BoxRec

Collins2000 wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: You really think so? Still, I suppose you have to say that as it makes your man's effort look better. Maybe you can dig out some reviews of the 'fight' from magazines / newspapers of the time and tell me if anyone else though Holmes looked 'formidable'...

holmes even far past his prime against tyson was still a top contender which makes him a solid good fighter. it defintley counts as a win for tyson


- considering a holmes 5 years older beat ray mercer, it counts a lot for tyson



but then again, i have long since realized this forum was a anti tyson and holmes nuthugging forum

There you go again with the "nuthugging" putdown.

Remind me again, how old are you? And you've been following boxing for how long? Yet you are a fekkin expert and we are mere 'nuthuggers'? Next thing you know you'll be claiming to be a boxing historian. It's a slippery slope after that, Brocky.

I think you ought to stick to shoving your opinions on unknown oldtimers down our throats. That way I'll be happy because I can ignore it and you'll be happy because no one (you included) has seen enough of them to really know whether you are talking out of your arse or not.

He already claims to be a historian!!!. :x :x :x ... I must have been missing something I suppose! 8)

Then you didn't watch it properly... if you really believe that Holmes was 'as good as ever' against Tyson then I very much doubt that you've even seen his early fights, if you have then to be frank, you need to go back to the drawing board when analysing a boxer....

sillkov,



come on man. you know i said "homes was far past his prime". why in the world would i say holmes was in his prime?? if i did, I shouldnt be allowed to talk boxing with anyone.



I have seen holmes in his prime and he was quite impressive, note how I have him in my top 5 in head to head AND greatness list??

thats a lot better than some people rate him and I think u will agree with me silkov. I mean obviosely I see something right with holmes to rate him that high?




I am not a tyson hugger, and I barely rate him top ten on a greatness list, but I feel at his peak he was one of the greatest heavies of all time and I dont think I am alone on that one.



o btw these are the fights of holmes I studied in his prime


roy williams- beginning of prime highlights (great fight by holmes)

rodney bobick - still green but coming into his own

fred houpe- beginning of prime holmes weighed under 200

horace robinson- beginning of his prime

tom prater- 8 round fight

norton - war! i might go back and score this again but last time i had it a draw

shavers I- IMO this could have been holmes peak fight, he basically shut out shavers with his jab alone, very impressive!!

scott ledoux

alfredo evangelista


osscie osacio- basically knocked out osccie with his jab! he had his jab working like a pistol whip that night


mike weaver I- holmes had the flu, but was caught off guard and underestimated a future champion coming into his own. he thought mike weaver was the journeyman he was, which was not the case! this fight proved holmes had a lot of heart


Lorenzo Zanon


Leroy Jones- BIGGGGG LEROY



shavers II- this was the fight that showed his true heart and incredible chin


muhammad ali- I wish ali didnt get drugged and show up a light and as weak as he did. it would have been at least a little more competitive fight if the ali of the berbick fight showed up.


trevor berbick- this was a dominant holmes preformance, who outboxed what i thought is an underated heavyweight and he should be brought up more when discussing holmes best wins. I love the way they almost got into a street fight after

Gerry Cooney- one of holmes last fights in his prime. holmes really got in good shape for this one, and totally outclassed a game overhyped but good opponent.


Renaldo Snipes- very scary, that fight was dangerously close to being stopped for a second there. holme once again showed good recup powers


Tex cobb- probably holmes last fight in prime, complete shutout.



leon spinx- perhaps holmes peak fight, maybe maybe not. I tend to lead toward holmes best fight shavers I or Berbick fight.

tim witherspoon- holmes was aging by now and defintley not one of holmes better fights and witherspoons peak fight, IMO very close fight. could have gone either way, but holmes should have beaten him more decisevley, he was trouble by spoons style.


of course I have other holmes fights when he was well past his prime.


