Re: The great non champions
Posted: 14 Mar 2021, 17:27
And #9 is......?
You're totally playing by yourself.
He's having fun playing by himself.
When Ali retired he lost his title. So beating him at that stage in no way gives Holmes lineal status. Ali was also totally shot and likely loses to any top 10 heavyweight. If Ali had fought Cobb for example he likely loses badly.bwu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2021, 18:45There’s no argument here that Ali was beyond shot. But that isn’t the issue.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2021, 10:45Ali no longer had his lineal status when he fought Holmes since he had retired. So no it doesn't make Holmes lineal in any way shape or form.
Moreover Ali was so shot that plenty of heavyweights could have beaten him at that stage. Beating that version of Ali is basically meaningless.
Ali was the undisputed champ in early ‘78. He lost to Leon Spinks. The latter was stripped of the WBC title shortly thereafter. He then lost the WBA and lineal title back to Ali in late ‘78.
While Ali announced his retirement in ‘79, he didn’t lose to anybody in the ring until he was knocked out by Holmes in ‘80. It’s absolutely valid to consider this a passing of the lineal title.
This is literally the first time I’ve heard anyone claim that Holmes wasn’t a lineal champion. Frankly, I doubt that you can point to anyone outside this thread who would deny his claim.
Well, I saw it on you tube and I really enjoyed it tbh.elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 02:42That wasn't no war. It was a guy running for his life against a champion that fought like a challenger.AntonioMartin wrote: ↑13 Mar 2021, 10:44 Oh and Bernard Taylor!
Drew with Eusebio Pedroza for the WBA world title in a war!
And why are you laughing?
You ask for participation and still put Peter Jackson way above where he belongs. I only read your posts for the humor.
It's just a matter of opinion. Not the absolute truth.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 22:08You ask for participation and still put Peter Jackson way above where he belongs. I only read your posts for the humor.
It's just a matter of your opinion that matters. I'm just always astounded by your bias, no harm, no foul. Your own write up of Jackson shows why he's out of place on the list. Nobody asked for a list anyway, carry on.elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 23:56It's just a matter of opinion. Not the absolute truth.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 22:08You ask for participation and still put Peter Jackson way above where he belongs. I only read your posts for the humor.
Well, some people asked for it. You are not the majority. Carry on also.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 00:00It's just a matter of your opinion that matters. I'm just always astounded by your bias, no harm, no foul. Your own write up of Jackson shows why he's out of place on the list. Nobody asked for a list anyway, carry on.elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 23:56It's just a matter of opinion. Not the absolute truth.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 22:08
You ask for participation and still put Peter Jackson way above where he belongs. I only read your posts for the humor.
elmersalsa wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 09:04Well, some people asked for it. You are not the majority. Carry on also.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 00:00It's just a matter of your opinion that matters. I'm just always astounded by your bias, no harm, no foul. Your own write up of Jackson shows why he's out of place on the list. Nobody asked for a list anyway, carry on.
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 11:11elmersalsa wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 09:04Well, some people asked for it. You are not the majority. Carry on also.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 00:00
It's just a matter of your opinion that matters. I'm just always astounded by your bias, no harm, no foul. Your own write up of Jackson shows why he's out of place on the list. Nobody asked for a list anyway, carry on.![]()
Lol, calling it 'a good thread' is up for debate.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 15:01 you deserve to celebrate my man, buy yourself a big pizza and enjoy![]()
As a pro, yes, though he had a few draws.
So that's just how it is. Explain to me how Holmes, who beat Norton in '78 for the WBC title and Weaver in '79, just before the latter won the WBA title, wasn't a lineal champion. I was being conservative in saying that Holmes didn't cinch the claim until he beat Ali.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2021, 19:23When Ali retired he lost his title. So beating him at that stage in no way gives Holmes lineal status. Ali was also totally shot and likely loses to any top 10 heavyweight. If Ali had fought Cobb for example he likely loses badly.bwu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2021, 18:45There’s no argument here that Ali was beyond shot. But that isn’t the issue.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2021, 10:45
Ali no longer had his lineal status when he fought Holmes since he had retired. So no it doesn't make Holmes lineal in any way shape or form.
Moreover Ali was so shot that plenty of heavyweights could have beaten him at that stage. Beating that version of Ali is basically meaningless.
Ali was the undisputed champ in early ‘78. He lost to Leon Spinks. The latter was stripped of the WBC title shortly thereafter. He then lost the WBA and lineal title back to Ali in late ‘78.
While Ali announced his retirement in ‘79, he didn’t lose to anybody in the ring until he was knocked out by Holmes in ‘80. It’s absolutely valid to consider this a passing of the lineal title.
This is literally the first time I’ve heard anyone claim that Holmes wasn’t a lineal champion. Frankly, I doubt that you can point to anyone outside this thread who would deny his claim.
You can dismiss Ali being totally shot but once he retires he loses his status as champion. That's just how it is.