What years would you designate as peak for the following?

Jaybee From The Castle · Post by **Jaybee From The Castle** » 01 Apr 2008, 10:33

Holyfield
Bonecrusher
Holmes
Foreman
Frazier
Norton

Morales
Barrera
Duran
Kelley

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 01 Apr 2008, 17:56

Holyfield - At Heavy, 1990-1992 sounds about right. He didn't deserve the decision in the return with Bowe, & slipped further from there. More celebrated at Heavy, but his true prime was as a Cruiserweight, arguably peaking with the second fight against Qawi. Late 80's prime.

Holmes - A great waste. Lost time early in his career he'd never get back. Late to turn pro, late to bloom. Still learning at twenty-five, twenty-six years of age. The flipside was he lasted at his peak longer than most. First good win was over Tiger, first great win against Norton in 1978, last true prime performance against Cooney in '82. 1977/78-1982 fits the bill for his slickest efforts.

Foreman - Fight in Zaire ruined him. Ruined him. He was never the same animal. & it showed. Earlier, still making some atrocious errors in the ring prior to about 1972 (an excellent year for the young, "Houston Tornado"). From '72-'74, he put together the self-confidence, delivery, menace & energy to conquer the world, & his list of world-class victims proves it.

Frazier - Easy money. 1968-1971 Prior to '68, Futch was still having trouble developing his bob, weave, bob defense, & Frazier's fights from this time show a lack of slipperiness for the opposition on his every approach. Best efforts were the first annihilation of Jimmy Ellis in 1970, & of course the victory over Ali the following year. Not quite the same after the first Ali affair, he lost his desire to some extent, though nowhere near as badly damaged as some would have you believe.

Norton - Most undersold performance came in his KO over top ten-ranked Henry Clark, which heralded a fighter who suffered from stamina & defensive issues no longer since the loss to Garcia. Improved the jab after the loss to Garcia, as well. Never quite got over the loss to Foreman, in my view (some disagree) --- the effect wasn't as severe as Foreman's loss to Ali was to George, but Norton made a bit of a habit of hanging back when he could have gone in for the kill ever after (even against Ali, in their third fight). 1971-1974.

Morales - Fourth-round stoppage of Junior Jones is one of his under-appreciated triumphs, IMO, & look at his victim list & the manner in which he carried himself during that time, going all the way through to his second fight with Barrera. During that time, he didn't deserve the decision in the first fight with Barrera (no knock against him), but even so, he was steamrolling some high-class (& also other, undersold) men. He walked through Kevin Kelley in seven. Lost a step (& with it, maybe a little desire?) following the first loss to Barrera in 2002. I know Morales said it hurt him to still be making weight in the first fight with Barrera, I still don't think he was as good going up as he was when lower. I'd submit 1998-2002. Still a great fighter until the end, though, to be fair.

Barrera - Worse thing to ever happen to him was arguably his best performance, the victory over Hamed. The ease of this win saw Barrera fall ass-backward, head-in-the-clouds in love with cute, jab-first boxing. It's easy to say in retrospect, but I was one (& not the only person I knew, at that) who picked with some confidence Pacquaio to do a number on him. Would have to argue 1995-2000, most of his best victories were during this time (though a number of good ones coming later). Always a little harder to quantify with the smaller men, as they switch divisions, unlike the Heavies.

Duran - A point of contention with myself & IFF etc here, but I will contend Duran stepped up to his best years with the hard-fought battle with Buchanan for the LW crown. Still young? Sure, but younger fighters have peaked. His 1974 rematch with DeJesus was a tremendous effort from Duran, who was down in the first. The list of kills he has on his resume between the early 70's (after Buchanan, who was underrated in his own right, most notably) & the latter part of that decade speaks for itself. Not quite the same fighter after he left Lightweight, though he did have at least two great performances left in him (Leonard I, Moore), so for this reason --- 1972-1979 (approx.).

The remaining two - Smith (I assume you mean Smith, as there have been quite a few, "Bonecrushers"), & Kelley (Got his scrap with Hamed, beautiful), I haven't watched enough of to comment, & I refuse to use a record on paper for guesswork.

Jaybee From The Castle · Post by **Jaybee From The Castle** » 02 Apr 2008, 05:32

Animosities very much aside, I'd like to thank you very much indeed for that well-considered and gratifyingly detailed analysis. There are a couple of points I'll comment on later when I have more time, but once again,

THANK YOU!

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Apr 2008, 17:23

Boxing is different.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 02 Apr 2008, 23:50

Well my contention is that, while Duran was great against Buchanan, that he was not yet at his peak. Louis was great during his rise, KO'd two former champions in Carnera and Baer, but he obviously wasn't at his peak yet, as Schmeling showed. Clay looked great stopping Liston, but I don't think he was at his peak either.

