Aaron Pryor

[JazMerkin]

Agred on Holmes, would've loved to have seen it.
It would have been excellent to see young Mike vs. Prime Larry as for me it would have given the young Mike that opportunity to truely prove himself.
As we know Mikes opposition at his peak was less that stellar.

Its an age old debate; old vs. new methods.
However, although fighters were extremely hungry back then, conditioning was simply not on the same level.
In other sports we see sprinters shattering records, jumpers going higher and longer, seconds peeled off old distance runs.
Modern athletes avail of a much greater knowledge on how to train the body and as a result competition is heightened.
Boxing has really only revolutionised in the past 20 years, but even in the amateurs, fitness is far more scientific nowthan in the days of Armstrong, pep and SRR.

That competition was commendable, certainly huge merit to his record.

We actually seriously differ here....I see Hagler take SRR out. Hagler in his prime...simply a force!
Duran may have been undersized for SRR, I'm not sure.

Ali's word is actually a viable arguement. He had a great respect for the man, which was representative of the huge respect and adoration that was held for SRR within the boxing fraternity.
Unfortunately my doubt lingers.

For me.....GOAT would be Pep

I think in their respective primes, I think Holmes is the better technical fighter & I think he outpoints Tyson in a fairly close fight, as if you can take a Shavers punch you can take Tyson's. However, I've often thought that he struggled with guys that maybe he should have dealt with better & quicker, perhaps because of a loss of concentration. Thinking particularly of the Weaver fight, & as high as I rate him, I felt that he lost to the only 2 real prime & elite boxers he fought in Norton & Spinks (although I think he won the rematch).

I don't think conditioning was on the same level, especially as they had less preparation time. I agree on the basis of scientific improvements to an extent, however, I think boxing has probably seen the least 'improvement' in conditioning in that it was always superior in most respects to other sports (not saying there hasn't been any, but skipping, padwork, bagwork, roadwork have all been mainstays for nearly a century). There were also of course no 'supplements' to aid their training back then

I certainly don't see Hagler taking SRR out, he had a solid chin & heart to get up when dropped, his only loss being as a result of dehydration in a fight in which the ref retired before he did. He was winning btw. I think Hagler would have given him a lot of trouble, but I see Robinson just edging it on the scorecards. I think he would have disposed of Duran handily as long as he's focused, the biggest problem he seemed to face in his prime was himself. Also I've remembered on the corruption, I believe the reason SRR struggled to get shots at the title was because he didn't co-operate with the mafia. Makes his record all the more impressive.

Have you seen more of Pep than SRR? Because I've found him difficult to find any footage of. I have heard the 2 of them fought in the amateurs. Nowadays that fight would get made at catchweight

[ICB]

Agred on Holmes, would've loved to have seen it.
It would have been excellent to see young Mike vs. Prime Larry as for me it would have given the young Mike that opportunity to truely prove himself.
As we know Mikes opposition at his peak was less that stellar.

Its an age old debate; old vs. new methods.
However, although fighters were extremely hungry back then, conditioning was simply not on the same level.
In other sports we see sprinters shattering records, jumpers going higher and longer, seconds peeled off old distance runs.
Modern athletes avail of a much greater knowledge on how to train the body and as a result competition is heightened.
Boxing has really only revolutionised in the past 20 years, but even in the amateurs, fitness is far more scientific nowthan in the days of Armstrong, pep and SRR.

That competition was commendable, certainly huge merit to his record.

We actually seriously differ here....I see Hagler take SRR out. Hagler in his prime...simply a force!
Duran may have been undersized for SRR, I'm not sure.

Ali's word is actually a viable arguement. He had a great respect for the man, which was representative of the huge respect and adoration that was held for SRR within the boxing fraternity.
Unfortunately my doubt lingers.

For me.....GOAT would be Pep

I think in their respective primes, I think Holmes is the better technical fighter & I think he outpoints Tyson in a fairly close fight, as if you can take a Shavers punch you can take Tyson's. However, I've often thought that he struggled with guys that maybe he should have dealt with better & quicker, perhaps because of a loss of concentration. Thinking particularly of the Weaver fight, & as high as I rate him, I felt that he lost to the only 2 real prime & elite boxers he fought in Norton & Spinks (although I think he won the rematch).

