BoxRec

BitPlayer wrote: ↑28 Jun 2018, 12:16

cfang wrote: ↑27 Jun 2018, 15:37 14. For all the talk about him being a top 2/3 all time heavy, Larry homles's best wins are Gerry cooney, a rookie Witherspoon and a past prime Norton.

You can say stuff like this for absolutely anyone though.

True but making the point that holmes is often these days rated 2/3 heavy of all time and his wins don't really match up to to some other heavys.

Holyfield's best wins for example, Lewis's best wins. They totally eclipse Larry's.

cfang wrote: ↑05 Jul 2018, 18:39

BitPlayer wrote: ↑28 Jun 2018, 12:16

cfang wrote: ↑27 Jun 2018, 15:37 14. For all the talk about him being a top 2/3 all time heavy, Larry homles's best wins are Gerry cooney, a rookie Witherspoon and a past prime Norton.

You can say stuff like this for absolutely anyone though.

True but making the point that holmes is often these days rated 2/3 heavy of all time and his wins don't really match up to to some other heavys.

Holyfield's best wins for example, Lewis's best wins. They totally eclipse Larry's.

It helps Holyfield's case that he actually holds a win over Holmes...albeit a well past his best Holmes.

18. There is nothing wrong with scoring ALL of the close rounds for the same fighter. If you feel like the same fighter keeps edging the close rounds then you should keep scoring the rounds for that fighter period.

Nobody ever seems to take into account Holyfields rampant cheating both inside the ring and with steroids when discussing his greatness. People always act like hes this lock for greatness but if Bonds, McGuire, and Sosa have an asterix by their names why shouldn't Holyfield?

Holyfield wasn't a great heavyweight he lost 2-1 to bowe ,1-1 with former light heavyweight moorer hurt badly by Cooper and fought two ancient fighters in Holmes and foreman then beat a shot Tyson while he looked like he was on PEDS .

19. Fighters of Earlier Eras are Superior to Modern Day Fighters

18a. Scoring close rounds for either fighter can encourage overly defensive, non-risk taking, boring fights, e.g. Mayweather Jr.; the judging in the first Duran-Leonard had it right, 5 rounds even, 4 rounds even, 10 rounds even; a judge shouldn't score a round for one fighter or the other simply because he is expected to; a fighter should clearly win a round or it should be called even. It is OK for a close fight to end in a draw; more often than not it is the fair decision.

klompton wrote: ↑06 Jul 2018, 15:56 Nobody ever seems to take into account Holyfields rampant cheating both inside the ring and with steroids when discussing his greatness. People always act like hes this lock for greatness but if Bonds, McGuire, and Sosa have an asterix by their names why shouldn't Holyfield?

Cos he never failed a drugs test?

Also, were any other heavyweights in the 90s on steroids? Some of them? All of them? Why single out Holyfield?

Tommy Morrison was on steroids. I imagine most of the field was if the truth is told. Especially in the 80s because it wasn't illegal until the 90s in sports.

I believe, the higher level sports in modern times just can't be clean. And some of the test failing cases are the results of the sport politics.

Just like Canelo....

Especially when you consider RING MAGAZINE is essentially tainted because Goldenboy for all intents and purposes have ownership of the syndicate.

20. Ken Norton had a good chin. It wasn't great, but it was good. He routinely is criticized for it. He wasn't when he was actually fighting. People actually mention the Cooney fight and forget the stage of his career.

21. Ray Leonard is a rock solid Top 10 All-time great. He had wins over four fighters who are Top 50. There are less than 10 guys who have done that.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018, 15:42 20. Ken Norton had a good chin. It wasn't great, but it was good. He routinely is criticized for it. He wasn't when he was actually fighting. People actually mention the Cooney fight and forget the stage of his career.

21. Ray Leonard is a rock solid Top 10 All-time great. He had wins over four fighters who are Top 50. There are less than 10 guys who have done that.

You're calling Benitez top fifty then? I think that may be debatable.

Benitez ain't top 50.

I am calling Benitez Top 50. Obviously, there are a lot of guys close, I have him just inside it. He certainly has to be very close.

The only fair and reasonable outcome of any close fight is a draw ...

And if a round is not clearly dominated by one fighter or the other, it should be a 10/10 round ...

... and judges should be ENCOURAGED to score 10/10 rounds ...

klompton wrote: ↑06 Jul 2018, 15:56 Nobody ever seems to take into account Holyfields rampant cheating both inside the ring and with steroids when discussing his greatness. People always act like hes this lock for greatness but if Bonds, McGuire, and Sosa have an asterix by their names why shouldn't Holyfield?

Yes, Holyfield took PEDs, but so did Tyson, Lewis, Klitschkos, Haye, Jones and all top fighters of the last 30-35 years. Even the guys that look unathletic had been caught using PEDs - Arreola, Tyson and Hughie Fury, Povetkin.

Sequitorian wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018, 05:39 The only fair and reasonable outcome of any close fight is a draw ...

And if a round is not clearly dominated by one fighter or the other, it should be a 10/10 round ...

... and judges should be ENCOURAGED to score 10/10 rounds ...

im not a 10-10 extremist who wants them for any close round, but i do use them in many fights and will fight to the death to defend them against the 'no even round!' crowd

jamamb wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018, 05:51

Sequitorian wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018, 05:39 The only fair and reasonable outcome of any close fight is a draw ...