Duran steamrolled Buchanan, caught him with some great right hands and didn't fade the way Buchanan and others thought he would, and he looked like a savage dog in doing it. But, still, he was only 21 and, as Louis showed, you might tear through one great opponent and then get beat by another great opponent.

Duran lost to DeJesus. But he looked three or four times better in the rematch. He was a couple of years older, had defended his title three times against some pretty good fighters (including Ishimatsu who went on to win the WBC belt and beat Buchanan... he ended up losing his title to DeJesus, who then lost it in a unification with Duran) and was much more polished and had added a lot to his game. As I said in the other thread, his defense looked better, he wasn't telegraphing punches, he was a two fisted fighter, throwing a lot more left hooks, his stamina was much better than DeJesus', Duran threw more combinations, and just seemed much more capable of handling DeJesus' style. In the third fight Duran was the total package.

As for Holmes, meh, he was lucky he peaked late. He didn't have to fight Frazier, Foreman, Ali or some others. He got passed the one dimensional Shavers and a less motivated Norton, and then feasted on the dead division. And unlike those three who were under imense scrutiny when they were coming up in their first 20, 25, or in Foreman's case 37 fights (how many times have we heard about all of Clay and Foreman's flaws as young fighters coming up the ranks, and how they were supposed to get killed in their first title shots), Holmes got to develop without any real scrutiny. That's why Frazier-Bonavena, Foreman-Peralta, and Clay-Jones come up a lot, while for most people (including myself, I've never seen any of Holmes' fights prior to Shavers I) Holmes' career starts in 1978. If he had any struggles on the way up, as almost all fighters do, most don't know about them, and so he gets a free pass. Just looking up his record on boxrec, Holmes got knocked down by someone named Kevin Isaac. Who cares about that? No one. Why? Because they've never seen it and have never heard of Kevin Isaac, and Holmes was a young fighter and not very well known at the time. Can't say the same for Sonny Banks.

Jaybee From The Castle · Post by **Jaybee From The Castle** » 03 Apr 2008, 06:34

I Feel Fine wrote:Well my contention is that, while Duran was great against Buchanan, that he was not yet at his peak. Louis was great during his rise, KO'd two former champions in Carnera and Baer, but he obviously wasn't at his peak yet, as Schmeling showed. Clay looked great stopping Liston, but I don't think he was at his peak either.

Duran steamrolled Buchanan, caught him with some great right hands and didn't fade the way Buchanan and others thought he would, and he looked like a savage dog in doing it. But, still, he was only 21 and, as Louis showed, you might tear through one great opponent and then get beat by another great opponent.

Duran lost to DeJesus. But he looked three or four times better in the rematch. He was a couple of years older, had defended his title three times against some pretty good fighters (including Ishimatsu who went on to win the WBC belt and beat Buchanan... he ended up losing his title to DeJesus, who then lost it in a unification with Duran) and was much more polished and had added a lot to his game. As I said in the other thread, his defense looked better, he wasn't telegraphing punches, he was a two fisted fighter, throwing a lot more left hooks, his stamina was much better than DeJesus', Duran threw more combinations, and just seemed much more capable of handling DeJesus' style. In the third fight Duran was the total package.

As for Holmes, meh, he was lucky he peaked late. He didn't have to fight Frazier, Foreman, Ali or some others. He got passed the one dimensional Shavers and a less motivated Norton, and then feasted on the dead division. And unlike those three who were under imense scrutiny when they were coming up in their first 20, 25, or in Foreman's case 37 fights (how many times have we heard about all of Clay and Foreman's flaws as young fighters coming up the ranks, and how they were supposed to get killed in their first title shots), Holmes got to develop without any real scrutiny. That's why Frazier-Bonavena, Foreman-Peralta, and Clay-Jones come up a lot, while for most people (including myself, I've never seen any of Holmes' fights prior to Shavers I) Holmes' career starts in 1978. If he had any struggles on the way up, as almost all fighters do, most don't know about them, and so he gets a free pass. Just looking up his record on boxrec, Holmes got knocked down by someone named Kevin Isaac. Who cares about that? No one. Why? Because they've never seen it and have never heard of Kevin Isaac, and Holmes was a young fighter and not very well known at the time. Can't say the same for Sonny Banks.

Just a question for you: What years would you designate as peak for the following?

Holyfield
Bonecrusher (Smith!)
Holmes
Foreman
Frazier
Norton

Morales
Barrera
Duran
Kelley

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 03 Apr 2008, 08:45

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Holyfield didn't deserve the decision in the return with Bowe, & slipped further from there. .