Its tough to know when holmes prime ended, perhaps after the cooney fight he started showing signs of aging. use the weight gain as an example as he started fighting at around 220 after that.


holmes in his prime was 6'4 210-212lb not that big when u think about it, hed be a small heavyweight in terms of weight today.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Holmes fought a much younger Berbick than the one Tyson faced and in my opinion this would count in favor of Holmes and against Tyson. Berbick was fairly consistant earlier in his career anyway. Tyson also fought a Carl Williams around 4 years older than the one Holmes faced and Holmes was 35 by the time he faced Williams. Tyson barely beat James (Quick) Tillis, etc.

ur using the tillis fight to degrade tysons? come ur better than that. you know for a fact tyson was 19 and green still learning the ropes but ur using that fight anyway.



berbick was not anymore consistent in his earlier years than later years.

before the holmes fight berbick was knocked out in 1 round by one punch from mercado and drew with journeyman caldwell.


see idk about that. I thought berbick became a little more polished or perhaps smarter, stronger, as he got older.

but berbick was clearly in his prime for the tyson fight, as not only was he coming off the best preformance of his career but he was only 32, not old for a heavyweight!



berbicks problem was he was incosistent but on his best day he was one of the better heavies of the 80s

Collins2000 wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: You really think so? Still, I suppose you have to say that as it makes your man's effort look better. Maybe you can dig out some reviews of the 'fight' from magazines / newspapers of the time and tell me if anyone else though Holmes looked 'formidable'...

holmes even far past his prime against tyson was still a top contender which makes him a solid good fighter. it defintley counts as a win for tyson


- considering a holmes 5 years older beat ray mercer, it counts a lot for tyson



but then again, i have long since realized this forum was a anti tyson and holmes nuthugging forum

There you go again with the "nuthugging" putdown.

Remind me again, how old are you? And you've been following boxing for how long? Yet you are a fekkin expert and we are mere 'nuthuggers'? Next thing you know you'll be claiming to be a boxing historian. It's a slippery slope after that, Brocky.

I think you ought to stick to shoving your opinions on unknown oldtimers down our throats. That way I'll be happy because I can ignore it and you'll be happy because no one (you included) has seen enough of them to really know whether you are talking out of your arse or not.

I never called myself an expert, and i certainly am not one and have years to go before i can call myself one.

there are far more knowledgable and experienced people than me on this forum



- i happen to have a strong opinion on old timers, and think they are given unfair treatment today because people dont know much about them.

but i am realistic and think highly of certain old timers compared to others.

whats ur opinion on old timers?





- and I dont appreciate the personel attacks, I never called u a nuthugger, and I dont view that as an insult anyway and there are certianly worse insultss than that.


- I am 18

silkov wrote

He already claims to be a historian!!!. ... I must have been missing something I suppose!

I claim to be a historian??

- well I am pretty sure I never said that, and I am certianly not one!!!

though in the future, I want to be a boxing historian. I have plenty of time and a younger start and others

e.c.flurry wrote:1. Joe louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. George Foreman
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Jack dempsey
9. Joe Frazier
10. Jersey Joe Walcott
11. Ezzard Charless
12. Sam Langford
13. Archie Moore
14. Gene Tunney
15. Evander Holyfield
16. Jack Johnson
17. Mike Tyson
18. Riddick Bowe
19. Max Baer
20. Max Schemeling
21. Ken Norton
22. Floyd Patterson
23. Vacant
24. Vacant
25. Vacant

I give up !!!!!

It got hard for me after the 15th after that its sort of pick em
i ranked tyson low because he was kind of docile when clinching seemed lost and unconfortable. Fighters of this calibre would be able to clinch and hit or get safe from his attack especially considering if its 15 rounds.
And if the fighters is not good at clinching probably is just as good at hitting and would be able to slug it out maybe discouraging him.

Jack Johnson was low because i really havent seen enough footage or convicing stories yeah i saw the gibbons and ketchels highlits but i would like to see more of him to have him rated better.

Lennox Lewis i really hate him because he is a tall strong and has decent skills and ring generalship that would give anyone problems.

Available for opinions critics and compliments but thats a long ass post.
I need a break.

good list,


I like the higher ratings of walcott and charles. Watching them at there peaks on film, they deserve that rating. Both incredible ring technicians, I havnt seen many if any heavyweights who were as good
ring technicians as them.


- nice to see about langford in there, did u watch his fight against flynn II ?? it shows get a glimpse of how great he was. he was an all around complete heavyweight .



- I defntley think jack johnson should be higher, his syle would give any heavyweight in history fits, and he was perhaps the greatest ring technicians and skilled heavy of all time.

did u see the burns fight? or jeffries or flynn fight?




- nice to see archie moore get props, as sometimes he gets underated as a heavyweight, but i defintley think 14 is way too high. I think a better placement for archie would be in top 40 head to head, but i can defintley name 30 heavyweights who would beat him.

