Larry Holmes - Why does he get a free ride ????

Bowe - "Ducked Lewis...bottler"

Lewis - "Got knocked out by stiffs"...

Klits - "Never fought anybody"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't Holmes avoid Page and Thomas....We all know why he took the IBF belt!!!

Didn't Holmes get decked and nearly stopped by a ring worn Ernie (some years after Ernie lost to a probable Parkinson's sufferer) and a journeyman in Snipes!! Struggled with Weaver too!!....Better chin than lewis?? Not for me!!

Was Larry's record any better than Lewis......I mean you'd struggle to see a defining fight (witherspoon maybe?? who got the shaft!!)..Lost to a light heavy...

Now look I liked Larry but you know to me his "crimes" tend to get overlooked........

Larry Holmes - Why does he get a free ride??????????

I'm with you on this one, Truss. A great heavyweight, no doubt, but I disagree with those that rank him quite so highly. Certainly no better than Lewis, very much similar. You see some rank him top 3 or 4...not for me...maybe 6 or 7.

First heavyweight to lose his title to a light-heavyweight, if I recall correctly. Huge black mark.

He was only 35 then!!! kind of seems much younger for a heavy now...

Maybe that defeat looks worse than it did fisty!!!

I thought Holmes was unlucky not to win one of the Spinks fights. 1-1 would be a fairer reflection I think.

Would agree with many of the arguments against him but I dont think they are neccessarily ignored. But in terms of ranking, is there anyone that unequivocally deserves to be ranked higher than him with the exception of Louis and Ali? Pretty much all heavyweights vying for that 3rd spot have lots of counter arguments against them.

I still think Holmes has the best blend of skills, longetivity and achievements to sneak 3rd spot for me.

I don't think he gets a free ride and I often hear people using your criticisms against him. Like Manos said I find it hard to arrange a top 10 after Ali and Louis and hes as good as anyone else for the third spot. I personally don't have him that high but top 5 is fair. We could pick apart most fighter's records if we wanted to. The Norton fight is amazing.

I'd have Lewis ahead of Holmes.

I'm sick of talking about Lewis, I should stop.

Holmes was a brilliant fighter,the punch Shavers hit him with would have felled an ox tremendous powers of recovery.Never happy the way his titles were taken away.

Lewis v Holmes would have been a pickem.

I think Holmes gets hit far too much to beat tyson. Overwhelmed, for a stoppage.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bowe - "Ducked Lewis...bottler"

Lewis - "Got knocked out by stiffs"...

Klits - "Never fought anybody"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't Holmes avoid Page and Thomas....We all know why he took the IBF belt!!!

Didn't Holmes get decked and nearly stopped by a ring worn Ernie (some years after Ernie lost to a probable Parkinson's sufferer) and a journeyman in Snipes!! Struggled with Weaver too!!....Better chin than lewis?? Not for me!!

Was Larry's record any better than Lewis......I mean you'd struggle to see a defining fight (witherspoon maybe?? who got the shaft!!)..Lost to a light heavy...

Now look I liked Larry but you know to me his "crimes" tend to get overlooked........

Larry Holmes - Why does he get a free ride??????????

Yep Holmes got decked by Shavers. But he got up and won. Plus that punch would have kept Lewis down til November. Weaver went on and won a version of the title. As good a chin as Lewis but better recuperative powers which makes him stand out amongst all other heavyweights.

Defining fight? Cooney. Schooled him and scored the KO which if it had gone to 15 he would have been robbed as he was against Spinks.

You say he lost to Spinks. Well the official results say so. The official results also says Ramires beat Pernell. I'd have Holmes as the second best HW in history and rank him 3 in ATG stakes.

A young Holmes would have the beating of Tyson imo.

alma wrote:What about Tyson v a younger Holmes as opposed to the 38 year old?

Holmes win. The jab does it and his footwork. But if Tyson gets him on queer street, who knows. If Tyson got anyone on queer street, who knows. A devestating finisher. Probably the best in history at finishing a hurt opponent.

alma wrote:I think mike always said a younger Larry would have beaten him.

Mike was being gracious. Ali said Tyson would have beaten him also. Foreman said Lewis would have beaten him and Holmes maintains to this day he would have beaten them all and twice on sundays.

Larry's character or lack there of rarely gets a free ride. Not a nice man judging by his words and actions.

In the ring though he had it all. I put him ahead of Lewis on talent. Holmes could move and dance and his jab, well........ Lewis was great but was aided tremendously by his massive size. Lewis could beat Holmes but I wouldn't fancy him to do it.