I don't think conditioning was on the same level, especially as they had less preparation time. I agree on the basis of scientific improvements to an extent, however, I think boxing has probably seen the least 'improvement' in conditioning in that it was always superior in most respects to other sports (not saying there hasn't been any, but skipping, padwork, bagwork, roadwork have all been mainstays for nearly a century). There were also of course no 'supplements' to aid their training back then

I certainly don't see Hagler taking SRR out, he had a solid chin & heart to get up when dropped, his only loss being as a result of dehydration in a fight in which the ref retired before he did. He was winning btw. I think Hagler would have given him a lot of trouble, but I see Robinson just edging it on the scorecards. I think he would have disposed of Duran handily as long as he's focused, the biggest problem he seemed to face in his prime was himself. Also I've remembered on the corruption, I believe the reason SRR struggled to get shots at the title was because he didn't co-operate with the mafia. Makes his record all the more impressive.

Have you seen more of Pep than SRR? Because I've found him difficult to find any footage of. I have heard the 2 of them fought in the amateurs. Nowadays that fight would get made at catchweight

Larry Holmes struggled a few times with some oppositio, he should of beaten more clearly. But i don't think that takes away how great Larry Holmes was. Because even great fighters struggle against lesser opposition, Muhammad Ali did many times Doug Jones comes to mind straight away. A fight i felt he just about got, yet he is still considered the GOAT at Heavyweight.

Larry Holmes was actually poorly conditioned against Mike Weaver, as he expected Mike Weaver to be an easy fight, and that fight was similar to Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson. Where Mike Weaver fought the fight of his life, yet Larry Holmes despite not being anywhere near his best. Managed to win in a true test of wills and find that uppercut to pull out the win unlike Mike Tyson. Which is why Larry Holmes is greater clearly IMO.

Not trying to be picky but i don't know how anyone, had Ken Norton beating Larry Holmes. After the 1st round Ken Norotn clearly lost 7 rounds in a row, then Ken Norton comeback well and won a majority of the rounds. But Larry Holmes still managed to win atleast 2 more rounds winning clearly by a few rounds IMO.

Michael Spinks probably did just enough in the 1st fight, but Larry Holmes was faded by that time like i said earlier. The early 40s version was probably better than the later 30's faded version. He looked like a shot fighter against Carl Williams, and only just about won. But in the rematch he clearly beat Michael Spinks, and was robbed. He used the right hand well and was the aggressor and he won 9-6 IMO.

[JazMerkin]

Larry Holmes struggled a few times with some oppositio, he should of beaten more clearly. But i don't think that takes away how great Larry Holmes was. Because even great fighters struggle against lesser opposition, Muhammad Ali did many times Doug Jones comes to mind straight away. A fight i felt he just about got, yet he is still considered the GOAT at Heavyweight.

Larry Holmes was actually poorly conditioned against Mike Weaver, as he expected Mike Weaver to be an easy fight, and that fight was similar to Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson. Where Mike Weaver fought the fight of his life, yet Larry Holmes despite not being anywhere near his best. Managed to win in a true test of wills and find that uppercut to pull out the win unlike Mike Tyson. Which is why Larry Holmes is greater clearly IMO.

Not trying to be picky but i don't know how anyone, had Ken Norton beating Larry Holmes. After the 1st round Ken Norotn clearly lost 7 rounds in a row, then Ken Norton comeback well and won a majority of the rounds. But Larry Holmes still managed to win atleast 2 more rounds winning clearly by a few rounds IMO.

Michael Spinks probably did just enough in the 1st fight, but Larry Holmes was faded by that time like i said earlier. The early 40s version was probably better than the later 30's faded version. He looked like a shot fighter against Carl Williams, and only just about won. But in the rematch he clearly beat Michael Spinks, and was robbed. He used the right hand well and was the aggressor and he won 9-6 IMO.

I'm not sure how faded he was against Spinks, because to me the Williams fight could just be him not being properly prepared like against Weaver & the fact he was up for the 2nd fight, tells me that was still a Holmes not too far removed from his prime.

I know most feel that Holmes beat Norton, but I felt he edged it by a round, although I can't remember RBR scoring. I'm certainly not claiming a robbery, as I can see how someone would have Holmes winning. I can see why you could have Holmes above Tyson, although I think for me he will always be stuck with that problem of just missing out on the great HW era by a year or 2. The irony being that he might have had a few more losses but probably greater credit among your average fan.

