BoxRec

silkov wrote:Dah!... yeah I really didnt know there were two Baers! can you tell me if the earth is really round or flat?... fool!.

Answer the question.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Your boring me now mate, I'm always up for a 'debate' but when someone stoops to personal insults and attempted WW1 history lessons then I lose interest, ...take your ball home mate I'm not interested anymore!... 8)

Sorry to bore you mate, but all you had to do was answer the question, rather than continually redirect the discussion. There’s no debate when only one side presents any facts.

My appologies for the insults. I got a little carried away.

Why should I answer your questions?... tell me something that proves Louis wasnt troubled by fast mobile fighters?... thats the argument rather than how many Baers were there!... why did Louis never fight Bivins?... (I know he fought him in the 50s when they were both shot!)
You only need to see film of Louis fighting to see that a rangy mobile boxer would give him trouble... Ali is probably still faster on his feet now!...
While I'm at it, Holmes would have spanked Marciano too, ...like he was his daddy!... jockstrap and all!...

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Dah!... yeah I really didnt know there were two Baers! can you tell me if the earth is really round or flat?... fool!.

Answer the question.

What question you talking about?... how many Baers there were?.... dah!... all the dodgey opponents Louis faced its a scandal that he never fought Bivins... Louis management knew it was too risky a fight, simple as that. Colour didnt stop Louis fighting the halfblind John Henry Lewis did it!.... explain that one...

silkov wrote:Why should I answer your questions?

You made the statement mate, not I. And like every other time someone on this forum makes the statement that “Louis had trouble with fast fighters”, they can provide no backup for the statement. Would ATG fast fighters like Conn trouble Louis? Of course. And Conn would have been trouble for anyone, including Holmes. But there’s nobody else on the list. Louis was no more troubled by fast fighters than any other great HW.

And maybe you didn’t notice that Conn’s fighting style bore absolutely no resemblance to Holmes style in the ring.

silkov wrote:Ali is probably still faster on his feet now!

That’s a very well informed and classy statement, mate.

silkov wrote:While I'm at it, Holmes would have spanked Marciano too, ...like he was his daddy!... jockstrap and all!...

Redirecting the discussion again I see... You sure have wasted a lot of typing trying to avoid the question.

Yes, retreat into your world of denial mate... like I said earlier its not rocket science that Louis was slow and predictable in the ring and a boxer like Holmes would be far too clever and fast for him... if you cant come up with any arguments to prove this wrong just admit it mate rather than carrying on with your boring and self-righteous twaddle that shows you dont know half as much as you think you do...

Something else to consider, say what if they would have fought more than once. Joe louis not only won all of his rematches but was impressive while Larry's record in this area is inconclusive. So in a rematch you would have to give that advantage to Louis. Now is it enough of an advantage to turn the fight in Joe's favor is another question. Also what if they had fought three times.

kick asner wrote:Something else to consider, say what if they would have fought more than once. Joe louis not only won all of his rematches but was impressive while Larry's record in this area is inconclusive. So in a rematch you would have to give that advantage to Louis. Now is it enough of an advantage to turn the fight in Joe's favor is another question. Also what if they had fought three times.

Yes I've noticed that Louis was good in rematches, if they fought 3 times I could perhaps see Louis winning one of them... I'm not saying that Louis would have no chance against Holmes, but I'd favour Larry clearly overall... Larry didnt have many rematches but being the clever fighter he was I think he would have improved on performances in rematches as well.... Holmes improved a lot in his rematch with Mike Spinks, which he should have won really!... which was the most important rematch he ever had...

As far as I’m concerned Ali was the greatest heavyweight of all time. It wasn’t just his hand speed, ring mobility and bravery that made him what what he was, it was the generation of other great heavyweights around at that time. And he fought them all. Once father time took two of these great attributes away then the latter became a dangerous thing for him. We all know that he stayed in boxing too long and should never have taken the Holmes fight, but how many great champions have made that very same mistake.

However that is not the argument and I still firmly believe that to date Lennox Lewis like modern athletes in all sporting professions pushed the envelope even further. Yes he was knocked out twice and those people that saw the single punches that delivered those knockouts would have to agree that they were simply devastating blow’s that would have put most of the great heavyweights down for the count. This was mostly due to him disregarding these opponents and being caught cold, something prevalent in all the champions discussed here at some time or another.

However he avenged these loses and the Rahman knockout was blood curdling in its predictability not unlike the Tyson knockout. He fought the best of his era except for Bowe who didn’t really fancy a rematch after his Gold medal defeat to Lewis at the Seoul Olympics. He could box behind a great jab (Tua) or he could fight like the best of them (Ruddock) and despite his “glass jaw” reputation he could take a punch (Bruno).

