witherspoon vs holmes

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Jul 2005, 17:25

who do u think won???

its funny seeing a prime holmes get beat by a guy whos not a top 40 or 50 heavyweight of all time.

- witherspoon was a good heavywight but never a great heavyweight. hes rated at the same level as pinklon thomas's or trevor berbicks. he had some potential, but didnt like to train.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 18:19

oh well trainings overrated anyway haha

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 18:20

holmes won i think. it was close though. not much more i have to say ive only seen the fight once n didnt think much of it. i was never a big holmes fan.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 20 Jul 2005, 20:29

BB, what happened to Tim Witherspoon is a tragedy. If you get the chance, read Jack Newfield's book on Don King, "Only in America: The Life and Crimes of Don King" and you'll see why Tim Witherspoon seemed lazy or didn't train hard. How inspired can you be to fight when all your purses are being stolen or short-changed? Witherspoon had the tools to be a great heavyweight, as the fight with Holmes would attest to, and Witherspoon-Holmes would have been a good rivalry if they had a rematch, but King ruined Witherspoon.

Witherspoon will always have my respect because he was the first boxer to say "Enough!" to the stealing and beat King in court. That's real guts and real heart.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Jul 2005, 22:00

yeah king got a hold of him and really screwed him out of a lot of money. i remember reading in one of my books, witherspoon was living in an aprtment or something after he had alreayd been a two time champion because king screwed him out of a lot of money.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 20 Jul 2005, 22:05

Holmes won a close but clear decision.

Witherspoon always had offensive talent-pretty good jab, good body puncher, and of course the overhand right.

But even in his prime his defense sucked, his stamina was questionable, and he wasn't awfully hard to figure out.

I think Witherspoon has gotten a little over-rated with time. He was a very good HW but not great.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 21 Jul 2005, 04:25

Witherspoon looked like a great prospect. He also seemed to have a good chin right up until the Bonecrusher fight. I was completely shocked by that result. I rememebr watching ti on TV and being lost for words. Strangely it was the 3 KD rule that did it. Witherspoon couldn't stay on his feet but he was still in control of his senses, saying that Smith would have bounced him up and down all night. He didn't have Tim's talent but he was always in good shape.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Jul 2005, 08:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who do u think won???

its funny seeing a prime holmes get beat by a guy whos not a top 40 or 50 heavyweight of all time.

- witherspoon was a good heavywight but never a great heavyweight. hes rated at the same level as pinklon thomas's or trevor berbicks. he had some potential, but didnt like to train.

Witherspoon not in the top 40 or 50 heavyweights of all time?..... what fights of his have you watched?.... he definately gets into the top 20 or 15 imo and at his prime would have beaten Tyson, LEWIS, and given a lot of the other top champs a tough time. Tyson steered well clear of spoon in the 80s when Tim was still good enougth to give him a very tough night.

ShoeShine · Post by **ShoeShine** » 21 Jul 2005, 09:23

silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who do u think won???

its funny seeing a prime holmes get beat by a guy whos not a top 40 or 50 heavyweight of all time.

- witherspoon was a good heavywight but never a great heavyweight. hes rated at the same level as pinklon thomas's or trevor berbicks. he had some potential, but didnt like to train.
Witherspoon not in the top 40 or 50 heavyweights of all time?..... what fights of his have you watched?.... he definately gets into the top 20 or 15 imo and at his prime would have beaten Tyson, LEWIS, and given a lot of the other top champs a tough time. Tyson steered well clear of spoon in the 80s when Tim was still good enougth to give him a very tough night.

I might be biased being from philly but I think Witherspoon definantly had the potential to be one of the all time great heavyweights drugs destroyed his careeer.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 21 Jul 2005, 09:32

silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who do u think won???

its funny seeing a prime holmes get beat by a guy whos not a top 40 or 50 heavyweight of all time.

- witherspoon was a good heavywight but never a great heavyweight. hes rated at the same level as pinklon thomas's or trevor berbicks. he had some potential, but didnt like to train.
Tyson steered well clear of spoon in the 80s when Tim was still good enougth to give him a very tough night.

Again, another false charge. The winner of Smith-Witherspoon was to face Tyson but Tim fucked it up by getting TKO'd in the 1st.

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 21 Jul 2005, 11:55

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who do u think won???

its funny seeing a prime holmes get beat by a guy whos not a top 40 or 50 heavyweight of all time.

- witherspoon was a good heavywight but never a great heavyweight. hes rated at the same level as pinklon thomas's or trevor berbicks. he had some potential, but didnt like to train.

I just posted something in the Jeffries-Marciano thread that seems appropriate here. Everyone likes to make lists. For some reason, there's just this big fascination with rating people, including fighters, into some sort of "who's the best" with the rest falling in descending order.

