rating these guys, I didn't give credit to De La Hoya, Tyson, and Holyfield for these fights.
Most people that know the sport don't.

When rating Whitaker, Holmes and Foreman, I don't hold these losses against them at all either. Most people that know the sport don't.

There are a zillion other examples similar to these. And it's the same story.

[gilgamesh]

Tyson beating Holmes is one of his 5 best wins no matter who you ask. Holyfield beating Foreman is one of Holyfield's best wins too.

Same for De La Hoya.

Plus in each and every one of these cases. The winner was the younger man. In the case of Mayweather vs Pacquiao. The winner was the Older man if you discount the idea that aging somehow magically doesn't affect Mayweather. Which i do because it's stupid.

I've never heard anyone attempt to make the argument that Holyfield beating Foreman didn't matter.

[gilgamesh]

And you seem to think that what I'm saying with my examples is Mike Tyson beating an old Holmes means he beats any Holmes.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that in those cases the fighter either was not considered shot coming in or proved he wasn't shot afterward.

Hell in Foreman's case he literally knocked out the guy that had ended Holyfield's 2nd title reign.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think Holyfield avoided Lewis. Holyfield always seemed to bewilling to take on anyone. Did Lewis avoid Holyfiled. Doubt it. Things happned. Holyfield was fighting Bowe three times in that time. Lewis had a couple of bad losses which set back a possible match with Holyfield on the backburner.

Saying Holyfield avoided Tyson is ridiculous. Holyfield had already signed to fight Tyson. Then Tyson was sent to prison.
When they finally fight, Holyfield was further past his best than Tyson was past his.

Never said Mayweather ducked Pacquaio or vice versa. My guess is that it was more likely that Mayweather was ducking because Pacquaio always was willing to fight tough opponents. but that is just a guess. It's even possible that they both ducking each other.


The truth is we don't really know why the fight did not happen when it should have. But the bottom line is that it didn't happen when it should. that is what is the most important thing. As fans we missed out on what may have been a great fight. And the winner would deserve to be rated higher than he is.

The win over Thurman is arguably his best win at welterweight. And it happened 4 years after the loss to Pacquiao. At a minimum it would have to be in his top 3 at the weight. It's certainly more impressive than any of his wins in 2010 and 11 when Floyd supposedly was avoiding him.

Pacquiao accomplished far more after losing to Floyd than Tyson did after losing to Holyfield. Its not even close.

During the time he could have faced Lewis Holyfield was fighting Moorer, Stewart, Czyz, etc. Clearly Lewis was a much bigger fight than these guys and the public would have preferred he face Lewis. What boxing fan wouldnt take a Holyfield Lewis fight over Holyfield Stewart or Holyfield Czyz?

[gilgamesh]

Pac beating Thurman isn't as big as beating Cotto i wouldn't say, but because of where they were in their careers it was bigger than beating De La Hoya I think it would be fair to say not as historic though.

Pac beating De La Hoya felt like the biggest feat a fighter Pac's size ever accomplished in the sports history. While Cotto was harder to beat and a bigger win due to where was at in his career. It didn't seem like as big a deal because by that time Pacquiao doing the impossible had become normal.

[keithmoonhangover]

A fight not happening immediately doesn't equal avoidance. If it did than Holyfield would have avoided Lewis and Tyson due to not fighting them earlier. Same with Hearns and Benitez not fighting Duran earlier.

Somehow the fighters in question are not accused of avoiding their opponents.

The fact Pacquiao scored one of his best wins at welterweight years later should render the argument moot anyway

So did Holyfield avoid Tyson and Lewis? Genuinely curious since you seem to think Mayweather not fighting Pacquiao earlier is avoidance

Holyfield could have fought Lewis as far back as 1991

[Ambling Alp II]

Tyson beating Holmes is one of his 5 best wins no matter who you ask. Holyfield beating Foreman is one of Holyfield's best wins too.

Same for De La Hoya.

Plus in each and every one of these cases. The winner was the younger man. In the case of Mayweather vs Pacquiao. The winner was the Older man if you discount the idea that aging somehow magically doesn't affect Mayweather. Which i do because it's stupid.

