Bert Sugar's Top Ten Heavyweights...

[Mr E]

Nice list, Ted.

Not sure I would agree, but I think one could at least make the argument that Holmes avoided rematches w/ Mike Weaver and Tim Witherspoon and that he avoided Michael Dokes, Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas altogether.

But no way did he avoid Gerrie Coetzee. The only time I can recall Holmes yelling for a unification match, in fact, was during that brief period of time when Coetzee had the WBA title. Once he lost it to Page, Holmes stopped yelling. [Seriously, can anyone imagine Gerrie Coetzee upsetting Larry Holmes?? Not me, I can tell you that.]

[PeteLeo]

I don't remember who said it, but someone stated that a flush Sunday punch from Joe Louis wouldn't shake the hairs on Ali's balls . . . man, I have respect for Muhammad, a lot of it, but this is just beyond the pale (pail? payle?). A flush combo from the Brown Bomber could reduce the Statue of Liberty to rubble. Paolino Uzcudin was known for having perhaps the best chin in boxing up until that point (sort of a Chuvalo in a football helmet), but a fairly young Louis just wrecked him. And I surely think Joe hit harder than Sonny Banks, Henry Cooper, and Joe Frazier. PeteLeo.

[Roberto Aqui]

[[[[Is it that hard or difficult for you to UNDERSTAND Frazier retired after he lost to Ali & Foreman?]]]]]
===============================

Gotta give you another big DUH for effort. You certainly do know how to pile on the points!

[DEEAGLE]

Re: RE:FACTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[[[Is it that hard or difficult for you to UNDERSTAND Frazier retired after he lost to Ali & Foreman?]]]]]
===============================

Gotta give you another big DUH for effort. You certainly do know how to pile on the points!


Roberto GREAT COMEBACK, is DUH your middle name? Because when trying to answer questions with facts DUH is how you post. You've now become the micro mini CHAMP of this forum based on your lack of facts, understanding of facts & thorough DISTASTE for anything factual. From the comments how Jeffries fought men his size & did'nt outweigh them to this subject how Holmes failed to fight Foreman & Frazier even though both were retired. Absolutely FABULOUS your micro mini weight title will be yours whenever there is a discussion about facts which of course you know nothing about. I also want to give you CONGRATS in once again FAILING to point out to the FORUM EXACTLY how many of the HOFS that Louis beat are better then ANY of the guys ALI beat. I'll repeat in case you have a PROBLEM with the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, Foreman,Frazier,Liston,Patterson, I'll leave out the rest of my post because apparently these 4 are giving you a hard enough time. BTW if you keep going like this, with a lack of any facts to back up what you're saying I might have to fail you on 1st grade boxing 101.:lol

[HEGrant]

Roberto you are wrong. Period.

Berbick pummelled Page, handing him his first loss when Page was hyped to be the next champ and in shape. He only needed a B-Cup at the time. Berbick knocked out John Tate and defeated Pinklon Thomas taking his titole. Holmes easily beat him over 15 rounds in Berbicks prime.

Witherspoon was in his prime for Holmes. His number of fights was light but he was mentally and physically at the top of his game. He was razor sharp from Philly gym wars. He was in the best shape of his career. He was mentally pumped up, not the fat, lazy pot head blaming King for everything he would soon become. He would never again aproach that condition. Holmes, already past his prime, beat him on skill and heart.

Holmes KO'ed Weaver on a night he fought with the flu ...the same Weaver who a year later flattened the highly overated Coetzee.

Page and Dokes, another of your mentions, were not in the same league as Holmes, even at their best. Holmes was faster, stronger and most importantly mentally tougher.

I see how you completely move off point here, refusing as with Jones, to say which of these men would have beaten Holmes. You simply want to make a statement for the sake of it, in the abstract. I repeat, who do you say beats him ? To say he simply did not fight someone can be used against every fighter that ever lived, except Marciano perhaps since the competition was so weak.

Of course a guy who defends his title 20 times is going to have some easy matches ... however to say Holmes ducked the best fighters of his era , without saying who you felt would beat him (your consistent track record in these arguments) is a huge cop out.