I think LondonRingRule's paradoxical old dictum that Larry was the "most over-underrated Heavyweight of all time" rings a little true here. For years, Holmes, his biggest fans and many within the sport argued that he hadn't received the commendation he should have, and as such, perhaps we've overcompensated a little to make up for that, conveniently brushing some of his weaker points under the carpet.

No way I can have Lewis ahead of him in the all-time stakes, though. I don't really think Lewis' competition, collectively speaking, was any better, and I don't think Lewis dominated his era any more emphatically, either. And those two highly ignominious defeats on top of that for Lennox, of course.

As Manos said, outside of Ali and Louis, you can pretty much pick significant holes in the record of any Heavyweight; it's no secret that it's a division lacking the depth of the Light-Heavyweights, Middleweights, Welterweights and Lightweights. But I see no real reason for Larry to be nudged down too many spots. Still top five for me.

Holmes vs Louis would be an interesting match-up. The better jab wins for me and that was Holmes.

As someone who relatively recently revisited his views on Holmes and ranked him at 3 in my list of heavyweights, I'd have to concur with Manos. When you start to look at all the heavys outside of Ali and Louis, there's arguments that can be made against any of them and doubts cast about their standing.

The consensus number 3 is Johnson and looking at their respective careers, I can't see why it's not reasonable or realistic to place Holmes ahead of him. More consistent than Foreman, never destroyed like Frasier (at least not until he was past it), more dominant than Lewis, a better level of opposition than Dempsey and Marciano and more longevity than Tyson, Liston and Jeffries.

Fists of Fury wrote:First heavyweight to lose his title to a light-heavyweight, if I recall correctly. Huge black mark.

This is true but Ali was the first heavyweight champ to lose to a 6-0-1 novice, and no one seems to hold that against him.

Holmes' loss to Michael Spinks even though he was a light heavy, was not as bad as losing to Leon Spinks.

alma wrote:What about Tyson v a younger Holmes as opposed to the 38 year old?

If Douglas was able to keep Tyson at bay with the jab (unfocused or not) then i see no reason why Holmes couldn't.

I find with all these heavyweight match ups there are pros and cons for each fighter.

Tyson gets jabbed to death by Douglas so we assume Holmes could do it even easier but Shavers has Holmes in a lot of trouble so have to assume Tyson would stop him in a similar position with his superior finishing skills.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He was only 35 then!!! kind of seems much younger for a heavy now...

Maybe that defeat looks worse than it did fisty!!!

I'm tired of hearing how 35 year old is young for a heavyweight. It's not really. Yes they mature later but regardless of weight mid-thirties is the twilight of most careers, especially in the 70's and 80's. Yes there are exceptions.

Modern training techniques in addition to advances in sports medicine, injury rehabilitation/management and surgery are the reasons for longevity these days. The klitchko's longevity may in some part be due to their Sports Science Doctorates?

On topic, its easy to criticize in retrospect. Holmes didn't really have any flaws, so why knock him? I genuinely feel his decision not to fight Page was greed rather than anything else. Unlike Bowe, who was quivering when reminiscing about what Lewis did to him in the amateurs.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I find with all these heavyweight match ups there are pros and cons for each fighter.

Tyson gets jabbed to death by Douglas so we assume Holmes could do it even easier but Shavers has Holmes in a lot of trouble so have to assume Tyson would stop him in a similar position with his superior finishing skills.

I think it goes without saying Tyson would stop Holmes if hurt. Tyson would stop anyone if he hurt them. He was the greatest finisher in the history of the game. However, it turned out that all you needed to beat Tyson was a good jab, decent ability, and SELF BELIEF.

Age is largely dependent on style, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey were always going to age quite early compared to men Holmes, Ali, Lewis, Louis and the Klitschkos.

On a personal level I can't imagine 35 year old versions of Lewis, Louis or the brothers losing to Michael Spinks, Louis did of course lose to Charles but you're then talking about a fighter I consider to be the greatest of all 175lbers as well as pound for pound comfortably in the top 5.

But Trussman I thought you loved Larry!

For me, he doesn't get a free ride. In fact, anything but.

1) Ducked certain fighters, what about Big George as well?

2) Cared more about cash than class, why else would he have run to the newly formed IBF where they offered him money by the wheelbarrow

3) The IBF association lit the touchpaper for the hundreds of bargain basement titles you have on offer these days. Fans complain bitterly at the cheapening of the sport but Holmes started all this off.

