BoxRec

funso banjo baby wrote:thats a bit of an odd assesment. for me larry's record is as comprehensive a record as you can get for an all time great.
he beat the old generation in ken Norton. became the liniar undisputed champion with a huge span and defences against many fighters who went on to claim various titles after.

I wouldn't describe his record as "comprehensive" because we are touching upon the suggestion of this being some sort of all-encompassing Heavyweight Championship record that it really wasn't.

There are a number of things that Larry (with his ability) could have done during his time that would have enhanced his record:
1. Larry never unified the three Heavyweight titles of the time. (Now that would be comprehensive)
2. Larry did not meet all of the top cotenders of his time.

Larry could have achieved much more, yet he did not.

funso banjo baby wrote:with the exception of Page and Coetzee there is really no one missing. and having said that, Page and Coetzee (like all the tainted wba champs at that time) had a six month period where they looked good. same for Dokes.

Well you could throw Pinklon Thomas in there as well.

funso banjo baby wrote:Tim Witherspoon was never better than the night he fought Holmes

That is a matter of opinion.

funso banjo baby wrote:I have a similar opinion about Marvin Hagler. i dont consider the Sugar Ray fight to be his defining fight. for me Hagler is an all time top 5, like Holmes based on the title defences.

I would say that Hagler was a much more dominant Champion during his era that what Larry was during his time. Nothing underlines that more than the fact that The Marvellous One held every World title in his division. - Surely that is the greatest indicator of surpemacy for any weight class.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Come on Ezzard.
Tony Thompson would have lost every time to the top guys of the 1980s. A 42 year old Tony Thompson would have got his head handed to him; not beating Top 10 contenders.
Sure some of the guys didn't have builds. So what. Do we really need to go over guys who had great build that weren't that good and lost to guys who didn't? Weaver himself had a great physique and lost several times.

You really think anyone fighting today would be a challenge for the Holmes of the early 1980s? Or Tyson of the mid-late 1980s?

There were several good fights in the 1980s:
Holmes-Cooney
Holmes-Witherspoon
Holmes-Spinks II
Witherspoon-Thomas
Witherspoon-Bruno
Thomas-Weaver
Weaver-Coatzee
Dokes-Weaver II
Page-Coetzee
Tyson-Tucker
Tyson-Thomas
Holyfield-Dokes

Not classics, but in all of these fights, each fighter fought well. There are several other where one liked very impressive. They showed something called skill, which has been missing for a long time in the heavyweight division.

Where are the fights like this in the last several years?

Thompson would win some and lose some against the likes of Weaver, Bruno, Page, Tubbs, Broad, Coetzee, Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Williams, Snipes, Cobb...

I agree that none of the contenders today would likely beat Holmes or Tyson. But I don't think any of the contenders from back then would beat a Klitschko either... Sure the odd home run shot would KO Wlad... But my argument is simply that the quality of the eras is comparable.

Larry was the liniar undisputed champion. regardless of who held the WBA titles
there is no real argument here.
there werent three baubles during this period. just the wbc and wba
Holmes and Hagler ushered in the era of IBF


Holmes got beat by Spinks at 48-0 with a string of defences right back to his victory over Norton.

that is the record. your argument is silly faced with the facts

he fought former and future title holders

he fought every number one that came his way

the fact that the WBA fights fell through is just politics...and its far more significant that practically every WBA champ threw the title away in their first defence ...the genuine clamour for fights with Page, Coetzee, and Dokes lasted for a few months and then evaporated due to their awful defences.

and of course Hagler was more dominant

The 1980s era and the present era aren't all comparable. Ezz agrees that the Klitischkos weren't as good as Tyson and Holmes. They are not even close.
So right there the 1980s has a big edge.

Why couldn't the WBS champs beat Vitaly? What is really good at? Defenses, Left hook, uppercut, overhand right, speed, jab, combinations, what?

Most of the top guys from the 1980s would have a pretty good chance against his glass jaw brother.