[DEEAGLE]

No Ted I'm not kidding, each of those guys had a piece of the Mickey Mouse title that they each kept each for 1 fight, as HGrant has pointed out correctly, the game is about the green, since each of those guys could'nt draw flies, why do you think it never materialized. Grant said put the right amount on the table & Larry even today would fight Rahman or any of the other STIFFS calling themselves hwt champ. Cooney was the draw of the day, Holmes beat him up & got paid to do so, who would pay to see which of (as HGrant mentioned) the BRA BOYS? Page, size 48 bra, Tubbs size 50bra, Weaver he already stopped & Dokes was clocked by Coetzie, none of these guys INSPIRE anybody. So yes I'm serious in what I've said, & using this kind of logic all champs have guys that they did'nt fight, you would'nt pay 2 cents to see Holmes with a Page or a Tubbs.

[Ted Cogswell]

That's all fair enough, but you don't need to give any of us lessons in the economics of prizefighting. The economic realities of a Heavyweight championship mean nothing in a discussion of who ranks ahead of who. Considering who someone did and didn't fight is a perfectly legitimate thing to factor in. One thing you seem to be forgetting here is that all of this is opinion. Ranking fighters of different eras against eachother is an entirely subjective exercize, but you talk to those who disagree with your conclusions as if they are just plain wrong. I don't see how that accomplishes anything.

[HEGrant]

It amazes how many on the board simply have zero understanding of the fact that boxing is a business and that fighters and their management , if they are smart, protect the title as a commodity...this is especially the case when a figher gets older and is faced with challanges that may be tougher in the ring but offer no more financial reward as the opponents are flawed of simoply lack the charisma to attract public attention and demand bigger monies.

I now Larry Holmes well. He is 100% about the money. Period. If he could fight Rachman tomorrow for a few million dollars on two weeks notice he would jump at the chance for the money. To say he ducked the mixed bag of poorly conditioned underachievers you guys are mentioning is to look at a picture without anaylizing the details.

Between boxing politics and the dollars being ofered, Holmes made decisons based on lowest risk, highest reward for Larry Holmes, period. There was zero public demand for the bra needing trio of Witherspoon, Tubbs or Page as the 80's deepened. All three were terrible underachievers, crybabies and looked like shit in the ring. Their myriad of title changing bouts rank as the poorest display of heavyweight championship fighting since Canera/Baer and Braddock. None of them captured the public imagination in any way. There was zero demand for Holmes to fight any of them.

(more to come)....Gotta go for now...

[Roberto Aqui]

[[[I see how you completely move off point here, refusing as with Jones, to say which of these men would have beaten Holmes. You simply want to make a statement for the sake of it, in the abstract. I repeat, who do you say beats him ? To say he simply did not fight someone can be used against every fighter that ever lived, except Marciano perhaps since the competition was so weak.

Of course a guy who defends his title 20 times is going to have some easy matches ... however to say Holmes ducked the best fighters of his era , without saying who you felt would beat him (your consistent track record in these arguments) is a huge cop out.]]]]
======================================

I never said he ducked ALL the best fighters of his era, I just posted a very large list of fighters who were as good or better than the comp Larry mostly defended against. It ain't rocket science to conclude he must have ducked at least a few of them.

Former or current champs who were active in Larry's physical prime and/or championship reign that Larry never matched with: Foreman, Frazier, Page, Tubbs, Thomas, Coetzee, Dokes, Tate. Seeing as how Shavers and Snipes were within a hair of knocking out Larry and taking his belt, any of those fighters could have sealed the deal because all at their best are better than Shavers and Snipes.

I'm not interested in excuses like Frazier or Foreman retired, King wouldn't let Holmes fight anyone, blah, blah, blah. The only reason Holmes faced Spinks is because he saw easy pickin's in his bid to tie Marciano after being beat up by Williams instead of stepping into the ring against the better prime heavies and having his legacy cut short. That's what top predators in the animal kingdom do, they look for the weakest to take.

It's not like I have animosity towards Holmes either. I understood the context of his Marciano remarks and his Cooney remarks and appreciated him holding back on Ali. He was a craftsman and a pro and knew his business. His record is what it is and it's a pretty weak list of contenders overall so historians will rightfully wonder the same things I have.

Now, if I really didn't like Larry, well, I'd rip him for not making the Tex Cobb rematch!