4) The guff he said about Marciano and his jockstrap

5) Losing twice to a light heavyweight for gawd sake. People say he was robbed but Holmes shouldn't have made it close, particularly in the second fight where he let Spinks back in it. I know he was 36, but that's not ancient for heavyweights when you consider Foreman as well.

6) No real defining wins unless you count a punch drunk Ali

7) Fighting on way too long, getting humilaited against Tyson and losing to chumps like Brian Nielsen later on.

8) Generally not being all that nice a bloke without having a good word to say about anyone.

I have Lewis ahead of Holmes in All Time lists.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I find with all these heavyweight match ups there are pros and cons for each fighter.

Tyson gets jabbed to death by Douglas so we assume Holmes could do it even easier but Shavers has Holmes in a lot of trouble so have to assume Tyson would stop him in a similar position with his superior finishing skills.

I think it goes without saying Tyson would stop Holmes if hurt. Tyson would stop anyone if he hurt them. He was the greatest finisher in the history of the game. However, it turned out that all you needed to beat Tyson was a good jab and SELF BELIEF.

Sorry that is doing Tyson a huge disservice, it takes more than a jab to beat Tyson, Douglas was pushing him back with big right hands the whole fight, it's like saying all you need to beat Holmes is a unconventional style, there is far more to it than that.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Age is largely dependent on style, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey were always going to age quite early compared to men Holmes, Ali, Lewis, Louis and the Klitschkos.

On a personal level I can't imagine 35 year old versions of Lewis, Louis or the brothers losing to Michael Spinks, Louis did of course lose to Charles but you're then talking about a fighter I consider to be the greatest of all 175lbers as well as pound for pound comfortably in the top 5.

Agreed ghosty. Likewise I couldn't imagine any version of Rahman knocking out Holmes, Tyson, Ali, Louis.

I also can't imagine a 35 year old Holmes losing to a 7 fight novice. Moreover the fights should have been scored to Holmes were it not for judges wanting to protect a certain record.

Holmes lost two close fights to Spinks, neither was a clear robbery at all, that he was never able to convincingly put the record straight hurts him more than Lewis losing to Rahman or Ali losing to Spinks.

Don't know why Lewis gets such a rough ride with two boxers he made cry and sparked into Easter Sunday in the rematches.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Holmes lost two close fights to Spinks, neither was a clear robbery at all, that he was never able to convincingly put the record straight hurts him more than Lewis losing to Rahman or Ali losing to Spinks.

Had the judges scored it correctly we wouldn't be having this discussion. Age is irrelevant. Boxers go old quicker than other boxers. Who would have thought Wilfredo Benitez would be finished at 25 or Tyson the same at the same age. Klits may be better at 35 than at age 25, but its not the same for all fighters.

Age is irrelevant when it suits your argument I see, not what you were saying for the best of a year, anyone over the age of 30 was considered old and useless as far as you were concerned. You like to think they were robberies which they most certainly weren't just to suit your sick twisted racially motivated opinion.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Age is irrelevant when it suits your argument I see, not what you were saying for the best of a year, anyone over the age of 30 was considered old and useless as far as you were concerned. You like to think they were robberies which they most certainly weren't just to suit your sick twisted racially motivated opinion.

Actually no Ghosty. When making comparisons between fighters, I tend to make that comparison based on when they were at their very best. So for example, when looking and making comparisons with Wlad and others, I would look at Wlad as he is today as he is better now than he has ever been.

Scoring is subjective. I remember at the time most boxing writers (KO, Ring, Boxing Illustrated and Boxing weekly had Holmes winning by a narrow margin (first fight) and by a wider margin (second fight).

I think you should calm your good self down and don't lose the plot again. You tend to do that when your oh so knowledgeable views are challenged.

Whether they were robberies or not, Holmes should not have made them close, which they were. The first fight I can't remember in detail but what I remember of the second, Holmes was well in control at the start but either through lack of conditioning or lack of inclination he let Spinks back in it when he should have upped the tempo and knocked him out.

Those two losses for me are worse than Tyson's dethroning by Douglas and Lewis' humiliation to Rahman and McCall and Ali's loss to Spinks. It should be mentioned that Lewis and Ali avenged those losses whereas Holmes' reaction was to claim racism by white judges who did not wish him to eclipse Marciano's record.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Age is largely dependent on style, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey were always going to age quite early compared to men Holmes, Ali, Lewis, Louis and the Klitschkos.