It is a fact that today’s athletes are bigger stronger faster than there predecessors and I think Lewis typified that. His mobility and hand speed for such a big guy was something to behold and it is for that fact and that fact alone that I feel he would have come out on top against Ali, Louis, Holmes, or Foreman.

Tyson doesn’t even come into the equation as I feel he has been overrated by far too many historians for too many years. Even during his prime he was short on ideas when confronted by a decent jab and a good defence and had Smith or Tucker been a bit more aggressive after the earlier rounds then they would have given him a much tougher fight. Spinks was better than both these fighters but had to be practically dragged from his dressing room like a man going to the gallows such was the hype surrounding Tyson at that time. Spinks was so convinced that he was going to killed in the ring that he got out of there at the first opportunity.

silkov wrote:There was nothing wrong with Holmes chin though, if he could get up from that shot from Shavers then I don't think Louis would keep him down... Holmes wasnt a bad puncher himself and Louis was floored more times than Holmes during his career... and usually by lighter fighters... 8)

louis was a much better all around puncher and finisher than shavers was. if that had been joe louis instead of renaldo snipes, he would have finished off holmes right there and then in the 7th.


you keep brining up billy conn, but you forget there were many guys who were far inferior to joe louis who gave larry holmes life and death close fights.



louis was the greatest puncher of all time and the greatest finisher. of course he could keep holmes down. the only puncher holmes ever faced with the all around punching skills, finishing talent, and handspeed joe louis had was mike tyson and WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.


holmes had a horribly bad habit of slugging it out when he was hurt, a bad flaw that would get him knocked out against joe louis.


- holmes was a sucker for right hands his whole career.....louis had one of the best right hands in history. after louis tags holmes with that right hand, louis would parade holmes with deadly combinations which will leave holmes helpless on the canvas.

Holmes wasnt a bad puncher himself and Louis was floored more times than Holmes during his career... and usually by lighter fighters... 8

lighter fighters but bigger punchers. schmeling, marciano, galento, baer, walcott were all bigger punchers than larry holmes.

Thats thought by some to be one of the reasons why Louis never fought Jimmy Bivins in his prime...

actually it was the war that prevented joe louis from fighting jimmy bivins. bivins still wasnt making big noise in the heavyweight division in 1941-42. not at all. bivins really made his noise in 1943-46 which he went a long period without a loss. louis was going to fight jimmy bivins in 1946 when he got out of the war but bivins got spanked by jersey joe walcott so louis fought walcott instead.


bivins did not have the style to trouble louis. bivins was robotic, not very mobile. he wasnt fastfooted like billy conn, and he lacked the mobility, movement of jersey joe walcott. bivins was there to be hit, and louis would have taken him out in 5

silkov wrote:I suppose Weaver wasnt as good as Braddock, Galento, Baer etc. .. Louis 'bum of the month club' was often just that... as for Louis accomplishments I know all about that and havent the time or inclination to write huge lists here just because you say so... you havent said anything to discount the fact that Louis had trouble with faster fighters... the fact that he was steered away from the peak Bivins speaks for itself!... explain that one!... 8)

holmes fought worse bums in his title reign than louis did in his. holmes fought some BADD fighters. at least some of the lesser title defenses louis had were against EXPERIENCED FIGHTERS, not 10 bout novices holmes fought.


louis was never steered away from a peak bivins. bivins wasnt doing anything UNTIL louis went to war. the war years prevented joe louis-jimmy bivins bout from happening. might i add louis STILL managed to fight bivins, and a 37 year old dehydrated "coming in too light" joe louis easily outpointed jimmy bivins over 10 rounds in 1951.

louis's camp avoided elmer ray and lee q murray far more than they avoided bivins. bivins was tailor made for joe louis. i have film of a prime jimmy bivins. bivins on film was robotic, he fought more flatfooted and used his incredibly long octupus arms to box people on the outside. louis would have flattened jimmy.

silkov wrote:

kick asner wrote:Something else to consider, say what if they would have fought more than once. Joe louis not only won all of his rematches but was impressive while Larry's record in this area is inconclusive. So in a rematch you would have to give that advantage to Louis. Now is it enough of an advantage to turn the fight in Joe's favor is another question. Also what if they had fought three times.