[DEEAGLE]

TED SAID:
it was the conventional wisdom during the 80's that Holmes (and Don King) WERE dodging Coetzee and Doakes. Roberto was also right when he said that Larry should have given 'Spoon a rematch. He never met Weaver again even though he won the first time and a win would have given him the UNDISPUTED heavyweight title. You don't think Holmes should have been craving that? I hate to be critical of Holmes, who I'm a huge fan of, but that's all true, and it does count towards his place in history. All that considered, I'd stil place him better than ten.

I find all this discussion about who would have beat who completely irrelevant for this discussion. Based on that logic, the bigger, stronger fighter of today would always beat the smaller, more crudely trained champion of yesterday. If Joe Louis could fight with all of the nutrition, weightlifting, and training that the 21st Century has to offer, he'd destroy anyone you put in front of him.

For what it's worth, my top ten:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Johnson
5. Jeffries
6. Marciano
7. Holmes
8. Liston
9. Tunney
10. Foreman

Ted, whose conventional wisdom was it? I was around at that time, I saw Dokes, Tate,Page,Weaver,Coetzee, which of these non entities do you think had any chance in hell of beating Holmes? And did you ever consider that they were avoiding Larry? I mean those guys were basically a sorry lot, him not fighting Weaver again means nothing because Weaver lost in several of his fights with guys like Dokes,Thomas & Bonecrusher, all by K.O. Holmes stopped him as well in the 12th round. The other guys all lost their paper titles as soon as they got it, Holmes besides Joe Louis held it the 2nd longest of any hwt, & defended the 2nd most continuosly, so how does that translate in avoiding those misfits? Now you say if Louis could be transformed into modern times & get the nutrition & better training machines of today he'd beat any of the modern fighters, that might be true, but we don't know, we do know his level of competition & how he did against those men, we also know the level of competition for Ali & how he stood up against those men. Lets go the other way, if Ali or Holmes was transported back in time, & were lighter under 200lbs & a couple of inches shorter, & were using 4oz or 6 oz gloves then how would they do against the old timers? That's another discussion!!!
Next you put Dempsey,Johnson Jeffries in front of Holmes? Using your criteria based on the men they fought & how they ruled at that time, did anyone of them have a better level of competition then Holmes had? Did anyone of them defend the title as many times as Holmes & did anyone of them face any one remotely in the class of Holmes?

[DEEAGLE]

Hey Pete, I said it!!! Do you really believe Louis hit harder then Liston, Foreman or Shavers? Tell you what, the difference if you measured it by a machine would astound you, with Louis in the distance!!! Not saying Joe could'nt punch, but he was not in the same league as these guys, & he was wearing what 6oz mitts, & 80% of the guys he clocked were under 200lbs. IMAGINE Foreman or Liston with that size glove, how about Shavers? How about TYSON a SCARY THOUGHT!!!!And please don't tell me Marciano had that kind of punching power, only if you're Italian can I understand putting the Rock in with that kind of punching power.

[DEEAGLE]

Roberto said:
I'm not interested in excuses like Frazier or Foreman retired, King wouldn't let Holmes fight anyone

Man you keep that undisputed micro mini title everytime your open your mouth!!! According to you Larry Holmes should've fought Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey & the great but VERY DEAD Rocky Marciano, I don't care that they're RETIRED, DEAD or 100 years old. Great post Roberto!!!! LMFAO:lol

[kikibalt]

I have to disagree with the Eagle here, Joe Louis was the harder hitter, why ? b/c of the way they threw their punches, Louis was short and alot of snap, Foreman push his punches, Shaver telegraph his punches, Ali tried to hit you an at the same time get out of the way of getting hit, Liston was the closes to Louis in punching power

Frank B.

[Ted Cogswell]

I saw Dokes, Tate,Page,Weaver,Coetzee, which of these non entities do you think had any chance in hell of beating Holmes? And did you ever consider that they were avoiding Larry?

I didn't ever say that any of those guys would have a chance at beating Holmes, just that they were top fighters who he didn't get in the ring with. I think you're misunderstanding Roberto on that point as well. Nobody's saying that those guys were better than Holmes. And I doubt too many top contenders would be avoiding the Heavyweight Champ. I mean, really, are you kidding?