[donnydarkoIRL]

I think in their respective primes, I think Holmes is the better technical fighter & I think he outpoints Tyson in a fairly close fight, as if you can take a Shavers punch you can take Tyson's. However, I've often thought that he struggled with guys that maybe he should have dealt with better & quicker, perhaps because of a loss of concentration. Thinking particularly of the Weaver fight, & as high as I rate him, I felt that he lost to the only 2 real prime & elite boxers he fought in Norton & Spinks (although I think he won the rematch).

I don't think conditioning was on the same level, especially as they had less preparation time. I agree on the basis of scientific improvements to an extent, however, I think boxing has probably seen the least 'improvement' in conditioning in that it was always superior in most respects to other sports (not saying there hasn't been any, but skipping, padwork, bagwork, roadwork have all been mainstays for nearly a century). There were also of course no 'supplements' to aid their training back then

I certainly don't see Hagler taking SRR out, he had a solid chin & heart to get up when dropped, his only loss being as a result of dehydration in a fight in which the ref retired before he did. He was winning btw. I think Hagler would have given him a lot of trouble, but I see Robinson just edging it on the scorecards. I think he would have disposed of Duran handily as long as he's focused, the biggest problem he seemed to face in his prime was himself. Also I've remembered on the corruption, I believe the reason SRR struggled to get shots at the title was because he didn't co-operate with the mafia. Makes his record all the more impressive.

Have you seen more of Pep than SRR? Because I've found him difficult to find any footage of. I have heard the 2 of them fought in the amateurs. Nowadays that fight would get made at catchweight

Agreec with Tyson v Holmes.
On that point I think Holmes was a fighter that performed to the level of competition. To get the best from Holmes required the most difficult of fighters.


Surely the metghods remain the same skipping roadwork etc. But the method in which they are utilised have changed dramatically.
Aerobic fitness was seen as the key in the past, where as modern trainers recognise the duality of aerobic and anaerobic conditioning.
Supplementation is another advantage enjoyed by the modern fighter, although as all modern athletes utilse advanced nutrition it can't be seen as a huge advantage nowadays. More of a necessary training utensil.

The existing footage of SRR is primarily from his MW days. In this footage I've seen a fighter that moves primarily to the left, who does get clipped and who's primary advantge seemed to be his speed.
I saw none of the ring saavy that would suggest he could stay away from Hagler's constant power.
HagleR took out many MW's in brutal, attritional fashion, I see very few surviving SRR's constant barrage of educated punishment.

Yeah I've seen quite a bit of Pep. Obviously its impossible to get all of his fights which is tragic, but the newspaper reports, although in awe of him are fairly reliable.
I've done all I can to hunt down as much as I can on Pep.
I would kill to have seen him live!

[JazMerkin]

Agreec with Tyson v Holmes.
On that point I think Holmes was a fighter that performed to the level of competition. To get the best from Holmes required the most difficult of fighters.


Surely the metghods remain the same skipping roadwork etc. But the method in which they are utilised have changed dramatically.
Aerobic fitness was seen as the key in the past, where as modern trainers recognise the duality of aerobic and anaerobic conditioning.
Supplementation is another advantage enjoyed by the modern fighter, although as all modern athletes utilse advanced nutrition it can't be seen as a huge advantage nowadays. More of a necessary training utensil.

The existing footage of SRR is primarily from his MW days. In this footage I've seen a fighter that moves primarily to the left, who does get clipped and who's primary advantge seemed to be his speed.
I saw none of the ring saavy that would suggest he could stay away from Hagler's constant power.
HagleR took out many MW's in brutal, attritional fashion, I see very few surviving SRR's constant barrage of educated punishment.

Yeah I've seen quite a bit of Pep. Obviously its impossible to get all of his fights which is tragic, but the newspaper reports, although in awe of him are fairly reliable.
I've done all I can to hunt down as much as I can on Pep.
I would kill to have seen him live!

I definitely agree that things have improved, I just don't think its to the extent that they were considerably worse than modern fighters, particularly the club fighters.