What on earth are you talking about? This decision although close has never been referred to as controversial. Holyfield eged Bowe out, outpunched him and even had him rocking mid-way. How can anyone dispute this win?

Plus his Tyson and Moorer knockouts, and the 2nd fight with Lewis where i feel he won plus a duke over Mercer shows he had plenty left in the tank. He beat Rahman easily nearly a decade after the 2nd Bowe fight!!

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 03 Apr 2008, 08:54

Jaybee From The Castle wrote: Bonecrusher

Interesting name to throw in there. You interested in Bonecrusher? Good for you.

Smith turned pro late. Was overmatched in his debut vs former world class amateur James Broad, but then run up a string of brutal kayos.

His 'prime' probably began v Frank Bruno in 1984 when he was already 31 with a receding hairline. He was outboxed for most of 9 rds before rallying to club Big Frank in the 10th!

Gave a 45-0 Holmes a hard challenge and in this period iced Mike Weaver and Tim Witherspoon and also beat Jose Ribalta, Jesse Ferguson and David Bey. He lost a decision to Marvis Frazier but decked Frazier & broke his jaw!

It probably ran out in 87 when he was 34 and lost his belt to Tyson. Later that year he dropped a controversial decision to Adilson Rodriguez in Brazil.

Only had one meaningless fight in 88 and by the time he fought Ruddock in 89 he was 36 and pst his best, getting laid out in the 7th.

He came back in 1990 in the post-Tyson void and scored a few long knockout streaks but could never get into top contention again.

He was fun to watch, in his own way

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 03 Apr 2008, 11:19

I Feel Fine your criticisms of Holmes and Louis are as badly grounded and out of touch as certain posters feelings regarding Ali. Less motivated Norton? Norton fought his heart out in their fight, by the contrary it was Norton's last motivated performance of his career. The KDs of young Clay by Banks and Holmes by Issac both show NOTHING. Of course Banks will be brought up more, b/c Ali is the much more famous, scrutinized fighter. That's what comes with being famous, greater scrutiny. Granberry and Dave just take it to the point of utter hate and stupidity.

As for primes,

Holmes: 1978-82: Steady decline after Cooney

Holyfield 1988-1993: I think he edged the Bowe rematch. Started a steady decline after that though.

Frazier: 1968-71: Steady decline after Ali I

Norton: 1973-1977 Strongly disagree with Goodnight about Norton not getting over the Foreman rematch; Garcia II, Quarry, Ali III, Bobick were his career best performances. Holmes in 1978 was his last stand and then steep decline thereafter.

Barrera 1998-2002: Matured after the Jones fights, became a smarter boxer. Has his best fights in Morales I, Tapia and of course Hamed. Again, can't fathom how Goodnight doesn't include 2001 as Hamed was by far Barrera's career performance.

Morales 1998-2004: More consistant than Barrera, think his best performance was his 2005 schooling of Pacquao (his last great fight), but then came his career-WORST performance vs Raheem.

Duran: Agree with Goodnight, 1972-1979.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 03 Apr 2008, 11:34

I Feel Fine wrote: ...Just looking up his record on boxrec, Holmes got knocked down by someone named Kevin Isaac. Who cares about that? No one. Why? Because they've never seen it and have never heard of Kevin Isaac, and Holmes was a young fighter and not very well known at the time. Can't say the same for Sonny Banks.

Actually I was at that fight. Holmes was already aligned with Don King and in the media coverage leading up to the fight King was presenting Holmes as the next great up and coming HW. He was caught with a good shot and suffered a flash KD. As I recall in the next round he put Isaacs out for several minutes with a right hand. Isaacs wasn’t a great fighter, but he was considered a decent prospect at the time and while his career was short he fought some decent opposition.

I lived through all of this so remember the era quite well. Holmes actually did get a decent amount of attention early in his career, but it was simply difficult to be center stage when Ali was still fighting. He probably doesn’t get quite as much scrutiny because very few people call him the greatest of all time. Of course, he does seem to have his detractors on this forum.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 03 Apr 2008, 21:48

dempseyfire wrote:I Feel Fine your criticisms of Holmes and Louis are as badly grounded and out of touch as certain posters feelings regarding Ali. Less motivated Norton? Norton fought his heart out in their fight, by the contrary it was Norton's last motivated performance of his career. The KDs of young Clay by Banks and Holmes by Issac both show NOTHING. Of course Banks will be brought up more, b/c Ali is the much more famous, scrutinized fighter. That's what comes with being famous, greater scrutiny. Granberry and Dave just take it to the point of utter hate and stupidity.