[DEEAGLE]

You did'nt respond to my question about your list of hwts. You have Johnson, Dempsey, Jeffries rated higher then Larry on your list. Your criteria was these men ruled their division in their era, well again I ask? Which of these men ruled their division better then Holmes did? and did anyone face opponents better then Holmes faced?

[PeteLeo]

Yup, I'd put Louis on top of Foreman, Liston, Tyson, and probably Shavers in punching power. Ali himself said that George didn't really hit as hard as his glowering rep would have the public believe (he claimed Foreman's power was of the thudding type and not sharp like Frazier's hook and that Big George knocked down a lot of guys, but almost all of them got up before the ten count). A number of fighters went the distance with Sonny (check his KO per centage) by giving him a little movement/a little head juking. Hell, the first guy to whip Liston was a slightly blown-up light-heavy. Tyson looked great for awhile against second-tier chins, but what really great jaws did he fracture? Tucker and the Bonecrusher went the distance, the only reason he even beat Tillis on the cards was because he gained a two-point round on a very questionable knockdown, Jessie Ferguson never came close to going down aside from the uppercut that crunched his nose (that fight -- now listed as a Tyson KO -- was orginally and rightfully a DQ, as Jessie's cornermen entered the ring), and then there's little old Evander Holyfield, a man actually smaller than Mike (poundage-wise), a physical twin of "little Jack Dempsey," plus a few ounces, a blown-up light-heavy/cruiser who couldn't deck grandfathers like Holmes and Foreman; so who went down when Massive Mike and Holyfield went at it? It wasn't Evander.
Punch for punch, Earnie Shavers may have approached Louis in concussive energy, but he certainly had nowhere near the combination speed, stamina, ring smarts, and killer instinct. I actually think Shavers is just a tad overrated in the power department these days. Take away Norton (glass chinned) and Ellis, and how many top flight fighters did Earnie stop? Not Holmes, Ali, Quarry, Cobb, or virtually anyone else he faced who had a claim to being a real contender. He was murder on the "usual suspects," though.
As for Marciano, I'll let others with more background info on the Blockbuster decide his power rating. Since you brought up the idea of machine-measuring punching power, however, I will point out that Rocky's shots were, indeed, subjected to such calibration while he was still champion. The conclusion arrived at was that a flush right hand from Marciano carried with it the impact to raise one thousand pounds one foot off the ground (that's what they said -- it's in the written records).
One point of Sugar's that I do tend to agree with was that Dempsey had the absolute best left hook of all time, better than Frazier's.
I have a little Italian blood, but I'm actually mostly an all-American mutt, white, black, Indian, and what have you (one of my great uncles was Hawaiian). Leonitis is of Greek derivation. PeteLeo.

[HEGrant]

Roberto keeps writing that Holmes did not fight Frazier and Foreman, who were active during his reign...he is wrong.

Why he keeps mentioning Frazier when Joe was shot and retired is puzzeling to me. I believe Foreman started his comeback in 87 or 88. Holmes lost the title in 85. How did he duck Foreman. Larry has been lobbying for a Foreman fight for 18 years. It's Foreman who never wanted to fight Holmes.

To say Holmes finally started to fight HOF competition and thrn got his ass kicked is a joke and an untruth as well. At 37 he came out of 18 months retirement to challange an absolute prime, highly active Mike Tyson on six weeks notice. Yes he got crushed but he died on his shield. He did not get counted out on one knee or quit on his stool. He kept getting up. However, to say that 37 year old inactive Holmes is the same as the Holmes that beat Norton and Ali is a joke and wrong. Years Holmes fought a prime Holyfield and gave a great acount of himself, often making Holyfield look silly. I hardly consider that embarrassing himself.


Pretty much zero of his points have any validity in this piece.


It makes no sense to criticize a fighter by saying he did not fight so and so but then not say that you feel so and so would have beatenhim.

[DEEAGLE]

Actually it seems to be you who objects to what I pointed out. The economics certainly do play a part, & again since reading is fundamental, HGrant pointed out in his astute observation of you that you still do not mention who of those fighters Tate,Weaver,Page,Tubbs would've even remotely had a chance against Larry. Why don't you tell us that? At least make your arguement feasible.