Yes I've noticed that Louis was good in rematches, if they fought 3 times I could perhaps see Louis winning one of them... I'm not saying that Louis would have no chance against Holmes, but I'd favour Larry clearly overall... Larry didnt have many rematches but being the clever fighter he was I think he would have improved on performances in rematches as well.... Holmes improved a lot in his rematch with Mike Spinks, which he should have won really!... which was the most important rematch he ever had...

larry holmes never gave rematches in close fights. his management avoided them like a plague. williams, norton, spoon, weaver all never got well deserved rematches.


you keep talking about bivins........what about when holmes blantantly ducked greg page in 1983 pulling a riddick bowe and giving up his WBC title rather than fight page. page won the WBC title eliminater over sniped to fight holmes, and holmes said "i dont want to fight greg page"(theres a whole interview on it, ill find it)....and gave up his WBC title so he wouldnt have to fight page.

also holmes avoided pinklon thomas in 1984-85 and ducked a rematch with witherspoon and williams

Holmes had flu when he fought Weaver

exuses exuses. weaver simply was much better than the scrubs holmes had previously fought

besides are you really saying that Louis hit harder than Weaver??.

YES, plus louis had much better all around punching skills than mike weaver did. louis threw better combinations, had better handspeed, more accuracy, better finisher

Do you think Schmeling and Braddock hit harder than Holmes?...

schmeling defintley hit harder than holmes.

if Braddock who was little more than a Light-heavy can floor and daze Louis Holmes had the power to ko him imo

braddock was 6'3 197lb when he fought joe louis, thats hardly a lightheavyweight.


braddock did NOT daze louis. he floored louis in a FLASH KNOCKDOWN FOR A ONE COUNT. louis was up at 1 fine and ready. braddock only floored louis cause joe was off balance.


certainly renaldo snipes flooring and badly fazing larry holmes clearly shows you what joe louis could have done to larry

if anyones getting koed in a Holmes vs Louis matchup its Louis

no way!

Holmes had a mixture of size, strength and speed that none of Louis opponents had

louis had a mixture of power, speed, skill, jab, punching skills that none of holmes opponents(except mike tyson who slaughtered holmes) had






lots of fighters inferior to joe louis gave larry holmes life/death close fights

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:

kick asner wrote:Something else to consider, say what if they would have fought more than once. Joe louis not only won all of his rematches but was impressive while Larry's record in this area is inconclusive. So in a rematch you would have to give that advantage to Louis. Now is it enough of an advantage to turn the fight in Joe's favor is another question. Also what if they had fought three times.

Yes I've noticed that Louis was good in rematches, if they fought 3 times I could perhaps see Louis winning one of them... I'm not saying that Louis would have no chance against Holmes, but I'd favour Larry clearly overall... Larry didnt have many rematches but being the clever fighter he was I think he would have improved on performances in rematches as well.... Holmes improved a lot in his rematch with Mike Spinks, which he should have won really!... which was the most important rematch he ever had...

larry holmes never gave rematches in close fights. his management avoided them like a plague. williams, norton, spoon, weaver all never got well deserved rematches.


you keep talking about bivins........what about when holmes blantantly ducked greg page in 1983 pulling a Mike Tyson and giving up his WBC title rather than fight page. page won the WBC title eliminater over sniped to fight holmes, and holmes said "i dont want to fight greg page"(theres a whole interview on it, ill find it)....and gave up his WBC title so he wouldnt have to fight page. Just like Tyson did rather than fight Lewis.
also holmes avoided pinklon thomas in 1984-85 and ducked a rematch with witherspoon and williams

We've heard this crap every week for the last 6 months, mate. I corrected it for you. You keep threatening to post that interview but never manage to do it. Maybe your buddy Spoonbill has wiped his arse with it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:lots of fighters inferior to joe louis gave larry holmes life/death close fights

And lots of fighters inferior to Holmes gave Louis hard fights (I won't get into the bullshit life/death hyperbole - I save that for my knuckledragging mates at ESB)

Collins2000 wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:lots of fighters inferior to joe louis gave larry holmes life/death close fights

And lots of fighters inferior to Holmes gave Louis hard fights (I won't get into the bullshit life/death hyperbole - I save that for my knuckledragging mates at ESB)

Yeah, can you see Holmes being floored by Braddock or Koed by Max Schmeling!!?... ...what are you on anyway Brock??