- moore showed he has wat it takes and beat some good heavyweights like top contender hard hitting clarence henry, and he twice outclassed big cuban and hard hitting slugger nino valdez, who sometimes doesnt get enough respect but he was skilled for a big man just lacked killer instinct. bob baker was a big slugger and top contender who moore knocked out. moore knocked out or decisioned alot of other quality heavies and big heavies.

- moore beat harold johnson out of 5 times, and a older past his prime beat a prime eddie machen so it goes to show u how good guys like moore were even as a heavy.

he certainly gave marciano a compettitvie fight, and I thought he outboxed floyd patterson early and moore might have won the first 4 rounds.

- Moore was a top ten heavyweight contender even in the competetive early 1960s when moore was 50 years old!


enrique made a great article on nino. I would have loved to see him fight rock.



- i agree with ur # 1 pick as joe louis.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Then you didn't watch it properly... if you really believe that Holmes was 'as good as ever' against Tyson then I very much doubt that you've even seen his early fights, if you have then to be frank, you need to go back to the drawing board when analysing a boxer....

sillkov,



come on man. you know i said "homes was far past his prime". why in the world would i say holmes was in his prime?? if i did, I shouldnt be allowed to talk boxing with anyone.



I have seen holmes in his prime and he was quite impressive, note how I have him in my top 5 in head to head AND greatness list??

thats a lot better than some people rate him and I think u will agree with me silkov. I mean obviosely I see something right with holmes to rate him that high?




I am not a tyson hugger, and I barely rate him top ten on a greatness list, but I feel at his peak he was one of the greatest heavies of all time and I dont think I am alone on that one.



o btw these are the fights of holmes I studied in his prime


roy williams- beginning of prime highlights (great fight by holmes)

rodney bobick - still green but coming into his own

fred houpe- beginning of prime holmes weighed under 200

horace robinson- beginning of his prime

tom prater- 8 round fight

norton - war! i might go back and score this again but last time i had it a draw

shavers I- IMO this could have been holmes peak fight, he basically shut out shavers with his jab alone, very impressive!!

scott ledoux

alfredo evangelista


osscie osacio- basically knocked out osccie with his jab! he had his jab working like a pistol whip that night


mike weaver I- holmes had the flu, but was caught off guard and underestimated a future champion coming into his own. he thought mike weaver was the journeyman he was, which was not the case! this fight proved holmes had a lot of heart


Lorenzo Zanon


Leroy Jones- BIGGGGG LEROY



shavers II- this was the fight that showed his true heart and incredible chin


muhammad ali- I wish ali didnt get drugged and show up a light and as weak as he did. it would have been at least a little more competitive fight if the ali of the berbick fight showed up.


trevor berbick- this was a dominant holmes preformance, who outboxed what i thought is an underated heavyweight and he should be brought up more when discussing holmes best wins. I love the way they almost got into a street fight after

Gerry Cooney- one of holmes last fights in his prime. holmes really got in good shape for this one, and totally outclassed a game overhyped but good opponent.


Renaldo Snipes- very scary, that fight was dangerously close to being stopped for a second there. holme once again showed good recup powers


Tex cobb- probably holmes last fight in prime, complete shutout.



leon spinx- perhaps holmes peak fight, maybe maybe not. I tend to lead toward holmes best fight shavers I or Berbick fight.

tim witherspoon- holmes was aging by now and defintley not one of holmes better fights and witherspoons peak fight, IMO very close fight. could have gone either way, but holmes should have beaten him more decisevley, he was trouble by spoons style.


of course I have other holmes fights when he was well past his prime.


Its tough to know when holmes prime ended, perhaps after the cooney fight he started showing signs of aging. use the weight gain as an example as he started fighting at around 220 after that.


holmes in his prime was 6'4 210-212lb not that big when u think about it, hed be a small heavyweight in terms of weight today.

Justify ranking Tyson above Holmes?.... and don't cite their 'fight' as that is no more reason to rate Tyson above Holmes than Holmes win over Ali is a reason for him to be rated over Ali.
Also ragarding the 'nuthugging' you seem to think that anyone who believes Holmes is superior is a 'nuthugger' and said so in your post, not exactly complementry... but then if I'm hugging Holmes nuts you're sure as hell hugging Tysons!!! 8)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

holmes even far past his prime against tyson was still a top contender which makes him a solid good fighter. it defintley counts as a win for tyson


- considering a holmes 5 years older beat ray mercer, it counts a lot for tyson



but then again, i have long since realized this forum was a anti tyson and holmes nuthugging forum

There you go again with the "nuthugging" putdown.