[Dragnet 69]

"Why of course now I understand how Sugar came to his selection. OF COURSE EZZARD CHARLES was much more DOMINANT at hwt then Holmes, Frazier or Foreman, & he was even more dominant then TYSON, SURE HE WAS!! As for Tunney well I MUST"VE forgot how dominant he was during his reign of 1 DEFENSE!! & OF COURSE how can anyone FORGET that Marcianos reign was better then ANYTHING Holmes, Frazier, Foreman or Tyson produced. YEP!!! Burt is really an UNBIASED observer."

The way I understood Sugar's criteria was how well the fighter did overall career wise and was also a heavyweight champion. He supported his viewpoint by talking about Charles's and Tunney's various quality wins at light heavy as well as heavyweight. Now with that in mind Charles might be a reasonable pick. Of course if you're looking at just how the fighter did at heavyweight or how you think he might have done against other heavies, you have a whole different scenario for ranking. TIP

[TheSentinel]

Maybe Foreman's power is more "concussive", and Shavers had more 1 Punch (right) power- it really doesn't matter. Foreman's power was murderous. What he did to Frazier, Norton, Chuvalo, Cooney, Moorer, etc. stands on it's own. On his way up he scored a number of devastating knockouts- often of the one punch variety. Even Ali stated if he didn't get Foreman out of there in the 8th, he would be in dire straits from the beating he took.

[DEEAGLE]

Looks like HGrant just K.O'd Pete & Louis at 11 seconds of the 1st round. It amazes me that knowledgable boxing men buy into this theory of any man weighing 185-199lbs having more power then a Tyson, Liston, Foreman or a Shavers? There are men here who have fought pro & amateur & I'm CERTAIN these gents know the difference between a middleweight puncher & a lgt hwt puncher, & a TOTAL difference when it comes to the bigger better punching hwts. Pete mentioned that Foreman really did'nt K.O that many men. Well Foreman had 76 wins, 68 were K.O'd by Big George, now UNLESS I failed MATH that tells me the man basically stopped everyone put in front of him. Liston won 50 fights & stopped 39 of those men, the man was BRUTE POWER, if anybody here ever saw the hands of Liston up close you'd understand his hands looked like wrecking balls. Tyson in 50 wins he stopped 44 men, if that is not power then I've been watching golf. Shavers had 73 wins & stopped 67 by K.O. Now if that is not K.O power perhaps we need to get a different measurement of power. Frazier in his 32 wins had 27 K.O's. Joe Louis had 68 wins & 54 K.O's. Now how many of the K.O's that Louis had were against men under 200lbs? And Louis wore light gloves, the others all wore 8o z & 10oz gloves, Im standing pat, those men punched MUCH harder then Joe & they had pct wise, a better K.O pct then Louis.

[DEEAGLE]

Well Dragnet since we're talking about hwts what has wins at lgt hwt got to do with anything. If that's the case then M.Spinks & Evander surely should make the list instead of Charles, who basically did squat at hwt, he won & lost to Walcott, beat a well past his prime Louis & was KILLED by Marciano both times, & lost to Valdes. How does this QUALIFY Ezzzard with the great hwts. I think Burts selecting him really shows the bias Burt has for any of the old time fighters. Charles I.M.O does'nt rate in the top 40 hwts, he has no place being rated in the hwt division, he had to many losses at hwt to be considered anywhere near an all time great hwt. At lgt hwt that is a horse of a different color.

[HEGrant]

Pete I have to give you credit for a first...no one ever, anywhere dissed Tyson's, Foreman's, Shaver's and Liston's power in one paragraph before, maybe anywhere on the planet. I mean God, who did those lighteights every knock out anyway ?

No matter how you phrase it, it was a very bad post...the arguments you used can be spun on anyone...

Jeffries...look how he could not stop the much smaller Sharkey who was easily flattened by Fitz...

Fitz...loook how he could not hit...he could not stop Jeffries no matter how many times he landed flush. Johnson bounced Jeffries around like a rubber ball...

Marcino....look how long it took Marciano to stop an old man like Walcott, a shot fighter like Charles or a blow up light heavy like Moore who was stopped by several other fighters when he was younger...

Dempsey...look how Dempsey could not stop two light heavywweights like Tunney and Gibbons...his gloves must have been loaded against Willard like Kearns said...

Louis...look how long it took him to put away a journeyman light heavy like Braddock. He could not stop Tommy Farr or Pastor the first time.


