BoxRec

johnswan1 wrote:Ironfight is ranked 60th and should be far higher. He'd have been big trouble for ANY heavyweight in history.

Captain Hook wrote:

johnswan1 wrote:Ironfight is ranked 60th and should be far higher. He'd have been big trouble for ANY heavyweight in history.

Ironfight or Ironfist?

He should be top 50 but no highter than 35. He was a lumbering twot.

Carbo wrote:On Lewis versus Holmes, If they were to fight, I would have to pick Holmes. Lewis always struggled more against fighters able to establish a good jab of their own, and on this score, Holmes bows to nobody in boxing history. Holmes also had outstanding stamina and a brilliant chin.

In terms of legacy, I'd also put Holmes slightly ahead, if only because he would never allowed himself the mental weakness that left Lewis underprepared for Rahman. That being said, in terms of the relative strengths of their era's, I'd take Lewis's over Holmes's.

One more point: Klitschko is without a doubt the worst universally recognised heavyweight champion I can think of, topped, perhaps, by his china chinned brother. Why people rate this guy is truly beyond the scope of my admittedly puny brain.

Terry D wrote:Because Williams fought out of his skin that night. Plus if you pay attention to the fight Holmes was out-jabbed but then started to use Williams's left jab as a timer for Holmes's right hand. Williams drops his right when he jabs so Holmes figured this out, neglected his own jab at times, and then hit Williams with right hands. Highlighting the flaw that Weaver would later exploit, Weaver KO'd Williams with a counter when Williams let his shots go, dropping his right in the process.

Norton was past his prime but then again Holmes was not the big puncher needed to get a KO win over Norton. Plus Norton's style was not an Ali or Tyson style that required speed and youth. It was a tight guard, crab punching and pure grit type of style. That is why he pushed Holmes close.

He took a SD over Witherspoon because Tim, at that time, was an amazingly gifted prospect with a boxing brains trust running his corner. He made use of his low style, blocked well and countered the older man. Holmes then got into the fight more and did some sterling work as it went on. Energy + Youth versus Age + Guile, often a recipe for a SD.

As for Holmes being put down by Shavers. Yes, Shavers was limited. On the other hand his punch power was almost unlimited. Therefore Holmes nearly got KO'd because he got hit by a huge shot from one of the biggest hitters ever. That he did not get KO'd, and got up to win a clear fight, is hardly a knock against Holmes is it?

In fact if you give them a bit more thought all you points reflect well on Holmes. I love Lewis but given the Shavers shot Lewis would not have got back to his feet.

Lenny wrote:I agree with the two above posts but one things that always gets me is that if Holmes had the refs that Lewis had for Rahman and especially McCall, we'd be looking at him very differently now.

Not saying Lennox had the recuperation powers of Holmes but Larry is lucky he was given the chance. I'm sure not many would have complained had he been stopped in a few fights

DavidPayne wrote:Interesting equation this, if Shavers was the murderer we thought him to be, how was Holmes able to regroup? Does Shavers really hit harder than say McCall. Is it the force or the resistance that maketh the legend?

Terry D wrote:
Shavers-Lyle is the best slugfest I have seen in many a year.

Gray-Fox wrote:

Terry D wrote:
Shavers-Lyle is the best slugfest I have seen in many a year.

Better than Foreman-Lyle?

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

Gray-Fox wrote:

Terry D wrote:
Shavers-Lyle is the best slugfest I have seen in many a year.

Better than Foreman-Lyle?

Chacon v Limon IV is the greatest slug-fest every to be captured on camera in my opinion.

Better than two Foreman v Lyles with a Corrales v Castillo thrown on top. Imagine Hagler v Hearns for 15 rounds.