BoxRec

his competition just wasnt that good..i would agree that i need to see more, but for some of those fighters, u dont have to see the fight to realize they shouldnt have been fighting for a title, or that they just arent that good.

Rory McCloskey wrote:his competition just wasnt that good..i would agree that i need to see more, but for some of those fighters, u dont have to see the fight to realize they shouldnt have been fighting for a title, or that they just arent that good.

You can't say how good his competition was if you haven't seen it!... the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact... and I can say that I know this because I have seen them fight. Its all very well to have rose-tinted glasses about the Heavyweights of the 30s, but the fact is they were a pretty poor bunch.
How can you judge what fighters should have fought for the title and which 'just aren't that good' when you haven't seen them fight?. Louis fought a good many fighters who never should have got a title fight... far more than Holmes.
If you're going to judge fighter you have to see them fight otherwise its just nonsense.

the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact..

joe louis beat greater quality fighers than holmes did, maybe not more depth but ill say depth is equal.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact..

joe louis beat greater quality fighers than holmes did, maybe not more depth but ill say depth is equal.

Like who for instance?.... the best fighters Louis fought during his reign were Farr, Conn, Walcott... the rest were pretty limited...

silkov wrote: the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact... and I can say that I know this because I have seen them fight.

How is this a fact? Perhaps you need to get a dictionary and look up the definition of the word fact? By any chance, did you skip science classes in school?

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote: the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact... and I can say that I know this because I have seen them fight.

How is this a fact? Perhaps you need to get a dictionary and look up the definition of the word fact? By any chance, did you skip science classes in school?

If you take the time to actually watch the fighters that Holmes fought and compare them to those that Louis fought than many would agree with what I am saying. I suppose you're another one whose only seen two or three of Holmes fights.....

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote: the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact... and I can say that I know this because I have seen them fight.

How is this a fact? Perhaps you need to get a dictionary and look up the definition of the word fact? By any chance, did you skip science classes in school?

If you take the time to actually watch the fighters that Holmes fought and compare them to those that Louis fought than many would agree with what I am saying. I suppose you're another one whose only seen two or three of Holmes fights.....

Hmmm, skipped reading comp as well? Please reread my post. The comment was about your claim that it was a fact that Holmes era HW's were better than 30's era HW's. Unless you have a time machine, and have actually staged some of these fantasy HW matchups, this opinion can not possibly be a fact.

And FYI, I saw every Holmes title fight, many of his pre and post chmpionship fights, as well as seeing him fight live prior to winning the title. He was a great HW. So was Louis. But no one can say it's a fact that Holmes opponents were better than Louis's opponents.[/b]

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote: How is this a fact? Perhaps you need to get a dictionary and look up the definition of the word fact? By any chance, did you skip science classes in school?

If you take the time to actually watch the fighters that Holmes fought and compare them to those that Louis fought than many would agree with what I am saying. I suppose you're another one whose only seen two or three of Holmes fights.....

Hmmm, skipped reading comp as well? Please reread my post. The comment was about your claim that it was a fact that Holmes era HW's were better than 30's era HW's. Unless you have a time machine, and have actually staged some of these fantasy HW matchups, this opinion can not possibly be a fact.

And FYI, I saw every Holmes title fight, many of his pre and post chmpionship fights, as well as seeing him fight live prior to winning the title. He was a great HW. So was Louis. But no one can say it's a fact that Holmes opponents were better than Louis's opponents.[/b][/

Why the sarcasm?...

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote: If you take the time to actually watch the fighters that Holmes fought and compare them to those that Louis fought than many would agree with what I am saying. I suppose you're another one whose only seen two or three of Holmes fights.....

Hmmm, skipped reading comp as well? Please reread my post. The comment was about your claim that it was a fact that Holmes era HW's were better than 30's era HW's. Unless you have a time machine, and have actually staged some of these fantasy HW matchups, this opinion can not possibly be a fact.

And FYI, I saw every Holmes title fight, many of his pre and post chmpionship fights, as well as seeing him fight live prior to winning the title. He was a great HW. So was Louis. But no one can say it's a fact that Holmes opponents were better than Louis's opponents.[/b]

Why the sarcasm?...