And if a round is not clearly dominated by one fighter or the other, it should be a 10/10 round ...

... and judges should be ENCOURAGED to score 10/10 rounds ...

im not a 10-10 extremist who wants them for any close round, but i do use them in many fights and will fight to the death to defend them against the 'no even round!' crowd

it bugs me when it gets cited as this unsurpassable rule, I've had people tell me every round has a winner if only you know what you are watching, so like scoring an even round isn't an expression of the fight being even (or fvck-all happening in a round) but your own inability as a scorer, which to me is bullsh1t as I have seen plenty of rounds where neither fighter does enough to win it, just for starters.

jamamb wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018, 05:51

Sequitorian wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018, 05:39 The only fair and reasonable outcome of any close fight is a draw ...

And if a round is not clearly dominated by one fighter or the other, it should be a 10/10 round ...

... and judges should be ENCOURAGED to score 10/10 rounds ...

im not a 10-10 extremist who wants them for any close round, but i do use them in many fights and will fight to the death to defend them against the 'no even round!' crowd

OK ... here's one ... and I actually got a US Patent on it way-back-when ...

In a ten-round fight (for example) ...

Round 1 is worth 1-point ...

Round 2 is worth 2-points .. 3 worth 3-points ... and so on up to round 10 which is worth 10 points ...

That way when two guys are feeling each other out in the first few rounds it doesn't amount to much ...

... but as the fight heats up ... it's worth more points ...

... so a fighter who wins the last two rounds decisively doesn't get robbed because he got out-boxed in rounds 1 thru 4 when neither guy landed a meaningful punch ...

PS: This is along the lines of "run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-if-anyone-salutes" ... ...

Sequitorian wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018, 07:15 OK ... here's one ... and I actually got a US Patent on it way-back-when ...

In a ten-round fight (for example) ...

Round 1 is worth 1-point ...

Round 2 is worth 2-points .. 3 worth 3-points ... and so on up to round 10 which is worth 10 points ...

That way when two guys are feeling each other out in the first few rounds it doesn't amount to much ...

... but as the fight heats up ... it's worth more points ...

... so a fighter who wins the last two rounds decisively doesn't get robbed because he got out-boxed in rounds 1 thru 4 when neither guy landed a meaningful punch ...

PS: This is along the lines of "run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-if-anyone-salutes" ... ...

Good logic but IMO I doubt you can climb 1 to 10, the late rounds would be worth too much . . . but some adjustment in that direction would be interesting - rounds 1-3 (1) ; 4-6 (2) ; 7-9 (3) ; 10-12 (4) something like that.

Boxing Writer wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018, 05:46

klompton wrote: ↑06 Jul 2018, 15:56 Nobody ever seems to take into account Holyfields rampant cheating both inside the ring and with steroids when discussing his greatness. People always act like hes this lock for greatness but if Bonds, McGuire, and Sosa have an asterix by their names why shouldn't Holyfield?

Yes, Holyfield took PEDs, but so did Tyson, Lewis, Klitschkos, Haye, Jones and all top fighters of the last 30-35 years. Even the guys that look unathletic had been caught using PEDs - Arreola, Tyson and Hughie Fury, Povetkin.

That's right. A lot of people naively believe in the fair doping politics though and run at caught "cheaters".

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018, 23:08 I am calling Benitez Top 50. Obviously, there are a lot of guys close, I have him just inside it. He certainly has to be very close.

I'd say that counts as an against the grain opinion. Fair play, though. The Cervantes win in and of itself is one of the most incredible accomplishments in the sport's history.

Another big thing that a lot of people don't take into account is that while more modern fighters like Benitez, Sanchez, Tyson, Ohba, etc. tend to get the "what if" treatment when discussing their careers, a lot of their historical counterparts who started young were also past their primes by their mid-20s. Too many names to go over in depth, but if you go over the careers of most of the lower weight greats from around the 20s to 40s, you'll find that most petered out after 7-8 years in the ring, aged 24-27 or so.

I suppose it's rarely discussed just based on the number of fights they had. They were the proven article year in and out while they fought, so what does it really matter that they didn't hold onto that status into old age? I've always considered longevity (at least in terms of age and years fought professionally) overrated when evaluating fighters because of this. That manner of longevity all depends on the arc of a fighter's life and career.

A guy like Benitez in particular, who had been in the gym since 5, sparring pros since 10, world rated since 15, champion by 17, and showing signs of dementia as early as the late 70s, was never going to have a Hopkins/Mayweather type career. It's unfair to compare them in that light, given their vastly different circumstances.

That's not to say that special credence shouldn't be given to a guy like Archie Moore. He was both thrown to the wolves early and faced the very best opposition from Middle to Heavy, and still maintained his craft well into old age.

I'm ranting now.

I think we are on the same page here.
AS you mentioned, Benitez started his career at the age of 15. I am sure there are a few rare exceptions, but usually a fighter isn't going to still be fighting at a high level in his 30s.
For about 8 years, Benitez was a great fighter. To me, it doesn't matter how long a fighter's career is; it's what he did during his career.
i.e. if you beat some great fighters in a short career, that is more impressive than another guy who had a long career but didn't beat as good of competition.

As you also mentioned, Benitez had the win over Cervantes. He also beat Palomino. He also beat Duran. He had several other nice wins.
Even in his losses to Leonard and Hearns, he was competitive. He wasn't that far behind those guys.