I've never heard anyone attempt to make the argument that Holyfield beating Foreman didn't matter.

Tyson performed well against Holmes, no doubt about it. But he was also fighting a guy who was way past his prime. 38 years old. Had not fought in two years. took the fight on short notice. This fight does not do much for Tyson's historical ranking.
The win over Whitaker Doesn't do much for De La Hoya either.

You have never heard anyone say that Holyfield's win over Foreman wasn't one of his biggest wins/ Don't know what world you are living in.
it certainly not one of Holyfield biggest wins. He was fighting an ancient fighter, way, way past his best. He was a statue that Holyfield could hit at will. His win over Holmes doesn't mean anything either. And no Foremans later win over Moorer doesn't mean that Foreman was still in his prime.

Of course, Mayweather he wasn't in his absolute prime. but he was clearly closer than Pacquaio. was to his.

Pacquaio had all those fights against Morales, Barrera, Marquez etc. Anyone watching him could tell he had been declining for years.
Watch a Pacquaio fight from 2009 and then watch him 2015. doesn't even look like the same guy.

Age is just one factor. The amount of hard fights that take their toll is another.
Henry Armstrong was only 30 when he lost to Ray Robinson. It's not considered one of his biggest wins. Why not? because Armstrong was clearly past his best already. He already had 100 fights including tons of fights against great fighters that took a toll on him.

You can't just go age. How in the world can you not know that?

[Cojimar 1946]

So did Holyfield avoid Tyson and Lewis? Genuinely curious since you seem to think Mayweather not fighting Pacquiao earlier is avoidance

Holyfield could have fought Lewis as far back as 1991

How about a simple yes or no? You claim not fighting someone as early as possible is avoidance. You made an argument and I'm pointing out a problem with that argument.

[gilgamesh]

Tyson beating Holmes is one of his 5 best wins no matter who you ask. Holyfield beating Foreman is one of Holyfield's best wins too.

Same for De La Hoya.

Plus in each and every one of these cases. The winner was the younger man. In the case of Mayweather vs Pacquiao. The winner was the Older man if you discount the idea that aging somehow magically doesn't affect Mayweather. Which i do because it's stupid.

I've never heard anyone attempt to make the argument that Holyfield beating Foreman didn't matter.

Tyson performed well against Holmes, no doubt about it. But he was also fighting a guy who was way past his prime. 38 years old. Had not fought in two years. took the fight on short notice. This fight does not do much for Tyson's historical ranking.
The win over Whitaker Doesn't do much for De La Hoya either.

You have never heard anyone say that Holyfield's win over Foreman wasn't one of his biggest wins/ Don't know what world you are living in.
it certainly not one of Holyfield biggest wins. He was fighting an ancient fighter, way, way past his best. He was a statue that Holyfield could hit at will. His win over Holmes doesn't mean anything either. And no Foremans later win over Moorer doesn't mean that Foreman was still in his prime.

Of course, Mayweather he wasn't in his absolute prime. but he was clearly closer than Pacquaio. was to his.

Pacquaio had all those fights against Morales, Barrera, Marquez etc. Anyone watching him could tell he had been declining for years.
Watch a Pacquaio fight from 2009 and then watch him 2015. doesn't even look like the same guy.

Age is just one factor. The amount of hard fights that take their toll is another.
Henry Armstrong was only 30 when he lost to Ray Robinson. It's not considered one of his biggest wins. Why not? because Armstrong was clearly past his best already. He already had 100 fights including tons of fights against great fighters that took a toll on him.

You can't just go age. How in the world can you not know that?

You have trouble with scemantics. I didn't say when Holyfield beat Foreman that Foreman was prime, but he clearly was not shot either. He was still capable of winning and defending the Heavyweight Championship of the world. Old, Washed up fighters can't do that.

You can name 5 better wins for Tyson than Holmes? Then do it.

You can name 5 better wins for Holyfield than Foreman? Then do it.

You can name 5 better wins for De La Hoya than Whitaker? Let's hear 'em.

And let me state for the last time...READ IT THIS TIME.

I KNOW PACQUIAO WASN'T THE SAME IN 2015! I ALREADY SAID HIS PRIME WAS 2008-2010 IN THIS THREAD! THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHEN FLOYD BEAT HIM IT DID NOT MATTER!