How about reality:

Evander on Foreman: Even though he did not knock me out, he hit me harder than anyone else ever did...it felt like he knocked all my teeth out...

Ali on Foreman: He hit me so hard I knw I simply could not take many more of them. I was knocked into the room of trombones and flying bats...I was fighting for my life.

Norton on Foreman: It was like facing death...the power was unbelievable...

Holmes on Shavers: He hit me so hard in that seventh round that to this day I still feel it. I still get flashbacks from the pain.

Ali on Shavers: He hit me harder than any man ever. I was out on my feet in that second round .

Tyson's power is beyong question: Remember Trevor Berbick bounce like a rubber ball all over the ing ? Remember the iron chinned Pinklon Thomas crushed ? Larry Holmes getting flattened ? Tony Tubbs iced in two. Michael Spinks in one ?

Liston crushing Patterson twice in a round ? Liston crushing Clevand Williams ?

Your whole argument is confusing punching power with not catching an opponent because of an off night, a learning curve, a step up in class or simply facing a better man that managed to hit them more than they were able to be hit in return. To try and put any spin on the power of those power giants is just that, a spin.

If Foreman, Liston, Shavers and Tyson are not among the top five hitters of all time, who do you rate higher other than Louis ? Please don;t tell me Marciano.

[DEEAGLE]

I'd like to also mention, that of all the guys I saw live & had the pleasure to watch I'd have to say either Tyson or Big George were the hardest punchers. Tyson by FAR had the fastest hands of any super punching hwt, Foreman just seemed to have the heaviest of hands, Shavers round house was something unreal. Now perhaps a better arguement would be of the smaller hwt champs under 200lbs who was the best puncher, was it Dempsey,Louis or the Rock, that would seem like a fairer comparision. And Liston perhaps had the hardest jab of these big monsters.

[Mr E]

Can't have it both ways, fellas. If you want to say that Louis could not have competed with your 1970s-era heros because he was too light, then, by the same token, I guess those guys from the '70s couldn't have competed today. The weight differential is even greater.

I mean, shoot, Louis was 206 for his 1-round wipe-out of Buddy Baer right before he went into the Army, which was possibly his best performance ever. Ali was 210 against Liston and 212 against Williams. Frazier was 205 1/2 against Ali the first time. I just don't see weight being the difference in these fights.

I agree w/ Pete. Louis was a better 2-handed hitter than Liston was. Liston may have had a "harder" left hook, in terms of sheer impact, but not by much, and Joe's hook was quicker and more accurate. And Joe had a better right hand all the way around, impact included.

IMO, Joe hit both harder and faster from either side than Frazier did.

Foreman, I think, likely WAS a bigger puncher than the Louis was, but Joe did everything else better. Could Joe give away the 20 pounds and lick Big George? I'd bet he could. [I bet he'd beat Liston & Frazier, too.]

Just my opinion, gentlemen.

[wildhawke11]

In my humble opinion the hardest one punch hitters of the fighters your discussing i will mark them out of 12.

Foreman -12
Shavers - 12
Tyson-11 plus
Liston -11 ?
Marciano -10 Not as hard but the punches just kept coming.
Dempsey - 9
Frazier -9
Louis -9

Of course i don't expect some of you feel the same but this is how i see it right or wrong. But this does not always mean that in a fight the guy with the harder punch on paper will in effect at times in the ring always punch harder. Think of hitting a car that is stationary at 40 miles an hour. Now that same car moving towards you when you hit it, the impact will be much greater. If and not many modern fighters can do this, you move inside the punch thrown at you and then connect its the same as hitting the moving car. So the 9 rated fighter can if he is good enough can connect with a power of 10 plus.

What i am trying to say is if you are skilful enough you can at times punch just as hard as the guy who seems to carry the bigger punch. Unfortunately i don't seem to see many fighters doing this. They only seem to have the ability to move away and not parry or move inside a thrown punch. In the case of the 240 lb big modern HW they are inclined to stand there and take it on the chin.

I Don't wish to upset anyone on here but to my mind it can only be the lack of either no skill on the fighters part or the lack of a first class trainer. My Thoughts anyway Gentlemen for what there worth.