Because of the pompous tone used in your posts. If you would tone down the rhetoric and attempt a real exchange rather than making outlandish claims of facts that can't possibly be facts then I will be a bit more civil as well. When you make statemenst such as "the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact" you are not attempting an exchange of ideas but are attempting to shut off all opinions other than your own.

My appologies for the sarcastic tone, but I am rather irritated by those who make claims of fact that are nothing more than opinion.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Hmmm, skipped reading comp as well? Please reread my post. The comment was about your claim that it was a fact that Holmes era HW's were better than 30's era HW's. Unless you have a time machine, and have actually staged some of these fantasy HW matchups, this opinion can not possibly be a fact.

And FYI, I saw every Holmes title fight, many of his pre and post chmpionship fights, as well as seeing him fight live prior to winning the title. He was a great HW. So was Louis. But no one can say it's a fact that Holmes opponents were better than Louis's opponents.[/b]

Why the sarcasm?...

Because of the pompous tone used in your posts. If you would tone down the rhetoric and attempt a real exchange rather than making outlandish claims of facts that can't possibly be facts then I will be a bit more civil as well. When you make statemenst such as "the heavies of the 80s were far superior to those of Louis era....this is a fact" you are not attempting an exchange of ideas but are attempting to shut off all opinions other than your own.

My appologies for the sarcastic tone, but I am rather irritated by those who make claims of fact that are nothing more than opinion.

Maybe my use of the word 'fact' was a little off key as obviously everything here is just opinions, but I think you are being rather pedantic. :( .. ie 'one who overvalues or insists on tiny details of learning and grammatical rules'..... you'll be pleased to know that I got that from my dictionary... 8)

silkov wrote:Maybe my use of the word 'fact' was a little off key as obviously everything here is just opinions, but I think you are being rather pedantic. :( .. ie 'one who overvalues or insists on tiny details of learning and grammatical rules'..... you'll be pleased to know that I got that from my dictionary... 8)

Yes, and I believe that you have used it before. Perhaps you need another word of the week? Damn, there I go being a sarcastic prick again...

But it is quite unfortunate that you still seem to be unable to understand that my comments had nothing to do with grammar, but with the pompous tone of your posts. Oh, I think I mentioned that already...

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Maybe my use of the word 'fact' was a little off key as obviously everything here is just opinions, but I think you are being rather pedantic. :( .. ie 'one who overvalues or insists on tiny details of learning and grammatical rules'..... you'll be pleased to know that I got that from my dictionary... 8)

Yes, and I believe that you have used it before. Perhaps you need another word of the week? Damn, there I go being a sarcastic prick again...

But it is quite unfortunate that you still seem to be unable to understand that my comments had nothing to do with grammar, but with the pompous tone of your posts. Oh, I think I mentioned that already...

Me pompous!!???. :x ..... surely you jest sir!. ..

Decagon wrote:I finally read this post, and I really, really, really wanted to make fun of it, but I found I couldn't.

I know the feeling!... 8)

Rory McCloskey wrote:his competition just wasnt that good..i would agree that i need to see more, but for some of those fighters, u dont have to see the fight to realize they shouldnt have been fighting for a title, or that they just arent that good.

Which ones shouldn't have been fighting for a title and why, Rory? Be specific, please. No more vague generalisations, thanks.

Collins2000 wrote:

Rory McCloskey wrote:his competition just wasnt that good..i would agree that i need to see more, but for some of those fighters, u dont have to see the fight to realize they shouldnt have been fighting for a title, or that they just arent that good.

Which ones shouldn't have been fighting for a title and why, Rory? Be specific, please. No more vague generalisations, thanks.

How can he be, he hasn't seen them fight!. Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

silkov wrote:Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

And Marvis had just beaten James Broad and Joe Bugner, so while he may not have been the MOST qualified, he was a legitimate contender.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

And Marvis had just beaten James Broad and Joe Bugner, so while he may not have been the MOST qualified, he was a legitimate contender.

Yeah, the main thing against Marvis was his lack of experience, but his wins over Broad and Bugner made him a legit contender. Scott Frank was a tough guy too who fought Renaldo Snipes to a draw... but Franks brawling style was made for Holmes...

silkov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Rory McCloskey wrote:his competition just wasnt that good..i would agree that i need to see more, but for some of those fighters, u dont have to see the fight to realize they shouldnt have been fighting for a title, or that they just arent that good.