As for primes,

Holmes: 1978-82: Steady decline after Cooney

Holyfield 1988-1993: I think he edged the Bowe rematch. Started a steady decline after that though.

Frazier: 1968-71: Steady decline after Ali I

Norton: 1973-1977 Strongly disagree with Goodnight about Norton not getting over the Foreman rematch; Garcia II, Quarry, Ali III, Bobick were his career best performances. Holmes in 1978 was his last stand and then steep decline thereafter.

Barrera 1998-2002: Matured after the Jones fights, became a smarter boxer. Has his best fights in Morales I, Tapia and of course Hamed. Again, can't fathom how Goodnight doesn't include 2001 as Hamed was by far Barrera's career performance.

Morales 1998-2004: More consistant than Barrera, think his best performance was his 2005 schooling of Pacquao (his last great fight), but then came his career-WORST performance vs Raheem.

Duran: Agree with Goodnight, 1972-1979.

I don't know about, "by far" but the contention can certainly be made that Barrera's best effort was against Hamed (There is also the first Morales fight to consider, which was against a better opponent, in my view, certainly one better-motivated). It's just that Barrera let that win go to his head, which was partly responsible for the result of the first Pacquiao fight. I think the victory of Hamed, & the way he did it, hurt him, in spite of the success of the night.

As for Norton, Quarry & Ali were well past it, Garcia & Bobick good, but hardly great, opponents at any time (Though annihilating Bobick was impressive). After the loss to Garcia, Norton became a better man for it, however, the defeat to Foreman in his maiden title shot, & the manner in which he was beaten, really hurt. Consider at this time he had also been a pro for several years, & was edging toward thirty when he got blown out in Caracas. It was absolute life-&-death with Young in '77, I suspect the Norton who first met Ali would have won quite a bit more conclusively.

Overhand...

I said Holyfield slipped after the victory over Bowe (& I can not get away from a pro-Bowe scorecard, though it was quite close --- all the more reason for the challenger to get the thumbs-down), I did not say he was a done fighter, as you imply. Need new glasses, bruh. His victories over Moorer, Tyson & Rahman are good (not great, as two of those opponents were poorly-prepped, & the other was just a plain C-grade fighter), but they do not represent the same Holyfield who campaigned at Cruiser. The discussion was centered on a fighters prime, not how long they were world-class for.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Apr 2008, 23:34

dempseyfire wrote:I Feel Fine your criticisms of Holmes and Louis are as badly grounded and out of touch as certain posters feelings regarding Ali. Less motivated Norton? Norton fought his heart out in their fight, by the contrary it was Norton's last motivated performance of his career. The KDs of young Clay by Banks and Holmes by Issac both show NOTHING. Of course Banks will be brought up more, b/c Ali is the much more famous, scrutinized fighter. That's what comes with being famous, greater scrutiny. Granberry and Dave just take it to the point of utter hate and stupidity.

My criticims of Louis are badly grounded? I don't know, perhaps you don't consider any criticism of Louis to be valid.

Most of what I say about Louis is meant to point out double standards, not to denigrate Louis. Same with Holmes. I have Louis as a top ten pound for pound all time fighter and the second greatest Heavyweight, I also rank Holmes highly and have him as a top five or six all time Heavyweight, so I can hardly be compared to granberry, if that's what you're trying to do. Not gonna work, pal. Still, I have not said anything that is untrue about either of these fighters, and I challenge you to say where I have.

That said, its a bit tiring hearing from some people, particularly from you, that Ali's standing in boxing history, or his being famous, as you put it, warrants him a higher level of scrutiny. And yet, on the same token, Joe Louis who has pretty much the same standing in boxing history, and who for decades has had a similar level of fame, does not warrant that same scrutiny? That's utter nonsense. You're simply not to be taken seriously when you imply that.

Norton has said himself that at that stage of his career he was not as motivated about boxing. Who said he didn't fight a great fight? Not I, he almost beat Holmes. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been better a couple of years earlier. He was 34 when he fought Holmes, fighting Holmes in his prime, and Holmes just barely beat him. How would the fight have gone from 73-76? We'll never know, because Larry fortunately never had to fight Norton or any of these fighters then. After he became champion he feasted on the divisions scraps. So I think its clear, as I said earlier, that it was to his benefit that he came to prominence and started to get bigger fights in 78 and not earlier.

But, I dunno. I guess on this forum 34 years old is a fighters prime when its Ali or Norton, but when its Louis or Holmes 34 is too old.