[DEEAGLE]

Roberto you have not only a problem with facts, but you have a problem even getting your own posts straight. You mentioned Larry avoided both Frazier & Foreman. EXACTLY what are you speaking about? Are you so thick that it's beyond your capacity to understand even a simple point? Both Frazier & Foreman retired before Holmes won the title point 1. Point 2 EXACTLY when was it that Holmes should've fought Frazier? When Frazier was fighting Big George for millions or when Big George was fighting Ali for millions. Who BESIDES Roberto Aqui would've paid PEANUTS to see a 2nd year pro like Holmes fight Frazier or Foreman? Next you conviently side stepped questions put to you, a pattern usually associated with a man that cannot offer facts to back up anything he has to say. Unless of course DUH is your only answer. Which Foreman do you believe Larry should've fought? The hwt champ Foreman?Was Larry in a position being a pro for 2 years to force Foreman to fight him? Or perhaps Frazier who in all reality would tell Larry to go away & comeback when he grows up to be a real money making attraction. Of course you have no answers because you have no facts, & like all people with no facts they have no knowledge, you Roberto are very easy to see through!! Reading is fundamental, making up B.S about a fine fighter is really the reason you're the undisputed micro mini weight champ. Congrats. Mr E, actually it's you who cannot have it both ways because you're mixing apples & pairs. The discussion was about Liston, Foreman & Tyson throwing harder shots then Louis, you then mentioned that the 70's fighters were small next to the current dinosaur type hwts, how did the conversation go from the better punchers vs Louis & the new generation of dinosaurs? Since you brought up Ali you should at least mention that a good part of his career he fought at 218+ as well, & you should also mention why you think a Louis for example punched harder then Tyson? I'd like to hear how you rationalize this? Also I don't know how you figure Louis was a bigger puncher then a Liston or a Foreman.

[Roberto Aqui]

[[[[Roberto keeps writing that Holmes did not fight Frazier and Foreman, who were active during his reign...he is wrong.]]]]
==========================

Never SPECIFICALLY stated that, so you are wrong. You are always welcome to find the post where I SPECIFICALLY state that.

Now what is true is that Holmes was 22-0 before Foreman KOed Frazier in the rematch, and Larry was the same age as George, 27 and had been fighting 4 yrs. Obviously Larry would've been 22-2 had he made a match with George and Joe, but smartly Larry chose not to make those matches.

[HEGrant]

Robero, I'm going to start to call you the Spinmeister because you love to take half stories and spin them into your interpretation of facts...yes Larry and George are about the same age, however in Robertoland does that mean they were in the same positions, being promoted and moved on the same speed track? Is every 24 year old fighterat the exact same point ? Is every person ?

I honestly don't know if you believe what you write or just try to bait good natured arguments...you consistently make broad range statements leaving out the details that make up the back story, often the most significant portions of what were the causes and effects of the actions..in other words, you leave out the details ...a creature of this remote control society perhaps ?

YOu were the one who said Holmes ducked the best fighters of his day. You listed Frazier and Foreman. I simply wrote the facts. Still, you have not stepped up and said which of the men fighting during Holmes title reign would have beaten him...very similiar to your rants against Roy Jone...there seems to be a pattern.

[Roberto Aqui]

[[[[YOu were the one who said Holmes ducked the best fighters of his day. You listed Frazier and Foreman. I simply wrote the facts. Still, you have not stepped up and said which of the men fighting during Holmes title reign would have beaten him...very similiar to your rants against Roy Jone...there seems to be a pattern. ]]]]
========================

Indeed, the pattern is I make a post and you follow up with baloney.

I never stated Holmes ducked the best fighters of his day. I did say he didn't fight most of the best fighters of his day. Big difference to those who know and understand the English language.

I also did mention that all the fighters I listed were fully capable of beating Holmes, so I suggest you get an English interpreter to decipher that post for you.

Tell you what: Holmes was 22-0 when Foreman KOed Frazier in their rematch. From '83-85 Holmes defended against; Spoon, 15-0; Frank, 21-0-1; Frazier, 10-0; Smith, 14-1; Bey, 14-0, and Williams, 16-0. Apparently those heavies were willing to step up to the plate for an opportunity at an earlier level of experience than was Holmes.

One has to ask the question why Holmes was unable or unwilling to step up to the plate against Frazier or Foreman when they were the "MEN" in the division. Maybe it was a "money" thing where making 10X the money was simply not part of Holmes' agenda then.