Which ones shouldn't have been fighting for a title and why, Rory? Be specific, please. No more vague generalisations, thanks.

How can he be, he hasn't seen them fight!. Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

Pete, he claims he doesn't actually need to watch fights. Maybe he gets his opinions from reading other people's opinions in old boxing mags or something. I just want to understand his rationale. If he has any.

He once claimed it was obvious to anyone that Chavez would have STOPPED Salvador Sanchez in a mythical matchup at 126. After a bit of poking with my stick he admitted he had never seen a single Sanchez fight.

For a bloke who doesn't see much boxing, he's got some pretty ingrained opinions.

silkov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Rory McCloskey wrote:his competition just wasnt that good..i would agree that i need to see more, but for some of those fighters, u dont have to see the fight to realize they shouldnt have been fighting for a title, or that they just arent that good.

Which ones shouldn't have been fighting for a title and why, Rory? Be specific, please. No more vague generalisations, thanks.

How can he be, he hasn't seen them fight!. Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

I would agree that Holmes fought the best fighters of his day which is all that any fighter can do. The one thing that might detract from that is alot of the guys Holmes fought went bust after he fought them. Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Spinks, Willaims, Norton. But to come back with a pro Holmes argument he fought almost everyone when they were in their prime. He never ducked anyone.

I thought Scott Ladoex was the worst fighter that Holmes had a defense against. I think his ranking was bumped up to the top ten for that fight. I was always a bit leary of a fighters rating going into a title fight.

Collins2000 wrote:

silkov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: Which ones shouldn't have been fighting for a title and why, Rory? Be specific, please. No more vague generalisations, thanks.

How can he be, he hasn't seen them fight!. Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

Pete, he claims he doesn't actually need to watch fights. Maybe he gets his opinions from reading other people's opinions in old boxing mags or something. I just want to understand his rationale. If he has any.

He once claimed it was obvious to anyone that Chavez would have STOPPED Salvador Sanchez in a mythical matchup at 126. After a bit of poking with my stick he admitted he had never seen a single Sanchez fight.

For a bloke who doesn't see much boxing, he's got some pretty ingrained opinions.

Yeah, but maybe he's psychic... 8)

kick asner wrote:

silkov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: Which ones shouldn't have been fighting for a title and why, Rory? Be specific, please. No more vague generalisations, thanks.

How can he be, he hasn't seen them fight!. Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

I would agree that Holmes fought the best fighters of his day which is all that any fighter can do. The one thing that might detract from that is alot of the guys Holmes fought went bust after he fought them. Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Spinks, Willaims, Norton. But to come back with a pro Holmes argument he fought almost everyone when they were in their prime. He never ducked anyone.

I thought Scott Ladoex was the worst fighter that Holmes had a defense against. I think his ranking was bumped up to the top ten for that fight. I was always a bit leary of a fighters rating going into a title fight.

I think Ledoux was a pretty decent fighter... had good fights with Norton, Spinks... but again his style was made for Holmes...

silkov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

silkov wrote: How can he be, he hasn't seen them fight!. Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were probably Holmes easiest opponents, but both were rated in the top 10 when they fought Holmes and so as such qualified for a shot at the title.

Pete, he claims he doesn't actually need to watch fights. Maybe he gets his opinions from reading other people's opinions in old boxing mags or something. I just want to understand his rationale. If he has any.

He once claimed it was obvious to anyone that Chavez would have STOPPED Salvador Sanchez in a mythical matchup at 126. After a bit of poking with my stick he admitted he had never seen a single Sanchez fight.

For a bloke who doesn't see much boxing, he's got some pretty ingrained opinions.

Yeah, but maybe he's psychic... 8)

oh give me a break.. how many jack johnson fights have u seen? how many jim jeffries fights have u seen? sam langford? jack dempsey?

it is possible to judge a fighter if u havent seen them... competition, record, talents..

if u disagree then dont post about any early 1900's fighter..and try to BS us and say uve seen alot of the fights,,

you claim jim braddock sucks and that he fought noone...how many of his fights have u seen??