Your opinion that a guy is either in his absolute prime or the win simply doesn't matter at all is nonsense.

By your logic Carmen Basilio's biggest career win over Ray Robinson doesn't matter because Robinson wasn't prime. Same for Gene Fullmer.

[keithmoonhangover]

So did Holyfield avoid Tyson and Lewis? Genuinely curious since you seem to think Mayweather not fighting Pacquiao earlier is avoidance

Holyfield could have fought Lewis as far back as 1991

How about a simple yes or no? You claim not fighting someone as early as possible is avoidance. You made an argument and I'm pointing out a problem with that argument.

[Ambling Alp II]

Tyson beating Holmes is one of his 5 best wins no matter who you ask. Holyfield beating Foreman is one of Holyfield's best wins too.

Same for De La Hoya.

Plus in each and every one of these cases. The winner was the younger man. In the case of Mayweather vs Pacquiao. The winner was the Older man if you discount the idea that aging somehow magically doesn't affect Mayweather. Which i do because it's stupid.

I've never heard anyone attempt to make the argument that Holyfield beating Foreman didn't matter.

Tyson performed well against Holmes, no doubt about it. But he was also fighting a guy who was way past his prime. 38 years old. Had not fought in two years. took the fight on short notice. This fight does not do much for Tyson's historical ranking.
The win over Whitaker Doesn't do much for De La Hoya either.

You have never heard anyone say that Holyfield's win over Foreman wasn't one of his biggest wins/ Don't know what world you are living in.
it certainly not one of Holyfield biggest wins. He was fighting an ancient fighter, way, way past his best. He was a statue that Holyfield could hit at will. His win over Holmes doesn't mean anything either. And no Foremans later win over Moorer doesn't mean that Foreman was still in his prime.

Of course, Mayweather he wasn't in his absolute prime. but he was clearly closer than Pacquaio. was to his.

Pacquaio had all those fights against Morales, Barrera, Marquez etc. Anyone watching him could tell he had been declining for years.
Watch a Pacquaio fight from 2009 and then watch him 2015. doesn't even look like the same guy.

Age is just one factor. The amount of hard fights that take their toll is another.
Henry Armstrong was only 30 when he lost to Ray Robinson. It's not considered one of his biggest wins. Why not? because Armstrong was clearly past his best already. He already had 100 fights including tons of fights against great fighters that took a toll on him.

You can't just go age. How in the world can you not know that?

You have trouble with scemantics. I didn't say when Holyfield beat Foreman that Foreman was prime, but he clearly was not shot either. He was still capable of winning and defending the Heavyweight Championship of the world. Old, Washed up fighters can't do that.

You can name 5 better wins for Tyson than Holmes? Then do it.

You can name 5 better wins for Holyfield than Foreman? Then do it.

You can name 5 better wins for De La Hoya than Whitaker? Let's hear 'em.

And let me state for the last time...READ IT THIS TIME.

I KNOW PACQUIAO WASN'T THE SAME IN 2015! I ALREADY SAID HIS PRIME WAS 2008-2010 IN THIS THREAD! THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHEN FLOYD BEAT HIM IT DID NOT MATTER!

Your opinion that a guy is either in his absolute prime or the win simply doesn't matter at all is nonsense.

By your logic Carmen Basilio's biggest career win over Ray Robinson doesn't matter because Robinson wasn't prime. Same for Gene Fullmer.

I don't have trouble semantics. Yes, I realize that that a fighter can be a little past his prime and still have a lot left, which can be a big difference that when he declines further. Which is why these fights have to be rated on a case-by-case basis.

5 better wins for Tyson better than Holmes? Bruno, Tubbs, Ruddock, Tucker, Thomas. And I am not saying they were better fighters than Larry Holmes. But at the time they all fought Tyson, they were. It would not have taken a great fighter to beat that version of Holmes. Holmes had some fighters after Tyson where he was better prepared and looked somewhat better, though obviously not as good as he looked in the late 1970s/early 1980s. The losses to Douglas and Holyfield told us a lot more about Tyson than the win over Holmes.