Its amazing the hysteria that can be generated just by saying a few negative comments about Louis or Marciano?!.... are we adults here or what?.... some of us are, but others are a bit left of field I fear!... 8)

>>>tell me something that proves Louis wasnt troubled by fast mobile fighters?<<<

Well the only example that he was troubled in his prime was the one bout with Conn. Other than that, no fast mobile fighter ever gave Louis any trouble and being that Louis absolutely destroyed Conn in the rematch then there is a real good chance that Louis was simply having a bad night in they're first fight, but trouble with fast, mobile fighters Louis did not have...in fact, other than that one Conn bout...no one else could even really compete with the speed of Louis. He wasn't the most mobile of heavyweights, but then again...he didn't need to be. Now he may have had trouble later in his career with Ezz Charles and Walcott, but put a prime Louis in with a prime Charles and a prime Walcott and see who has troubles!



>>>what about when holmes blantantly ducked greg page in 1983 pulling a Mike Tyson and giving up his WBC title rather than fight page. page won the WBC title eliminater over sniped to fight holmes, and holmes said "i dont want to fight greg page"(theres a whole interview on it, ill find it)....and gave up his WBC title so he wouldnt have to fight page. Just like Tyson did rather than fight Lewis.<<<

I don't recall Tyson ever giving up any belts instead of fighting so and so. Bowe gave up the WBC title instead of face Lewis, but Tyson never did!!

silkov wrote:Its amazing the hysteria that can be generated just by saying a few negative comments about Louis or Marciano?!.... are we adults here or what?.... some of us are, but others are a bit left of field I fear!... 8)

hold on thar....your either wit' us or agin' us.....and either way...them's fitin words.....

BoxBuzz wrote:

silkov wrote:Its amazing the hysteria that can be generated just by saying a few negative comments about Louis or Marciano?!.... are we adults here or what?.... some of us are, but others are a bit left of field I fear!... 8)

hold on thar....your either wit' us or agin' us.....and either way...them's fitin words.....

Eh?...

Heres another one boys!...

...Marciano was a swinger!... ...you heard it here first!... 8)

Marciano swung like a sailor on a three day shore leave!...

I'm not saying Marcinao was a dirty fighter, but the only reason that he didnt hit his opponents on the head with his stool :x :x was because of his lumbago!... :x 8)

TigerShark wrote:However that is not the argument and I still firmly believe that to date Lennox Lewis like modern athletes in all sporting professions pushed the envelope even further. This was mostly due to him disregarding these opponents and being caught cold, something prevalent in all the champions discussed here at some time or another.

Tiger, you original question has been swallowed up in the Holmes Louis Tsunami which is currently breaking. Before I answer i should say as someone who grew up in Britain the 90s Lennox was one of my heros.

You make a good case for Lewis' strengths but you have to take his weaknesses into account also. His size and strength came at a price, his stamina was not 100% reliable and when he started to gas later in figths he had a tendancy to drop his hands. Lewis was never really in a war that showed us just how far his stamina and chin would go, not his fault I know but still important. I'm not 100% sure he would have lasted in a Ali/Frazier, Norton/Holmes or Foreman/Lyle kind of fight against another great heavy. IMO the reduction of fights from 15 to 12 round has had a big effect on the heavyweight division. You better believe fights against Ali, Holmes and Foreman are gonna test your stamina and chin like never before.

Yes he was knocked out twice and those people that saw the single punches that delivered those knockouts would have to agree that they were simply devastating blow’s that would have put most of the great heavyweights down for the count.

Boxing is the art of hitting without being hit, you can make a case that the quality of the shots that knocked him out means his chin was not as bad as some people say but would a prime Ali have been hit by those shots in the first place? As for them knocking out any of the other greats, possibly, but Weaver's knockdown of Holmes and Frazier's knockdown of Ali after 15 hard rounds were hardly flash knockdowns but they still got up.

It is a fact that today’s athletes are bigger stronger faster than there predecessors and I think Lewis typified that. His mobility and hand speed for such a big guy was something to behold and it is for that fact and that fact alone that I feel he would have come out on top against Ali, Louis, Holmes, or Foreman

This is something which is undoubtably true in some sports but I've never been completely sold on it in boxing. Most sports are more competitive now than the were in the past and tougher to compete in and participants have had to improve accordingly. The fact is past generations of boxers had more fights, fought more often, more rounds and in some cases with lighter gloves.

I agree Lewis was a great physical specimin and a great fighter, he would give any heavyweight a tough night. However as important as size, speed and mobility and general athleticism are, they're not the only things you need just look at Wlad Klitschko's career, he's just as mobile as Lewis and also bigger but if the two fought who would you bet on?

IMO the Tyson/Holyfield/Bowe/Lewis heavyweight era of the 90s had potential to be as good or better than any in history. Unfortunately we did not get to see the fights which would have really shown us how good Lewis was.