On a personal level I can't imagine 35 year old versions of Lewis, Louis or the brothers losing to Michael Spinks, Louis did of course lose to Charles but you're then talking about a fighter I consider to be the greatest of all 175lbers as well as pound for pound comfortably in the top 5.

I don't quite follow what you mean ghosty, do you mean that fighters have shorter careers than boxers? If you do, then in some part i agree. I would agree that a career can be cut short due to the prolonged punishment often associated with being a fighter. However, I'm a bit confused about your list? It makes me wonder, if infact that IS what you are saying that??

Tyson hardly took any punishment, he was so dominant, ok when he did get beat he was dominated but hey. Same with Jack Demsey, a huge force but many of his fights did not go over four rounds, granted they may have been brutal while they lasted but all fights back then were. Ali probably took just as much, if not more, than anyone in your "fighter" list. Isn't Ali's durabilty and bravery in face of adversity and punishment one of the features of his greatness?

I'm just a little confused as to your point. I mean why are Joe Louis and a Klitschko in list together? Did Vitali's fighting style fix his shoulder? Like i say, punishment can cut careers short but styles don't necessarily.

[quote="azania"]

Imperial Ghosty wrote:
I think you should calm your good self down and don't lose the plot again. You tend to do that when your oh so knowledgeable views are challenged.

Az has got a point.

I don't care if my views are challenged sensibly but you are simply incapable of sensible debate, Holmes lost a close fight that is all there is to it.

Super D Boon wrote:Whether they were robberies or not, Holmes should not have made them close, which they were. The first fight I can't remember in detail but what I remember of the second, Holmes was well in control at the start but either through lack of conditioning or lack of inclination he let Spinks back in it when he should have upped the tempo and knocked him out.

Those two losses for me are worse than Tyson's dethroning by Douglas and Lewis' humiliation to Rahman and McCall and Ali's loss to Spinks. It should be mentioned that Lewis and Ali avenged those losses whereas Holmes' reaction was to claim racism by white judges who did not wish him to eclipse Marciano's record.

He wasn't lacking in anything other than youth. I remember his struggles against Carl Williams, Bonecrusher and Bey. The man was on the slide. The thing is Lewis was at the peak of his powers and got out boxed then spanked.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I don't care if my views are challenged sensibly but you are simply incapable of sensible debate, Holmes lost a close fight that is all there is to it.

Here we go.

Calm down Ghosty. Its unbecoming.

He was robbed.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Age is largely dependent on style, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey were always going to age quite early compared to men Holmes, Ali, Lewis, Louis and the Klitschkos.

On a personal level I can't imagine 35 year old versions of Lewis, Louis or the brothers losing to Michael Spinks, Louis did of course lose to Charles but you're then talking about a fighter I consider to be the greatest of all 175lbers as well as pound for pound comfortably in the top 5.

I don't quite follow what you mean ghosty, do you mean that fighters have shorter careers than boxers? If you do, then in some part i agree. I would agree that a career can be cut short due to the prolonged punishment often associated with being a fighter. However, I'm a bit confused about your list? It makes me wonder, if infact that IS what you are saying that??

Tyson hardly took any punishment, he was so dominant, ok when he did get beat he was dominated but hey. Same with Jack Demsey, a huge force but many of his fights did not go over four rounds, granted they may have been brutal while they lasted but all fights back then were. Ali probably took just as much, if not more, than anyone in your "fighter" list. Isn't Ali's durabilty and bravery in face of adversity and punishment one of the features of his greatness?

I'm just a little confused as to your point. I mean why are Joe Louis and a Klitschko in list together? Did Vitali's fighting style fix his shoulder? Like i say, punishment can cut careers short but styles don't necessarily.

The confusion is because he's not thinking what he's writing. He just wants to (try and) win a debate.

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Whether they were robberies or not, Holmes should not have made them close, which they were. The first fight I can't remember in detail but what I remember of the second, Holmes was well in control at the start but either through lack of conditioning or lack of inclination he let Spinks back in it when he should have upped the tempo and knocked him out.

Those two losses for me are worse than Tyson's dethroning by Douglas and Lewis' humiliation to Rahman and McCall and Ali's loss to Spinks. It should be mentioned that Lewis and Ali avenged those losses whereas Holmes' reaction was to claim racism by white judges who did not wish him to eclipse Marciano's record.