What you said about my comments about Banks are exactly my point. The point being that Ali gets a lot more scurtiny than someone like Holmes, for any stage of their careers, but particularly when it comes to their early and late years. So when Holmes gets knocked down or wins a controversial decision or looks bad in a fight, you rarely hear about it today. With Ali you do, including his fight with Banks, and it's not just dave and granberry, and its not just on this forum, and its ridiculous to say otherwise. Holmes didn't have the same spotlight on him at a young age that Clay and Frazier and Foreman did, and so any mild or not so mild difficulty they had was immediately ingrained into the memory of boxing fans for all time, while with Holmes his early years are not at all well known. Hence Holmes gets a free pass for his early career, while they didn't.

I'll debate you in regards to anything I've said about any of these fighters.

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:Just a question for you: What years would you designate as peak for the following?

Holyfield
Bonecrusher (Smith!)
Holmes
Foreman
Frazier
Norton

Morales
Barrera
Duran
Kelley

I pretty much agreed with most of what irene said about those other fights, so I didn't mention them. I guess at most I might extend Holyfield and Morales' primes by a couple of more years than irene gave them, but that's about it.

The Great John L wrote:Actually I was at that fight. Holmes was already aligned with Don King and in the media coverage leading up to the fight King was presenting Holmes as the next great up and coming HW. He was caught with a good shot and suffered a flash KD. As I recall in the next round he put Isaacs out for several minutes with a right hand. Isaacs wasn’t a great fighter, but he was considered a decent prospect at the time and while his career was short he fought some decent opposition.

I lived through all of this so remember the era quite well. Holmes actually did get a decent amount of attention early in his career, but it was simply difficult to be center stage when Ali was still fighting. He probably doesn’t get quite as much scrutiny because very few people call him the greatest of all time. Of course, he does seem to have his detractors on this forum.

Thanks for the description of the fight. As I said, I haven't seen any of Holmes' fights prior to Shavers I. I assume that was Holmes' first career knock down, boxrec didn't list any prior to the Isaacs fight.

I wouldn't consider myself a Holmes detractor. But I think that certain things about him should be said but often aren't.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Apr 2008, 07:44

I Feel Fine wrote:Thanks for the description of the fight. As I said, I haven't seen any of Holmes' fights prior to Shavers I. I assume that was Holmes' first career knock down, boxrec didn't list any prior to the Isaacs fight.

I wouldn't consider myself a Holmes detractor. But I think that certain things about him should be said but often aren't.

Actually, Holmes does get quite a bit of criticism on this forum. Of course there hasn't been as much lately because the forum seems to have been taken over by a few posters discussing(?) the pros and cons of Ali's career.

And yes, as far as I remember the Isaacs KD was Holmes first.

Jaybee From The Castle · Post by **Jaybee From The Castle** » 04 Apr 2008, 08:15

Ok..I said I'd come back with some commentary on that great analysis of yours...and now I'll keep my end of the bargain.

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Morales - Fourth-round stoppage of Junior Jones is one of his under-appreciated triumphs, IMO, & look at his victim list & the manner in which he carried himself during that time, going all the way through to his second fight with Barrera. During that time, he didn't deserve the decision in the first fight with Barrera (no knock against him), but even so, he was steamrolling some high-class (& also other, undersold) men. He walked through Kevin Kelley in seven. Lost a step (& with it, maybe a little desire?) following the first loss to Barrera in 2002. I know Morales said it hurt him to still be making weight in the first fight with Barrera, I still don't think he was as good going up as he was when lower. I'd submit 1998-2002. Still a great fighter until the end, though, to be fair.

Excellent points as I've said, and I heartily agree that he had an athleticism to him at 122 which didn't entirely survive the jump to 126. Which is no slur, you will find NO bigger Morales fan than me, but I try to maintain a ruthless realism about all things, and especially about those I love. With that, I tell you that the Ref wrote Jones off a tad early. Jones looked too clear-eyed and energetic for my money, yes the chances of him turning it around were slim, but he wasn't in danger of being hospitalised. Erik would still likely have KO'ed him, but with the break just seconds away, it wouldn't have been for a couple of rounds - and like I say, Jones would have been fine, albeit pretty damn sore!

Weightwise, I think Erik should have jumped a year earlier, he looked drained throughout '99 (when I first discovered him). He was, in my opinion, by far the physically strongest and hardest chinned light-Feather on the planet at the time. I think that jump to 126, had it been done in Jan '99, would have added a year to his successful reign at the other end of his career.

He deserved his win against Barrera, he'd outlanded him in power shots and after that bump of the hips that tipped him off balance, he came back landing power shots on Barrera. That is not the action of a man who has been beaten.

As for his peak, I'd put that around 2002-3, he outlanded Barrera handsomely, not just narrowly as in the previous fight, his defence had notably improved. But as we all know, the ardour of so many wars pushed his performance off a cliff in just a couple of years. One of the few fighters whose peak was so close to his downfall.