Remind me again, how old are you? And you've been following boxing for how long? Yet you are a fekkin expert and we are mere 'nuthuggers'? Next thing you know you'll be claiming to be a boxing historian. It's a slippery slope after that, Brocky.

I think you ought to stick to shoving your opinions on unknown oldtimers down our throats. That way I'll be happy because I can ignore it and you'll be happy because no one (you included) has seen enough of them to really know whether you are talking out of your arse or not.

I never called myself an expert, and i certainly am not one and have years to go before i can call myself one.

there are far more knowledgable and experienced people than me on this forum



- i happen to have a strong opinion on old timers, and think they are given unfair treatment today because people dont know much about them.

but i am realistic and think highly of certain old timers compared to others.

whats ur opinion on old timers?





- and I dont appreciate the personel attacks, I never called u a nuthugger, and I dont view that as an insult anyway and there are certianly worse insultss than that.


- I am 18

I rarely watch pre 1960's stuff these days. The quality, even on that stuff shown now on ESPN classic is often rubbish and almost every fight has been edited. If a fight is close, goes the distance, and some boofhead has cut out 3 or 4 rounds how the fek can anyone have a stong opinion on who really won?

Sure, you can comment on how a fellow looked, what you saw as his strengths and weaknesses, provided there is a bit of footage of him in his prime. But what about where there is little or no footage? Do you just base your opinions on others who have gone before you? That's a bit risky when boxing is so subjective.

You know a lot more about the history of boxing at 18 than I did at that age. Even now, I would venture, you know a lot more about pre 1960's boxing than I do. You might make a good historian one day. A word of advise, the opinions you are dismissing are often views of long time fans who actually were there during the 80's when you weren't yet born. Just because they don't gel with what you percieve to be the 'truth' take note of them, they might be useful one day.

One of the secrets to becoming a historian in any field is to accept that you will never know everything and if you live to be 130 you won't know everything.... so it is always advisable to keep an open mind and especially respect 'eye witness' accounts!...

And how old was Tyson when he bit McBride on the nipple (?!) only to get his half-a-faggot ass beat down?

And for that matter, how old was Mikey when Douglas beat his ass down? 'KO'ed prime Mikey, dummy, Brockton Blockbuster...I hate dummies like you.

And remember when older Lewis tortured Tyson...held him up and sliced him up and rubbed his face in it after that half-a-faggot bit Lewis on the thigh duing a press conference, Brockton Blockbuster? Heh-heh. What made that great was that was just (almost) what that unrepentant rapist deserved. Enter Danny Williams.

Professor X wrote:And how old was Tyson when he bit McBride on the nipple (?!) only to get his half-a-faggot ass beat down?

And for that matter, how old was Mikey when Douglas beat his ass down? 'KO'ed prime Mikey, dummy, Brockton Blockbuster...I hate dummies like you.

And remember when older Lewis tortured Tyson...held him up and sliced him up and rubbed his face in it after that half-a-faggot bit Lewis on the thigh duing a press conference, Brockton Blockbuster? Heh-heh. What made that great was that was just (almost) what that unrepentant rapist deserved. Enter Danny Williams.

ITS WAY PAST YOUR BED TIME

dammit sherlock lol,


im re editing my list, because i feel jack johnson is too low. im going to squeeze him in my top 5. its just so hard to do and so many different fighters, thats why i hate head to head lists.


but in my real top 10 greatness list, i rate johnson 3rd.


its a common misconception johnson did not beat good competition but thats TOTALLY WRONG when u look in depth of the fighters he beat

Brockton, why do you ask people for their opinions, and then flame them when they don't agree with you?

Tantum wrote:Brockton, why do you ask people for their opinions, and then flame them when they don't agree with you?

im confused,



who have i flamed??






this is the 3rd time someone ive been ripped today for no reason, what the hell is going on! what did i do!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Tantum wrote:Brockton, why do you ask people for their opinions, and then flame them when they don't agree with you?

im confused,



who have i flamed??








this is the 3rd time someone ive been ripped today for no reason, what the hell is going on! what did i do!