He wasn't lacking in anything other than youth. I remember his struggles against Carl Williams, Bonecrusher and Bey. The man was on the slide. The thing is Lewis was at the peak of his powers and got out boxed then spanked.

Being as that may, he still put himself in there as an unbeaten champion on 48-0 and lost twice to a light heavyweight, his reaction was to cry foul and claim some kind of Marciano conspiracy. We can have differing opinions about this but for me that is worse than losing two fights against monstrous punchers but then avenging both defeats.

Besides, I never remembered Lewis getting "outboxed". Did he not get floored after just 2 against McCall and 5 against Rahman, a fight he was winning comfortably until he got sparked?

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Age is largely dependent on style, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey were always going to age quite early compared to men Holmes, Ali, Lewis, Louis and the Klitschkos.

On a personal level I can't imagine 35 year old versions of Lewis, Louis or the brothers losing to Michael Spinks, Louis did of course lose to Charles but you're then talking about a fighter I consider to be the greatest of all 175lbers as well as pound for pound comfortably in the top 5.

I don't quite follow what you mean ghosty, do you mean that fighters have shorter careers than boxers? If you do, then in some part i agree. I would agree that a career can be cut short due to the prolonged punishment often associated with being a fighter. However, I'm a bit confused about your list? It makes me wonder, if infact that IS what you are saying that??

Tyson hardly took any punishment, he was so dominant, ok when he did get beat he was dominated but hey. Same with Jack Demsey, a huge force but many of his fights did not go over four rounds, granted they may have been brutal while they lasted but all fights back then were. Ali probably took just as much, if not more, than anyone in your "fighter" list. Isn't Ali's durabilty and bravery in face of adversity and punishment one of the features of his greatness?

I'm just a little confused as to your point. I mean why are Joe Louis and a Klitschko in list together? Did Vitali's fighting style fix his shoulder? Like i say, punishment can cut careers short but styles don't necessarily.

It's not so much a case of punishment taken but diminishing physical attributes effects fighters more than boxers. Tyson, Dempsey and Frazier relied on explosiveness as opposed to pure boxing skill, once they started to lose their speed and stamina they were always going to be nigh on finished as they didn't have as much to fall back on. Lewis, Holmes, Louis and the brothers had their jabs, timing and ability to judge distance to fall back on as well as never relying on speed to win. Ali was possibly a poor example to use as there are two contrasting incarnations of him. You also have someone like Foreman who relied on pure brute strength and power, things like that aren't effected as much by age as speed is.

The perfect example is the contrasting fortunes of Jones and Hopkins as they grew old, you have the speedster who was finished as his speed went and the ring general who could carry on rely on his brain.

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Whether they were robberies or not, Holmes should not have made them close, which they were. The first fight I can't remember in detail but what I remember of the second, Holmes was well in control at the start but either through lack of conditioning or lack of inclination he let Spinks back in it when he should have upped the tempo and knocked him out.

Those two losses for me are worse than Tyson's dethroning by Douglas and Lewis' humiliation to Rahman and McCall and Ali's loss to Spinks. It should be mentioned that Lewis and Ali avenged those losses whereas Holmes' reaction was to claim racism by white judges who did not wish him to eclipse Marciano's record.

He wasn't lacking in anything other than youth. I remember his struggles against Carl Williams, Bonecrusher and Bey. The man was on the slide. The thing is Lewis was at the peak of his powers and got out boxed then spanked.

Being as that may, he still put himself in there as an unbeaten champion on 48-0 and lost twice to a light heavyweight, his reaction was to cry foul and claim some kind of Marciano conspiracy. We can have differing opinions about this but for me that is worse than losing two fights against monstrous punchers but then avenging both defeats.

Besides, I never remembered Lewis getting "outboxed". Did he not get floored after just 2 against McCall and 5 against Rahman, a fight he was winning comfortably until he got sparked?

Larry would never win any contests where the criteria was class. The record speaks for itself. The record will also show Pernell Whittaker drawing with Chavez and Ramirez beating Whittaker. We all know what actually happened.

Lewis was being out boxed when he was clocked and sparked by Rahman. We know the excuses.

Lewis was being out boxed when he was clocked and sparked by Rahman. We know the excuses..
------------

No he wasn't. He was easily in control. What are you up to?

Super D Boon wrote:Lewis was being out boxed when he was clocked and sparked by Rahman. We know the excuses..
------------

No he wasn't. He was easily in control. What are you up to?

Not what I've seen.