Barrera - Worse thing to ever happen to him was arguably his best performance, the victory over Hamed. The ease of this win saw Barrera fall ass-backward, head-in-the-clouds in love with cute, jab-first boxing. It's easy to say in retrospect, but I was one (& not the only person I knew, at that) who picked with some confidence Pacquaio to do a number on him. Would have to argue 1995-2000, most of his best victories were during this time (though a number of good ones coming later). Always a little harder to quantify with the smaller men, as they switch divisions, unlike the Heavies.

As I've stated elsewhere, he turned tech to beat Hamed - he'd seen that EVERYBODY who tried to slug it out with him had come a cropper, and determined that the only way to defeat him was to use that law school-trained brain and crafted a meticulously well-planned and executed strategy to outpoint him - but he STAYED tech because he couldn't bang with the best of them any more. We saw that in spades with Pac, who I feel did something of the same number on him, but the other way around. He surprised MAB with a whirlwind of power, forcing an ill-prepared Barrera to fight Pac's fight, and showed the world just how sorely MAB, for his part, underestimated him. I think, if MAB had taken that fight with the same deadly seriousness he did Hamed, he'd have perhaps squeaked out a Draw - though a points loss would be the likelier outcome.

Then, of course he took a sorely needed career break and returned, refreshed and revitalised and roared back against Morales, much as Morales had done against him a couple of years earlier. I have their fights 2-1 for Morales, not because I'm a fan, but simply because I don't go by subjective measures, but rather by punchstats. By that measure I feel he lost his first fight early in '01, this was some guy he went on to KO in the 3rd nearly 3 years later...what was the dudes' name??...ESPADAS

MAB is guy who is damn hard to put a peak year onto...he had a few troughs, of varying depths, but no one other year nor set of other years, in my mind, sticks out from the remainder in height....I would have loved for the MAB who beat Erik in '04 to have gone up against Pac , but probably too many mental ghosts so soon after '03.

The remaining two - Smith (I assume you mean Smith, as there have been quite a few, "Bonecrushers"), & Kelley (Got his scrap with Hamed, beautiful), I haven't watched enough of to comment, & I refuse to use a record on paper for guesswork.

Yes, Smith! :) Glad you stuck by your guns, I refuse to judge close fights until I see the Compubox numbers. Stands to reason I'd NEVER judge a fight I hadn't seen with my own eyes, of course.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:13

I Feel Fine wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:I Feel Fine your criticisms of Holmes and Louis are as badly grounded and out of touch as certain posters feelings regarding Ali. Less motivated Norton? Norton fought his heart out in their fight, by the contrary it was Norton's last motivated performance of his career. The KDs of young Clay by Banks and Holmes by Issac both show NOTHING. Of course Banks will be brought up more, b/c Ali is the much more famous, scrutinized fighter. That's what comes with being famous, greater scrutiny. Granberry and Dave just take it to the point of utter hate and stupidity.
My criticims of Louis are badly grounded? I don't know, perhaps you don't consider any criticism of Louis to be valid.

Most of what I say about Louis is meant to point out double standards, not to denigrate Louis. Same with Holmes. I have Louis as a top ten pound for pound all time fighter and the second greatest Heavyweight, I also rank Holmes highly and have him as a top five or six all time Heavyweight, so I can hardly be compared to granberry, if that's what you're trying to do. Not gonna work, pal. Still, I have not said anything that is untrue about either of these fighters, and I challenge you to say where I have.

That said, its a bit tiring hearing from some people, particularly from you, that Ali's standing in boxing history, or his being famous, as you put it, warrants him a higher level of scrutiny. And yet, on the same token, Joe Louis who has pretty much the same standing in boxing history, and who for decades has had a similar level of fame, does not warrant that same scrutiny? That's utter nonsense. You're simply not to be taken seriously when you imply that.

Norton has said himself that at that stage of his career he was not as motivated about boxing. Who said he didn't fight a great fight? Not I, he almost beat Holmes. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been better a couple of years earlier. He was 34 when he fought Holmes, fighting Holmes in his prime, and Holmes just barely beat him. How would the fight have gone from 73-76? We'll never know, because Larry fortunately never had to fight Norton or any of these fighters then. After he became champion he feasted on the divisions scraps. So I think its clear, as I said earlier, that it was to his benefit that he came to prominence and started to get bigger fights in 78 and not earlier.

But, I dunno. I guess on this forum 34 years old is a fighters prime when its Ali or Norton, but when its Louis or Holmes 34 is too old.