Yet there's really not a huge difference between fighters who make "all-time top 10" lists and some of the better contenders whose names wouldn't even come up in a list of the top 200 fighters. No reason an "8" couldn't beat a "2" or even just a good fighter who never won a title couldn't have beaten an all-timer, had the circumstances been just a little bit different.

It's great fun putting all these lists together, but I think they're given way too much credence. There's just nothing about a list, even the most well thought among them, to make me think a big, tough contender who never held a title couldn't have had his Villanova against any one of the all-timers, even in their primes.

Bottom line: Holmes' struggle with Witherspoon doesn't give me cause for alarm about where he stands from a historical perspective. Every all-timer had a nemesis ... or two ... or three.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Jul 2005, 12:50

kingpawn wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who do u think won???

its funny seeing a prime holmes get beat by a guy whos not a top 40 or 50 heavyweight of all time.

- witherspoon was a good heavywight but never a great heavyweight. hes rated at the same level as pinklon thomas's or trevor berbicks. he had some potential, but didnt like to train.
I just posted something in the Jeffries-Marciano thread that seems appropriate here. Everyone likes to make lists. For some reason, there's just this big fascination with rating people, including fighters, into some sort of "who's the best" with the rest falling in descending order.

Yet there's really not a huge difference between fighters who make "all-time top 10" lists and some of the better contenders whose names wouldn't even come up in a list of the top 200 fighters. No reason an "8" couldn't beat a "2" or even just a good fighter who never won a title couldn't have beaten an all-timer, had the circumstances been just a little bit different.

It's great fun putting all these lists together, but I think they're given way too much credence. There's just nothing about a list, even the most well thought among them, to make me think a big, tough contender who never held a title couldn't have had his Villanova against any one of the all-timers, even in their primes.

Bottom line: Holmes' struggle with Witherspoon doesn't give me cause for alarm about where he stands from a historical perspective. Every all-timer had a nemesis ... or two ... or three.

Remember Holmes was 33 and past his peak when he fought and young and inspired Witherspoon who probably fought his best fight that day.

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 21 Jul 2005, 20:28

I'm really surprised "sweetscientist" hasn't posted something about this as it concerns his favorite boxer off all time.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 22 Jul 2005, 03:50

dempseyfire wrote:Holmes won a close but clear decision.

Witherspoon always had offensive talent-pretty good jab, good body puncher, and of course the overhand right.

But even in his prime his defense sucked, his stamina was questionable, and he wasn't awfully hard to figure out.

I think Witherspoon has gotten a little over-rated with time. He was a very good HW but not great.

LOL what a terrible post!

Witherspoons defence was awesome. Not only could he use a tight Archie Moore crab defence, if you bother to watch the Holmes tape you'll see superb defence as he literally catches Holmes super fast jab repeatedly with his right hand. Witherspoon was always known for his defence so dont know what youre referring to.

As for his stamina "questions", what gave you that idea? The 15 rds with Tubbs? Coming back to stop Bruno in the 11th after a long hard fight? Or the numerous occasions he was able to go 10 and 12 rds, even in his 40s.

You've never seen Spoon fight i take it?

Witherspoon beat Holmes fair & square and Holmes dumped his WBC belt rather than give Spoon a rematch or fight Greg Page.

witherspoon · Post by **witherspoon** » 22 Jul 2005, 05:37

dempseyfire wrote:
silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who do u think won???

its funny seeing a prime holmes get beat by a guy whos not a top 40 or 50 heavyweight of all time.

- witherspoon was a good heavywight but never a great heavyweight. hes rated at the same level as pinklon thomas's or trevor berbicks. he had some potential, but didnt like to train.
Tyson steered well clear of spoon in the 80s when Tim was still good enougth to give him a very tough night.
Again, another false charge. The winner of Smith-Witherspoon was to face Tyson but Tim fucked it up by getting TKO'd in the 1st.

I'm going to put my neck on the block here. There is something seriously wrong with the Witherspoon-Bonecrusher 2. I believe, and others have said it too, that Spoon would have been too much for Tyson in '87.
Somehow, DK had a hand in this.
Yes, I am a Spoon fan, but only BECAUSE of what he went through at DK's hands. I wonder if any one out there knows any stories about the build up to the Spoon-Crusher fight?
I've heard some, but can't say from reliable sources.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 22 Jul 2005, 11:33

wlvrne wrote:I'm really surprised "sweetscientist" hasn't posted something about this as it concerns his favorite boxer off all time.

Why are you harassing Sweet scientist?... are you some kind of troll???......

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Jul 2005, 20:34

The only thing "seriously wrong" with Witherspoon - Smith (2) is that Tim appeared to take Bonecrusher too lightly(perhaps due to having beaten him fairly comfortably first time round). He seemed to walk out of his corner like he was off to get a newspaper. Bang! And he was over. Like someone else already mentioned, Witherspoon wasn't badly hurt but couldn't keep his feet under Smith's attack and lost on the 3 knockdown rule. No need to read anything suspicious into it. Just what can happen if you take your eye off the ball.