5 better wins for Holyfield than Foreman? Tyson by a mile. (Tyson was further past his prime than Holyfield and Holyfield still won.) Bowe, by about 5 miles. Thomas, Dokes, and Mercer were bigger wins. Morrison and others as well. And I'm not saying that they were better than Foreman. The Foreman of the 1980s-1990s was great for a middle-aged man. It would not have taken a great fighter to have beaten that version of Foreman. Nobody was saying it was a big win for Holyfield at the time.

De La Hoya is a little different case. He lost most of his really big fights. Trinidad and Vargas might be his only bigger wins that Whitaker. However, you also have to rate guys by their losses, like the Trinidad and Mosley fights. The "win" over Sturm. How big the Whitaker win is debtable. He was slipping but still had something left. the fight was not that good and De La Hoya barely won.

Robinson was not shot when he fought Basilio and Fullmer. He was still very good/borderline great. Just not at the high level that he once was. Basilio and Fullmer certainly deserve some credit, less than if they would have beaten him several years earlier, but more than if they had beaten him several years later.

[gilgamesh]

No doubt I'd agree with you on Tyson and Bowe for Holyfield. I don't think Dokes is a bigger win than even old man Foreman personally. Pinklon Thomas and Ray Mercer...yeah alright, but George is certainly no worse than those guys. A fight between him and Ray Mercer in 1990 is 50/50. A fight between him and Pinklon Thomas in 1989 is 50/50, and I'd outright favor Big George over Dokes.

Tony Tubbs on the best day of his life wasn't as good as the Larry Holmes that fought Ray Mercer in my opinion. So no Tubbs ain't better than Holmes I can't agree on that. Pinklon Thomas, Ruddock...maybe. Tony Tucker if he had fought Holmes in 1989 it would've been 50/50. Bruno...I mean it had more energy than Holmes because he was coming in as the unbeaten British star, but there's not much in Bruno's career to point to him being on Holmes' level. Holmes still beat Mercer years after losing to Tyson. I'm not sure Bruno could've ever beaten Mercer.

I'm surprised you bypassed Michael Spinks for Mike Tyson.

And by the way. A note on that "Nobody gave Holyfield much credit for beating Foreman at the time". That may be true, but nobody could see the future then. Nobody could've thought that Foreman would've won the Heavyweight title, and remained formidable for many more years. There's many cases where a win becomes bigger in retrospect because of what the guy went on to prove or continue to prove later.

Salvador Sanchez beating Azumah Nelson. Nobody knew who Nelson was, but he showed in that fight, and many more in years to come that he was a force to be reckoned with.

Joe Calzaghe beating Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins was a washed up old man coming out of this fight...except he wasn't. He would still go on to recapture the Light Heavyweight Championship 2 more times, and become the oldest Champion in the history of the sport years after losing to Calzaghe.

Lots of fights change in the minds eye with the benefit of hindsight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agree with some of what are saying. Yeah, Spinks is another where I guess you could say was a bigger deal than when he beat Holmes. Though spinks was off his game as well, though I don't think he would have beaten Tyson in any case.
Carl Williams was a similar situation. He did everything but get the decision against a fading Holmes in 1985. Got destroyed by Tyson. Of course I am staying with my picks. I do believe that Holmes that beat Mercer fought a good fight. But he didn't fight nearly that well against Tyson. He took the fight late and wasn't prepared. Stupid on his part.
Dokes fought a very good fight against Holyfield. for whatever reasons' Holyfield's hw fights pre-Douglas always get forgotton. He looked good in all of them. sometimes his opponents fought well.

Foreman struggled with a lot of guys and lost to some after Holyfield. Great for an old guy, but not great if you don't consider it which we shouldn't. Struggled with Alex Stewart, Lou Savarese. Even the Moorer fight he was losing badly until the KO. The guys I mentioned that Hollyfield beat were all better than the comebacking Foreman. He was too slow and easy to hit.

As for Mercer, he was a very unpredictable fighter. It took a great fighter to beat him the night Holyfield fought him. Other times he wasn't nearly that good. He would have beaten Foreman if he fought as well as he did against Holyfield.
Which is what I am basing all of this on with all these fights.