What you said about my comments about Banks are exactly my point. The point being that Ali gets a lot more scurtiny than someone like Holmes, for any stage of their careers, but particularly when it comes to their early and late years. So when Holmes gets knocked down or wins a controversial decision or looks bad in a fight, you rarely hear about it today. With Ali you do, including his fight with Banks, and it's not just dave and granberry, and its not just on this forum, and its ridiculous to say otherwise. Holmes didn't have the same spotlight on him at a young age that Clay and Frazier and Foreman did, and so any mild or not so mild difficulty they had was immediately ingrained into the memory of boxing fans for all time, while with Holmes his early years are not at all well known. Hence Holmes gets a free pass for his early career, while they didn't.

I'll debate you in regards to anything I've said about any of these fighters.

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:Just a question for you: What years would you designate as peak for the following?

Holyfield
Bonecrusher (Smith!)
Holmes
Foreman
Frazier
Norton

Morales
Barrera
Duran
Kelley
I pretty much agreed with most of what irene said about those other fights, so I didn't mention them. I guess at most I might extend Holyfield and Morales' primes by a couple of more years than irene gave them, but that's about it.

The Great John L wrote:Actually I was at that fight. Holmes was already aligned with Don King and in the media coverage leading up to the fight King was presenting Holmes as the next great up and coming HW. He was caught with a good shot and suffered a flash KD. As I recall in the next round he put Isaacs out for several minutes with a right hand. Isaacs wasn’t a great fighter, but he was considered a decent prospect at the time and while his career was short he fought some decent opposition.

I lived through all of this so remember the era quite well. Holmes actually did get a decent amount of attention early in his career, but it was simply difficult to be center stage when Ali was still fighting. He probably doesn’t get quite as much scrutiny because very few people call him the greatest of all time. Of course, he does seem to have his detractors on this forum.
Thanks for the description of the fight. As I said, I haven't seen any of Holmes' fights prior to Shavers I. I assume that was Holmes' first career knock down, boxrec didn't list any prior to the Isaacs fight.

I wouldn't consider myself a Holmes detractor. But I think that certain things about him should be said but often aren't.

IFF, if you think Louis is even near the same league of Ali in terms of popularity and notoriety, you've been sleeping under a rock. Yes, among us few real boxing people, he's very well known. But to casual fans/the general public, Ali is 100 times more popular than Louis. Number 1, he came during the era of TV . .many more opportunities to show himself to the world. He also carried with him a flashy/charismatic personality, along with his anti-war/political stance in the late 1960s, which overtime have made him a cultural icon along the same lines of John Lennon,Marilyn Monroe etc. He's THAT well-known. Louis was a loved figure to folks who are in their 70s, 80s and beyond. They aren't influencing the popular venacular or (beyond a couple) frequenting online boxing forums.

That given, Ali has had many more books, documentaries, exposes, movies etc. made about him than ANY other boxer in history. With all of that wealth of information, people will discuss his greatest feats more (how many times have they shown Rumble in the Jungle on ESPN channels . . .a million?) as well as (and not nearly as much overall) his defeats/bad nights. This is basic common sense. I'll drink my own piss the day ESPN decides to do a show showing footage of Holmes' pre-Norton fights called "Holmes, the Early Years" . . .no-one besides the die-hards gives a crap.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:25

Dempseyfire speaks the sad truth

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:39

Holmes the Early Years… wouldn’t that be grand? As I recall, his fight against Young Sanford was televised, but I would LOVE to see his fights against Bobick and Arrington if they are available.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:46

I have Holmes Vs
Bobick, Robinson, Houpe, Shavers 1, Prater.

In my pre Norton collection, would love to get more...

I have seen bits of the Williams fight.

Would be good if more of his ealier fights were available.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:46

I think IFF is talking about boxing fans, not the general public as far as Louis is concerned.
On most boxing circles and certainly on this forum Louis gets almost as much positive attention as the guy who beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier and Foreman. He gets about 1/10 of the criticism. Rarely does Louis get criticism that is total BS.

To me this is sort of like have a baseball forum where Babe Ruth is ripped everyday and Wille Mays and Ty Cobb almost always gets a free pass.

As for "Larry Holmes the Early Years" , really what fights before he won the title would you show? Who did he fight that is worth mentioning except Shavers?
In fairness to Holmes, you could say that about a lot of fighters.

As for Norton, I thought he fought one of the best fights of his career against Holmes. Perhaps at first he was a little overconfident and gave away too many of the early rounds, but he came on strong. That fight was a war.
I do think that the punishment that Norton took in the Holmes accelerated his decline. He was as mentioned 34, and that kind of fight for a fighter that old takes a toll on you. It emptied his tank, so to speak.