Tony Thompson might get by Broad or Cobb;maybe. But they weren't really top contenders. He would lose 9 of 10 times to Witherspoon, Thomas, etc.

Still waiting to hear what were the good heavyweight fights of the past several years?

Smells of desperation.

Vitali and Wlad would be most of them by simply turning up in shape and being focused. If you can't see that it's a pointless argument.

I don't really understand why it's so important for most of this board to pretend that they weren't all saying the exact same things in the 1980s. I read all the magazines and watched all the fights. Now it's been reinvented.

Witherspoon was KO'd in 1 by a durable bloke with a right hand.
Thomas was beaten on points by an awkward and limited strong man.
Page was beaten by David Bey.

They were all very beatable.

On those nights Thompson would have won all three fights. And they were not 1 in 10 occurrences but de rigueur in 84.

What Ezzard can't see is the difference in skillset in the two eras. He can only see breasts and bellies and assume the fighters must therefore be of the same quality. They aren't, and what's more Thompson doesn't even have one significant win on his record. Marvis Frazier would win every round against Tony Thompson.

What I did see was a very, very limited but athletic Frank Bruno, from the stand tall jab-right hand-clinch school, completely outbox Bonecrusher for 9 rounds... Who then went on to give Holmes hell and spark Witherspoon.

Just remind me of Berbick's skill set?

You're putting salt on yesterday's offal and calling it bacon.

And I saw Frank Bruno outbox Lennox Lewis. What's your point?

I'm like a human Rubik's Cube, aren't I?

Ezz,
I don't think anyone is arguing that the 1980s was the best era, or that there was some bad performances by many of the top guys. However, you are making the same mistakes as people often do about this era and the one that we have been in.

You keep bringing up being in shape. It doesn't matter what a fighter looks like; it matters what he could do. Mike Williams was in as good of shape as anyone in either era. He was a mediocre fighter.
Weaver, Carl Williams, Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno, Pinklon Thomas, Smith etc. were usually in great shape. Yet sometimes they lost to Tubbs, Witherspoon, Page etc.

Wladimir lost to Corrie Sanders who wasn't exactly ripped. Vitaly lost to an obese Lennox Lewis and little butterball Chris Bryd.

You take one bad performance by Witherspoon and twist that into making the whole era bad. And you ignore all the crap performances of recent times.

You are also ignoring the two best of the 1980s, who were far better than the Kltischkos.

You still can't even come up with one good fight in the last 12 years. Not even one. That speaks volumes right there.

Ezzard wrote:Smells of desperation.

Vitali and Wlad would be most of them by simply turning up in shape and being focused. If you can't see that it's a pointless argument.

I don't really understand why it's so important for most of this board to pretend that they weren't all saying the exact same things in the 1980s. I read all the magazines and watched all the fights. Now it's been reinvented.

Witherspoon was KO'd in 1 by a durable bloke with a right hand.
Thomas was beaten on points by an awkward and limited strong man.
Page was beaten by David Bey.

They were all very beatable.

On those nights Thompson would have won all three fights. And they were not 1 in 10 occurrences but de rigueur in 84.

Page was arguably robbed against Bey, but that's matter of opinion.

Nile4000 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Smells of desperation.

Vitali and Wlad would be most of them by simply turning up in shape and being focused. If you can't see that it's a pointless argument.

I don't really understand why it's so important for most of this board to pretend that they weren't all saying the exact same things in the 1980s. I read all the magazines and watched all the fights. Now it's been reinvented.

Witherspoon was KO'd in 1 by a durable bloke with a right hand.
Thomas was beaten on points by an awkward and limited strong man.
Page was beaten by David Bey.

They were all very beatable.

On those nights Thompson would have won all three fights. And they were not 1 in 10 occurrences but de rigueur in 84.

Page was arguably robbed against Bey, but that's matter of opinion.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Smells of desperation.

Vitali and Wlad would be most of them by simply turning up in shape and being focused. If you can't see that it's a pointless argument.