Perhaps its because you don't like to hear other peoples opinions and start talking about nuthugging etc. From where I come from calling someone a 'nuthugger' is basically calling them a fag, which isn't really very friendly!.... unless you like that sort of thing! :x
Tyson is no 'hero' or 'great' both by his record and his behaviour... as someone who wants to become a historian I advise you to look past the popular myth of Tyson as some modern great wronged by society and see instead a rather weak flawed man who is basically a bully...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:dammit sherlock lol,

im re editing my list, because i feel jack johnson is too low. im going to squeeze him in my top 5. its just so hard to do and so many different fighters, thats why i hate head to head lists.

but in my real top 10 greatness list, i rate johnson 3rd.

its a common misconception johnson did not beat good competition but thats TOTALLY WRONG when u look in depth of the fighters he beat

Yeah, I'd have to re edit mine, because Ali should be higher than Liston. Marciano should be higher, probably 9-10.

Just to give you a clue on some of my off center picks, I usually rate (and pick) boxer-punchers higher in head-to-head matches because I feel they are harder to beat than swarmers or quick moving boxers. That's why Johnson, Louis, Holmes, Liston, Tunney, and Schmeling are so high. I really think that style is hard to beat. Look how successful Ali was past his prime using the boxer-puncher style of standing in front of your opponent and making them miss and punishing them. I would rate Kenny Norton higher, because of his unique styling and stance, but his chin lets him down against punchers.

Just thought I should justify my listing a little bit.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Tyson
6. Louis
7. Liston
8. Dempsy
9. Johnson
10. Coetzee

Honourable mentions - Norton, Patterson, Ruddock, Holyfield, Lewis.

Why would Coetzee be ahead of Ruddock? I would have thought Ruddock too formidable for Coetzee.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Why would Coetzee be ahead of Ruddock? I would have thought Ruddock too formidable for Coetzee.

As much as I like Ruddock, he only had one good punch which was his left hook and that was about it in his arsenal. But Coetzee could do it all: box, slug, take a great punch and can hit with either hand. The only thing wrong with Coetzee that he tended to run out of gas early and he had severe confidence problems, Gil clancy said Coetzee had all the great attirubutes to become a great heavyweight but had one problem - his confidence. And best of all he comes from home town here in Boksburg.

RazorKO wrote:1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Tyson
6. Louis
7. Liston
8. Dempsy
9. Johnson
10. Coetzee

Honourable mentions - Norton, Patterson, Ruddock, Holyfield, Lewis.

ur list was totally ruined by gerrie coatzee




mike weaver TKO 13 gerrie coatzeee

john taate 15 unanimous gerrie coatzee

frank bruno KO 1 gerrie coatzee











u have gerrie coatzee over the likes of lennox lewis and rocky marciano?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

RazorKO wrote:1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Tyson
6. Louis
7. Liston
8. Dempsy
9. Johnson
10. Coetzee

Honourable mentions - Norton, Patterson, Ruddock, Holyfield, Lewis.

ur list was totally ruined by gerrie coatzee




mike weaver TKO 13 gerrie coatzeee

john taate 15 unanimous gerrie coatzee

frank bruno KO 1 gerrie coatzee











u have gerrie coatzee over the likes of lennox lewis and rocky marciano?

It really wasn't that bad of a list until CoAtzee was at #10.

Stacy Goodson KO 1 Gerrie CoAtzee

exactley he had a good solid list until coatzee appeared and ruined his list

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

RazorKO wrote:1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Tyson
6. Louis
7. Liston
8. Dempsy
9. Johnson
10. Coetzee

Honourable mentions - Norton, Patterson, Ruddock, Holyfield, Lewis.

ur list was totally ruined by gerrie coatzee




mike weaver TKO 13 gerrie coatzeee

john taate 15 unanimous gerrie coatzee

frank bruno KO 1 gerrie coatzee











u have gerrie coatzee over the likes of lennox lewis and rocky marciano?

That list was just head to head. In terms of accomplishments - I would of had no choice but to put in Marciano as even though i think hes overated, he at least deserves to be in top 10 due to his record alone.

But in head to head, these are the fighters I listed would of beaten Marciano and Lewis.

how in gods name is gerrie coatzee going to beat marciano or lewis?



- lewis KO 1 coatzee

- marciano KO 4 coatzee



if u really think u can make a case coatzee would beat marciano than make a separate thread






marciano beat - archie moore, jersey joe walcott, ezzard charles


gerrie coatzee beat- michael dokes, leon spinks, scott le doux??


great resume for coatzee right there!




marciano lost to: ?? umm ? umm im having trouble finding? ????


coatzee lost to: mike weaver, john tate, frank bruno, renaldo snipes in his prime




































Boxrec stat of the day Bruno KO 1 coatzee

You seriously think the Coetzee who lost to Bruno was in his prime?