I always considered his prime as 1973-1978. (Perhaps 1972, it's hard to say since he didn't fight anyone notable that early.) He lost 4 fights but they were all to great competition. His fight for the title in 1976 was not one of his best fights. The title was there for the taking, and he let it get close enough that he didn't the decision. He fights like his capable of and wins without doubt.
Bobick and Quarry were already mentioned as a couple of his best performances, but I always thought that his 1977 fight with Jimmy Young is underrated. It was a decision that could have gone the other way, but Norton performed great. That fight was surprisingly good. Of course Norton also looked good in several wins over fringe contenders.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:50

I also have Holmes vs Young Sanford.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:52

Young Sanford is also known as Fred Houpe sorry.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Apr 2008, 09:52

Robinson wrote:I also have Holmes vs Young Sanford.

Houpe is Young Sanford

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Apr 2008, 10:00

Ambling Alp wrote: As for "Larry Holmes the Early Years" , really what fights before he won the title would you show? Who did he fight that is worth mentioning except Shavers?
In fairness to Holmes, you could say that about a lot of fighters.

I think his pre title opponents were better than Tyson’s, some of which are shown repeatedly on ESPNC. Williams was a fringe contender, Bobick and Sanford got close to being contenders, and Sanford got a lot of attention because of his management, Arrington was also a top 25 briefly during his career and guys like Judge and Prater were also pretty good. Most of these guys would be contenders today, either in the CW or HW division, and I think on a good night Williams could have probably beaten some of the guys who have held “belts” in the HW division over the past 5 years.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Apr 2008, 11:00

Ambling Alp wrote:I think IFF is talking about boxing fans, not the general public as far as Louis is concerned.
On most boxing circles and certainly on this forum Louis gets almost as much positive attention as the guy who beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier and Foreman. He gets about 1/10 of the criticism. Rarely does Louis get criticism that is total BS.

To me this is sort of like have a baseball forum where Babe Ruth is ripped everyday and Wille Mays and Ty Cobb almost always gets a free pass.

As for "Larry Holmes the Early Years" , really what fights before he won the title would you show? Who did he fight that is worth mentioning except Shavers?
In fairness to Holmes, you could say that about a lot of fighters.

As for Norton, I thought he fought one of the best fights of his career against Holmes. Perhaps at first he was a little overconfident and gave away too many of the early rounds, but he came on strong. That fight was a war.
I do think that the punishment that Norton took in the Holmes accelerated his decline. He was as mentioned 34, and that kind of fight for a fighter that old takes a toll on you. It emptied his tank, so to speak.

I always considered his prime as 1973-1978. (Perhaps 1972, it's hard to say since he didn't fight anyone notable that early.) He lost 4 fights but they were all to great competition. His fight for the title in 1976 was not one of his best fights. The title was there for the taking, and he let it get close enough that he didn't the decision. He fights like his capable of and wins without doubt.
Bobick and Quarry were already mentioned as a couple of his best performances, but I always thought that his 1977 fight with Jimmy Young is underrated. It was a decision that could have gone the other way, but Norton performed great. That fight was surprisingly good. Of course Norton also looked good in several wins over fringe contenders.

ESPN has shown Ali's fights with Hunsaker, Banks, Johnson, Miteff, Daniels. Not exactly a murderor's row (on par or inferior to Houpe, Tiger Williams, Bobick, Shavers).

Louis doesn't get discussed overall nearly as much as Ali on boxing forums either, due to the reasons I stated. I hear his opposition constantly get written off as "bums" because they ignorantly take the 'bum of the month' statement completly out of context and know little of his opponents. I don't see him getting some sort of free pass at all.

Granberry is a nutjob, his views don't represent some sizable minority of posters. Most posters talk of Ali in positive terms.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Apr 2008, 11:06

Great John L. - I'm pretty much in agreement with this; Tyson did fight a lot of stiffs before he won the title. Why his easy ko's over completely overmmatched opponents are shown from time to time is baffling. They could do this with Holmes or other guys as well.

To be fair to Tyson, he did beat a few ok opponents such as Jessie Ferguson, James Tillis, and Marvis Frazier. Frazier was the only one that he blew away, although he may have blown Ferguson if he hadn't been holding so much. He did have a lot of trouble with Tillis.

It's funny that you mention Roy Williams, for the life of me I can't remember watching him in a fight. Just looking at his record, it seems that he lost to every notable fighter than he fought; even Richard Dunn.
Was he one of those guys (like Andrew Golota ) that had some talent but seemed to find a way to lose?

What years would you designate as peak for the following?

What years would you designate as peak for the following?

Re: What years would you designate as peak for the following

! :)