Rory McCloskey wrote:

silkov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: Pete, he claims he doesn't actually need to watch fights. Maybe he gets his opinions from reading other people's opinions in old boxing mags or something. I just want to understand his rationale. If he has any.

He once claimed it was obvious to anyone that Chavez would have STOPPED Salvador Sanchez in a mythical matchup at 126. After a bit of poking with my stick he admitted he had never seen a single Sanchez fight.

For a bloke who doesn't see much boxing, he's got some pretty ingrained opinions.

Yeah, but maybe he's psychic... 8)

oh give me a break.. how many jack johnson fights have u seen? how many jim jeffries fights have u seen? sam langford? jack dempsey?

it is possible to judge a fighter if u havent seen them... competition, record, talents..

if u disagree then dont post about any early 1900's fighter..and try to BS us and say uve seen alot of the fights,,

you claim jim braddock sucks and that he fought noone...how many of his fights have u seen??

Have you EVER seen me post any bold opinions about pre-dempsey 20th century heavyweight boxers? No, and you won't because there is not enough footage of any reasonable quality available to judge them on. So, what are you so called boxing historians left with to come to your high and mighty opinions? Basically the opinions of other people, many of whom are unknown quantities. It's obvious, when you venture to talk of recent fighters, that your knowledge is very, very thin.

I might have asked the odd question about how someone rates so and so above someone else given they have never actually seen either. I've yet to see an answer that made a lot od sense.

When did I claim Braddock sucks and fought no one? Show me the post. You see, Rory, that's just childish behaviour on your part. Making stuff up and getting all emotional and hoping some softcock will come to your defence.

You need to get out more, mate.

Rory McCloskey wrote:

silkov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: Pete, he claims he doesn't actually need to watch fights. Maybe he gets his opinions from reading other people's opinions in old boxing mags or something. I just want to understand his rationale. If he has any.

He once claimed it was obvious to anyone that Chavez would have STOPPED Salvador Sanchez in a mythical matchup at 126. After a bit of poking with my stick he admitted he had never seen a single Sanchez fight.

For a bloke who doesn't see much boxing, he's got some pretty ingrained opinions.

Yeah, but maybe he's psychic... 8)

oh give me a break.. how many jack johnson fights have u seen? how many jim jeffries fights have u seen? sam langford? jack dempsey?

it is possible to judge a fighter if u havent seen them... competition, record, talents..

if u disagree then dont post about any early 1900's fighter..and try to BS us and say uve seen alot of the fights,,

you claim jim braddock sucks and that he fought noone...how many of his fights have u seen??

I've seen Johnson vs Burns, Jeffries, Flynn, Ketchel and Willard.... so I think I know what I'm talking about son. Regarding Holmes I have all his fights while you have seen only 3 or 4 of his bouts yet still seem to have a very strong opinion about how good he was etc.
I have Braddock vs Baer, Louis, and Farr... how many fights of his have you got??.
I don't make statements about fighters I haven't seen if their fights are available and I haven't got them... where as you have seen very little of the heavyweights of the 80s, yet seem to 'know' that they were a poor bunch!!???.
If noone posted about the early 1900 fighters just because they hadn't seen them fight then they would be forgotten but there is still archive footage of fighters from that era if you know where to look. Anyway its one thing to talk about fighters of Johnson era whom not many people have actually seen and so rely on what they have read etc, but its another to talk about fighters of Holmes era even though you haven't seen them fight. Those fights are mostly out there if you look hard enough and take the trouble to get them. Trouble is you seem unable even to get fights from the 80s.... and you don't seem to have read much about fighters of that era either... and thats inexcusable really as its only 20odd years ago!.... so before you try and question what fights I've seen I suggest you get yourself some of the heavyweight fights from the 80s and as many Larry Holmes fights that you can, you never know you might even enjoy watching some of them!...
Bottom line is though you can't tell me how good Holmes opposition was when you haven't seen them fight and have only seen 3 or 4 of his fights and I have seen nearly every fight he had (including every fight from his peak) and about 95% of all the important heavyweight bouts of that era too.....

And if you're stuck as to where to get these fights I'll be happy to sell them to you for a very fair price!.... 8)