I don't really understand why it's so important for most of this board to pretend that they weren't all saying the exact same things in the 1980s. I read all the magazines and watched all the fights. Now it's been reinvented.

Witherspoon was KO'd in 1 by a durable bloke with a right hand.
Thomas was beaten on points by an awkward and limited strong man.
Page was beaten by David Bey.

They were all very beatable.

On those nights Thompson would have won all three fights. And they were not 1 in 10 occurrences but de rigueur in 84.

Page was arguably robbed against Bey, but that's matter of opinion.

!

Ambling Alp II wrote:You take one bad performance by Witherspoon and twist that into making the whole era bad. And you ignore all the crap performances of recent times.

Doesn't that say everything there is to say about Ezzard and his argument? He's not only willfully ignoring the high profile, extensive and thoroughly well-documented outside-the-ring problems Spoon was suffering ahead of that fight, but also conveniently forgetting that Spoon totally outclassed Bonecrusher over 12 rds in another fight!

It's called trolling. It's worse than a polecateddy or a stevedoc, who are simply imbeciles beyond help. Ezzard should know better but the fact is he's come to a lazy conclusion that doesn't stand up, and is having to skip fights and skewer facts to make his point.

I love Tim. Most boxing fans do. He was a super talent. He could also be beaten by extremely limited fighters who turned up on the night with their A-game. That's the only point I'm making.

His outside-the-ring problems should be between him and his therapist.

Today's guys are much bigger. Partly this will be more effective 'science' no doubt. But this means they simply cannot be as free-flowing perhaps as guys from the past. Less easy on the eye for sure...but effectiveness is the key here.

In the little experience of sparring I have size makes up for and covers up a lot of shortcomings. The style of these giants is highly effective.

Of course, size isn't everything, I hear you muttering to your wives, but then I enjoy all those posts mocking Tyson Fury for getting dropped by Cunningham ( a Cruiserweight).

Cunningham weighed more than Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Frazier...

I'm only agitating on this subject because I can't believe the contradictions and double standards.

What of that big suet pudding Odlanier Solis?

Here’s a guy who has won a gold medal at the Olympics...and multi-golds at the World Championships.

Now Cuba’s ability to create great amateurs is not in doubt. If you’re a Cuban gold medallist you’re a special fighter with great potential. If you want to argue this point then open another thread and try not to get too emotional.

Solis becomes a pro…he’s unmotivated (remind you of anyone?), has outside the ring issues (remind you of anyone?). He gets bombed out in a round (extenuating circumstances - remind you of anyone?) sleepwalks to defeat to a guy he should have beaten (remind you of anyone?)...

If you think the 1980s was a little better I’m not going to argue. If you think they were leagues ahead you’re over involved…best to get out now before your heart gets broken…

Here’s another chap… David Haye…

Has an excellent Cruiserweight career. Moves up to Heavy and is pilloried for his performances. Gets dismissed because of the defeat to Wlad… How many times did I witness 1980s Heavyweights turn up and do an impression of the cult classic ‘The Blob’? Seems to me that non-efforts in the 1980s meant you were a super skilled guy on anti-depressants…but being gun shy today makes you a poor fighter.

I stopped talking about trolls when I put down my Fairy Tales...but if it make anyone feel comfortable that's okay with me.

But I honestly don't see much of a difference between Berbick and Povetkin. Both are awkward, limited, tough guys. I'm pretty sure Sam Peter would KO Carl Williams. Tony Thompson would be favourite to beat Bruno and Bonecrusher. Best for best Greg Page would beat Chris Byrd...but on the average night of their careers I'd back Byrd.

There are 100s of times I'd pick the 1980s guys. It just gets overstated here...

Ezzard wrote:Of course, size isn't everything, I hear you muttering to your wives, but then I enjoy all those posts mocking Tyson Fury for getting dropped by Cunningham ( a Cruiserweight).

Cunningham weighed more than Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Frazier...