And I agree with dempseyfire that Tyson would have met Witherspoon had he beaten Smith. As it was, Smith got the date.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 22 Jul 2005, 21:04

How was Witherspoon above the likes of Thomas, Smith, Tubbs etc? so muchso that he showed he could beat Tyson? Tyson annihiliated Pinky and Thomas gave Witherspoon a boxing lesson. Witherspoon was two one-dimensional and defensively flawed for Mike. He oculd have made it competetive, but I see nothing that says Tim takes Tyson anytime in the late 80s, especially after Witherspoon got fat.

witherspoon · Post by **witherspoon** » 26 Jul 2005, 20:18

dempseyfire wrote:How was Witherspoon above the likes of Thomas, Smith, Tubbs etc? so muchso that he showed he could beat Tyson? Tyson annihiliated Pinky and Thomas gave Witherspoon a boxing lesson. Witherspoon was two one-dimensional and defensively flawed for Mike. He oculd have made it competetive, but I see nothing that says Tim takes Tyson anytime in the late 80s, especially after Witherspoon got fat.

You said it. Whenever Tyson is in a competitive fight he loses or fouls out, unless it's Razor Ruddock, and who else did he impress against?

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 27 Jul 2005, 15:18

dempseyfire wrote:How was Witherspoon above the likes of Thomas, Smith, Tubbs etc? so muchso that he showed he could beat Tyson? Tyson annihiliated Pinky and Thomas gave Witherspoon a boxing lesson. Witherspoon was two one-dimensional and defensively flawed for Mike. He oculd have made it competetive, but I see nothing that says Tim takes Tyson anytime in the late 80s, especially after Witherspoon got fat.

Interesting logic you use.

Jesse Ferguson beat Buster Douglas yet lost to Tyson.

Frank Bruno beat Oliver McCall who had destroyed Lennox Lewis, yet Lewis had already beat Bruno.

Etc, etc, etc............

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 27 Jul 2005, 16:00

overhand right, I'm not going strictly by who beat who logic, but you fail to point out how Witherspoon was a league above Thomas, Tubbs, Berbick etc.

His defense was awesome?? Please look at how much he got hit vs Holmes, Bruno, and Thomas and tell me had had great defense, and those guys save Holmes were fairly one-dimesional offensively.

He had great stamina b/c he went 15 with Tubbs? Have you seen that fight? It's one of those clinchfests that made the 80s HWs so despised in the first place.

I'm assumung your overhand right moniker is for Tim's overhand right so being a big fan you'll glance over reason and reality . . .

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 27 Jul 2005, 16:42

Saw a replay of the fight in the 80's and Holmes definitely won it, although it was close. Spoon's effort for such a young and relatively inexperienced fighter against the true chmp made for a lot of sympathy towards him

Read once that King even charged Tim for drinks during training camp for the Bruno fight. If reports are true he walked away with $70,000 from a million? dollar purse for that fight. Witherspoon eventually went back to King and when asked why he said "I was a damsel in distress"

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 01 Aug 2005, 09:12

dempseyfire wrote:Holmes won a close but clear decision.

Witherspoon always had offensive talent-pretty good jab, good body puncher, and of course the overhand right.

But even in his prime his defense sucked, his stamina was questionable, and he wasn't awfully hard to figure out.

I think Witherspoon has gotten a little over-rated with time. He was a very good HW but not great.

Witherspoon's stamina was good enough to go a hard 15 vs a prime time Larry Holmes. When Witherspoon trained, his stamina was pretty good. I would not call Witherpsoon’s stamina as questionable, at least in his prime years.

As Dnahar32 mentioned, Witherspoon has motivational problems do to his contract with Don King. To best understand Witherspoon, I think we need to reflect on his trials and tribulations. How would you like to have all the talent in the world, only to be held back, severely under paid, and near black balled from your chosen profession?

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 01 Aug 2005, 09:46

I remember watching and scoring the Holmes-Witherspoon fight, and while I had Holmes as the clear winner, what stands out the most is how Witherspoon used a new form of defense to partially negate Holmes awesome jab. In the 9th round, I believe Holmes got a bit careless and got nailed by a Witherspoon counter, then took something like 6-7 solid shots to the head, but survived the round. In the 10th, Witherspoon showboated a bit and tried to float like Ali while throwing out alot of jabs that didn't do much. Sorry for any errors though since I'm going from memory.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Aug 2005, 10:28

The fight with Holmes was 12, not 15.

He tired vs Thomas and Tubbs.

His stamina wasn't in the Corrie Sanders league but it wasn't great.