If you're going to bang on about a so called robbery against Spinks why do you never mention Witherspoon, a fight that should have made 48-0 an irrelevance years before, as much a robbery as the first Spinks fight.

Boon

I always thought it was widely accepted that Lewis had won 3 of the 4 rounds before getting sparked but because he got knocked out also means he was getting outboxed.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Holmes lost two close fights to Spinks, neither was a clear robbery at all, that he was never able to convincingly put the record straight hurts him more than Lewis losing to Rahman or Ali losing to Spinks.

I'd say that Ali losing to 'Neon Leon' shouldn't really be much of a rod to beat him with at all, really. I dare say that a few other Heavyweights, now shelves of their former selves, suffering with the onset of Parkinson's syndrome and who'd also had the kind of punishing career which Ali had endured for eighteen years beforehand could have easily dropped a decision to someone fighting with the intensity which Leon showed that night.

I must take a bigger exception to your point that Holmes' losing to the younger Spinks hurts his standing more than Lewis losing to Rahman, however. Simply not the case at all in my eyes.

A Heavyweight champion losing to an outstanding Light-Heavyweight is nowhere near as damaging as a Heavyweight losing to a plainly average fellow Heavyweight who could be described as a journeyman at best. If Ray Leonard had followed through with his churlish retirement talk immediately after the 'Brawl in Montreal', would he somehow be more disgraced by losing to Duran than he would be for losing to someone such as Randy Shields? That's not even mentioning the fact that the manner of Lewis' defeats were far more crushing, and that the comparison with Shields is arguably a little generous to Rahman.

Moreover, I'm reminded of a quote by Roy Jones when thinking back to his victory over Ruiz, where there was so much emphasis on this 'former Middleweight champion wins Heavyweight honours' business. Roy said something along the lines of "What people wouldn't understand is that, when I fought Ruiz, my mindset was that I was no longer a Middleweight champion, or a Light-Heavyweigh champion. I was a Heavyweight contender." Similarly, I think it's worth remembering that Spinks was hardly a hopeless case at Heavyweight. After dethroning Holmes he defended his titles, be they IBF or lineal, with some success. That he was a very reasonably-priced underdog, picked by more than a few to jab his way to a points win over Tyson, speaks volumes of Spinks' ability in the 'top' division. He was hardly a pushover.

No doubt that losing to Spinks is harmful to Larry's standing, but absolutely nowhere near as costly as Lewis managing to get himself flattened by Heavyweight non-entities not once, but twice.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If you're going to bang on about a so called robbery against Spinks why do you never mention Witherspoon, a fight that should have made 48-0 an irrelevance years before, as much a robbery as the first Spinks fight.

I had holmes ahead in that fight.

My point Chris was that Holmes allowed lightning to strike twice against the same fighter, he was and still is the only lineal heavyweight champion to lose to a former light heavyweight champion, were he to have conclusively beaten Spinks second time around then it wouldn't effect his standing too much. Lewis losing to Rahman to start with is very harmful but at least he put the record straight and did it in the best possible way, I felt that Holmes lost the first fight but won the second but he allowed the judges to score it to Spinks.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If you're going to bang on about a so called robbery against Spinks why do you never mention Witherspoon, a fight that should have made 48-0 an irrelevance years before, as much a robbery as the first Spinks fight.

I had holmes ahead in that fight.

Big surprise but it was as much of a robbery as the first Spinks fight but obviously that doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theory.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If you're going to bang on about a so called robbery against Spinks why do you never mention Witherspoon, a fight that should have made 48-0 an irrelevance years before, as much a robbery as the first Spinks fight.

I had holmes ahead in that fight.

Big surprise but it was as much of a robbery as the first Spinks fight but obviously that doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theory.

No it wasn't. Holmes was the winner amongst journos also. You make stuff up as you go along.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My point Chris was that Holmes allowed lightning to strike twice against the same fighter, he was and still is the only lineal heavyweight champion to lose to a former light heavyweight champion, were he to have conclusively beaten Spinks second time around then it wouldn't effect his standing too much. Lewis losing to Rahman to start with is very harmful but at least he put the record straight and did it in the best possible way, I felt that Holmes lost the first fight but won the second but he allowed the judges to score it to Spinks.

Getting splattered by club fighters, being outboxed by Bruno and getting dropped by Akinwande is not a good show.

Since when did the opinions of journalists bother you, when they back up your opinion you'll bring it up but when they don't you'll dismiss it, try to be a bit consistent.