[gilgamesh]

Agree with some of what are saying. Yeah, Spinks is another where I guess you could say was a bigger deal than when he beat Holmes. Though spinks was off his game as well, though I don't think he would have beaten Tyson in any case.
Carl Williams was a similar situation. He did everything but get the decision against a fading Holmes in 1985. Got destroyed by Tyson. Of course I am staying with my picks. I do believe that Holmes that beat Mercer fought a good fight. But he didn't fight nearly that well against Tyson. He took the fight late and wasn't prepared. Stupid on his part.
Dokes fought a very good fight against Holyfield. for whatever reasons' Holyfield's hw fights pre-Douglas always get forgotton. He looked good in all of them. sometimes his opponents fought well.

Foreman struggled with a lot of guys and lost to some after Holyfield. Great for an old guy, but not great if you don't consider it which we shouldn't. Struggled with Alex Stewart, Lou Savarese. Even the Moorer fight he was losing badly until the KO. The guys I mentioned that Hollyfield beat were all better than the comebacking Foreman. He was too slow and easy to hit.

As for Mercer, he was a very unpredictable fighter. It took a great fighter to beat him the night Holyfield fought him. Other times he wasn't nearly that good. He would have beaten Foreman if he fought as well as he did against Holyfield.
Which is what I am basing all of this on with all these fights.

Foreman definitely did struggle with Alex Stewart, and especially with Axel Schulz. He only lost twice after Holyfield though, and one of those was a bogus loss, I don't think most agree with the decision in the Briggs fight. Foreman certainly didn't look shot against Briggs, and that was as old as he ever was in the Ring. So even in his very last fight, he was still formidable.

I'm not sure if Foreman beats Dokes in 1988 as he was so early into his comeback at that time, but if he had been fighting Dokes in late 1989 or anytime in 1990 he kicks Dokes' ass.

Dokes did fight well against Holyfield I don't deny that. So did Dwight Muhammad Qawi, and if you recall Foreman knocked out Qawi. Foreman also would've knocked out Dokes, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

[gilgamesh]

Not all fights between old guys are bad either. In most cases they don't tend to be memorable, but every now and again you get a good fight out of it.

For instance Greg Page vs Tim Witherspoon 2 is actually much, much better than their 1st bout was, and I do give Greg Page a lot of credit for his victory there. No title was on the line, but nobody could say they didn't fight a more spirited battle in that one.

Like you say. In Boxing you kinda gotta assess stuff on a case by case basis, but you can't write off a victory over a guy that still had more great wins left in him as unimportant.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Tyson beating Holmes is one of his 5 best wins no matter who you ask. Holyfield beating Foreman is one of Holyfield's best wins too.

Same for De La Hoya.

Plus in each and every one of these cases. The winner was the younger man. In the case of Mayweather vs Pacquiao. The winner was the Older man if you discount the idea that aging somehow magically doesn't affect Mayweather. Which i do because it's stupid.

I've never heard anyone attempt to make the argument that Holyfield beating Foreman didn't matter.

Tyson performed well against Holmes, no doubt about it. But he was also fighting a guy who was way past his prime. 38 years old. Had not fought in two years. took the fight on short notice. This fight does not do much for Tyson's historical ranking.
The win over Whitaker Doesn't do much for De La Hoya either.

You have never heard anyone say that Holyfield's win over Foreman wasn't one of his biggest wins/ Don't know what world you are living in.
it certainly not one of Holyfield biggest wins. He was fighting an ancient fighter, way, way past his best. He was a statue that Holyfield could hit at will. His win over Holmes doesn't mean anything either. And no Foremans later win over Moorer doesn't mean that Foreman was still in his prime.

Of course, Mayweather he wasn't in his absolute prime. but he was clearly closer than Pacquaio. was to his.

Pacquaio had all those fights against Morales, Barrera, Marquez etc. Anyone watching him could tell he had been declining for years.
Watch a Pacquaio fight from 2009 and then watch him 2015. doesn't even look like the same guy.

Age is just one factor. The amount of hard fights that take their toll is another.
Henry Armstrong was only 30 when he lost to Ray Robinson. It's not considered one of his biggest wins. Why not? because Armstrong was clearly past his best already. He already had 100 fights including tons of fights against great fighters that took a toll on him.