I think these statements, out of all your recent bizarre posts, sum up just how poor your critical perception is here.

Cunningham weighed more than X great fighters. Again I'm forced to ask with one of your strange statements: What exactly is your point?

Chris Byrd weighs more than a peak Mike Tyson. Does that make him a bigger puncher than Tyson, a stronger fighter?

Tony Thompson weighs more than David Tua or Joe Frazier, and is a heck of a lot bigger. Does that make him a bigger puncher than Tua and Frazier, is he the stronger fighter?

'The style of these giants is highly effective.' Who? Which giants? You've been discussing Solis, Povetkin, Peter, Thompson. You call that 'effective'? Baffling.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Of course, size isn't everything, I hear you muttering to your wives, but then I enjoy all those posts mocking Tyson Fury for getting dropped by Cunningham ( a Cruiserweight).

Cunningham weighed more than Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Frazier...

I think these statements, out of all your recent bizarre posts, sum up just how poor your critical perception is here.

Cunningham weighed more than X great fighters. Again I'm forced to ask with one of your strange statements: What exactly is your point?

Chris Byrd weighs more than a peak Mike Tyson. Does that make him a bigger puncher than Tyson, a stronger fighter?

Tony Thompson weighs more than David Tua or Joe Frazier, and is a heck of a lot bigger. Does that make him a bigger puncher than Tua and Frazier, is he the stronger fighter?

'The style of these giants is highly effective.' Who? Which giants? You've been discussing Solis, Povetkin, Peter, Thompson. You call that 'effective'? Baffling.

It means you can't smirk and point out that Fury got dropped by a Cruiserweight...unless of course you are of the opinion that size does in fact have an impact.

In which case smirk away...

Poor critical perception is better than none at all.

And Cunningham/Fury is an irrelevant strand that you yourself introduced into this thread!

'80s heavyweights were more skillful than modern heavyweights.'
'Ah, but Steve Cunningham knocked down Tyson Fury, and let's not forget he is a much bigger man than Jack Dempsey.'
'What are you talking about? I'm saying 80s heavyweights were more skillful than modern heavyweights, regardless of Steve Cunningham, whoever he is.'
'Ah, but remember, Frank Bruno outboxed Bonecrusher, a man that absolutely no one is referring to as one of the skillful 80s heavyweights. That was before Bruno was knocked out for the full count. But prior to that he outboxed him. And yet Bonecrusher went on to lose to Larry Holmes. And let's not forget Bruno has a very modern style. And that Bonecrusher beat Witherspoon on the worst night of his life, who he had also previously lost to, but did Witherspoon have a therapist? That is the question. I'm sorry but we must make a sweeping dismissal of all 80s heavyweights. You are all polishing a turd and calling it a steak, and mixing various other metaphors.'
'Do you even know what you're talking about?'
'Do I know what I'm talking about? . . . Oh . . . (smug look, strokes chin in an attempt to appear enigmatic), poor child, don't you know . . . ?'

I did say you'd get emotional... Looks like I was right about that too.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:You take one bad performance by Witherspoon and twist that into making the whole era bad. And you ignore all the crap performances of recent times.

Doesn't that say everything there is to say about Ezzard and his argument? He's not only willfully ignoring the high profile, extensive and thoroughly well-documented outside-the-ring problems Spoon was suffering ahead of that fight, but also conveniently forgetting that Spoon totally outclassed Bonecrusher over 12 rds in another fight!

It's called trolling. It's worse than a polecateddy or a stevedoc, who are simply imbeciles beyond help. Ezzard should know better but the fact is he's come to a lazy conclusion that doesn't stand up, and is having to skip fights and skewer facts to make his point.

I wouldn't call it trolling, I don't believe Ezzard is trying to upset people. He is just picking and choosing at scraps of evidence that supports his view, and is ignoring points that don't fit his argument. He is hardly alone at doing this.
You know it's bad when people have to resort to the they are bigger now, so they must better defense.
You also know it's bad when they can't even come up with one good fight of this era.