You can't just go age. How in the world can you not know that?

- Now Alpsie, there you go again.

Holmes built a gym on his estate and had been in training for year for Tyson who was busy becoming the first Heavy to hold all the belts, WBC/WBA/IBF/Lineal.

Tubby Lar who used to be skinny couldn't handle Tyson $$$ and accolades that escaped Tubby Lar, so so stalked every Tyson match profaning him in interviews, so Team Tyson gave him a shot and literally crucified him.

Big George BTFO of Field so bad that he was purt fair shot for the rest of his checkered career.

Manny was Ring Ranked P4P fighter for so many years that he set the most P4P fighters fought, won, KOed and consecutively longevity.

What grade was you in then?

[Ambling Alp II]

huh?

[cfang]

Greb beat Mickey Walker , Tommy Loughran and Gene Tunney. All time greats.

These 3 wins are absolutely legendary

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Tyson beating Holmes is one of his 5 best wins no matter who you ask. Holyfield beating Foreman is one of Holyfield's best wins too.

Same for De La Hoya.

Plus in each and every one of these cases. The winner was the younger man. In the case of Mayweather vs Pacquiao. The winner was the Older man if you discount the idea that aging somehow magically doesn't affect Mayweather. Which i do because it's stupid.

I've never heard anyone attempt to make the argument that Holyfield beating Foreman didn't matter.

Tyson performed well against Holmes, no doubt about it. But he was also fighting a guy who was way past his prime. 38 years old. Had not fought in two years. took the fight on short notice. This fight does not do much for Tyson's historical ranking.
The win over Whitaker Doesn't do much for De La Hoya either.

You have never heard anyone say that Holyfield's win over Foreman wasn't one of his biggest wins/ Don't know what world you are living in.
it certainly not one of Holyfield biggest wins. He was fighting an ancient fighter, way, way past his best. He was a statue that Holyfield could hit at will. His win over Holmes doesn't mean anything either. And no Foremans later win over Moorer doesn't mean that Foreman was still in his prime.

Of course, Mayweather he wasn't in his absolute prime. but he was clearly closer than Pacquaio. was to his.

Pacquaio had all those fights against Morales, Barrera, Marquez etc. Anyone watching him could tell he had been declining for years.
Watch a Pacquaio fight from 2009 and then watch him 2015. doesn't even look like the same guy.

Age is just one factor. The amount of hard fights that take their toll is another.
Henry Armstrong was only 30 when he lost to Ray Robinson. It's not considered one of his biggest wins. Why not? because Armstrong was clearly past his best already. He already had 100 fights including tons of fights against great fighters that took a toll on him.

You can't just go age. How in the world can you not know that?

- Made my disdain of Field clear as far as ratings, but he fought the toughest Hvys of his era hands down. Tyson was ruined by King and and a long King orchestrated stints in prison but he was still Tyson even if lesser.

Lewie was mostly protecting his chin before stinking up Field! and lackluster win in 2. Tyson had been a 4rd fighter for a long time when he got beat up by Lewie. Vitali beat Lewie up good, so enter the dirty loose tape trick that sliced Vit's eye where he started clinching so he could rub his Rasta braids into the cut. Cut his 5 fight retirement plan short to duck the lucrative rematch, retiring the day before WBC was stripping him for not fighting Vit.

Bowe won his 3rd fight by the worst foul I can recall after knocking Field into the ropes face first, he unloaded his Sunday punch to the back of his noggin that likely explained the rest of his uneven career with both.


Foreman fought Frazier, Norton and Ali who officially ducked the lucrative 50/50 split to match the Zaire purse by a black Indonesian Oilman. He also whooped Lyle in the best slugfest ever recorded, the Lyle who was beating him on the cards but got stopped by the Vegas ref when he ropadoped Ali. He was immediately all over the ref to no avail. Demolished Moorer who put the undefeated Field in temporary retirement...basically 2 strong generations of hvys...

[Ambling Alp II]

Bowe did not win the 3rd fight Holyfield because of a foul.
Ali did not duck Foreman.
Lyle got stopped by Ali because he was hurt and was not punching back.