Whilst had great constant power, I think that the really elite fighters he faced were smart enough to avoid it enough to go the distance, with the exception of Hearns in their war. SRR does get clipped, but you have to bare in mind that this was a guy able to take punches off guys occasionally nearly 20lbs heavier & keep going in & he generally seemed to allow himself to get clipped because he knew he could, similar to Hagler in that respect. I don't think there's a chance either gets KO'd, maybe a KD for Hagler, but I really see no way that he gets taken out, his chin & heart were too good for that. I also think he was a guy who's ability was all natural, & give him a few sessions with some of the trainers of today & he would adapt. He tended to move to the left primarily because you had fewer southpaws or left-handed orthodox fighters. I think his record shows the guy was smart enough to adapt. At MW, I think he outpoints Hagler in a very close fight which could go either way, & whilst do rate SRR better P4P, I think Hagler is the greater MW.

I do find it a bit odd that you will give Pep credit on newspaper reports, but not SRR on legend of those who saw him. I can understand your logic though, because I do the same thing in ranking Sanchez ahead of Pep as the greatest FW of all time, so I guess we're both guilty of a bit of hypocrisy there.

[ICB]

Larry Holmes struggled a few times with some oppositio, he should of beaten more clearly. But i don't think that takes away how great Larry Holmes was. Because even great fighters struggle against lesser opposition, Muhammad Ali did many times Doug Jones comes to mind straight away. A fight i felt he just about got, yet he is still considered the GOAT at Heavyweight.

Larry Holmes was actually poorly conditioned against Mike Weaver, as he expected Mike Weaver to be an easy fight, and that fight was similar to Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson. Where Mike Weaver fought the fight of his life, yet Larry Holmes despite not being anywhere near his best. Managed to win in a true test of wills and find that uppercut to pull out the win unlike Mike Tyson. Which is why Larry Holmes is greater clearly IMO.

Not trying to be picky but i don't know how anyone, had Ken Norton beating Larry Holmes. After the 1st round Ken Norotn clearly lost 7 rounds in a row, then Ken Norton comeback well and won a majority of the rounds. But Larry Holmes still managed to win atleast 2 more rounds winning clearly by a few rounds IMO.

Michael Spinks probably did just enough in the 1st fight, but Larry Holmes was faded by that time like i said earlier. The early 40s version was probably better than the later 30's faded version. He looked like a shot fighter against Carl Williams, and only just about won. But in the rematch he clearly beat Michael Spinks, and was robbed. He used the right hand well and was the aggressor and he won 9-6 IMO.

I'm not sure how faded he was against Spinks, because to me the Williams fight could just be him not being properly prepared like against Weaver & the fact he was up for the 2nd fight, tells me that was still a Holmes not too far removed from his prime.

I know most feel that Holmes beat Norton, but I felt he edged it by a round, although I can't remember RBR scoring. I'm certainly not claiming a robbery, as I can see how someone would have Holmes winning. I can see why you could have Holmes above Tyson, although I think for me he will always be stuck with that problem of just missing out on the great HW era by a year or 2. The irony being that he might have had a few more losses but probably greater credit among your average fan.

I think his peak was between 1978-1982 when his prime weight was between 209-213. When you watch the Larry Holmes that fought Earnie Shavers 1, then watch him against Michael Spinks. You can see his skills and attributes had eroded.

And you can see this clearly in the Carl Williams fight aswell, even though Carl Williams was a pretty tall fighter, with some good skills and a good jab although his chin was pretty suspect.

I don't know if you know this but Larry Holmes actually had, a torn bicep going in his fight with Ken Norton. So he wasn't 100 percent but he still beat Ken Norton more convincingly points wise than Muhammad Ali IMO. I think you have to watch that again bro, because the fight wasn't as close as some people thought.

And i think the rounds were pretty easy to score except the last round, but Ken Norton clearly won the 1st round. Then he went on to lose 7 rounds in a row pretty clearly IMO, he comeback and won most of the rounds after that.

But i know he lost atleast another 2 rounds. One was the 13th round and there was another round but i can't remember. I had Larry Holmes a clear winning in a closish fight even if he lost the last round.

I understand what your saying about Larry Holmes, not ruling in a great HW era but except for Muhammad Ali. What other Heavyweight champion really ruled in a strong era ? Joe Louis's era wasn't that much better than Larry Holmes's.

Rocky Marciano's wasn't either. Mike Tyson's era was probably one of the weakest. And he just cleaned up on some of the 80's eroded stars aswell as old Larry Holmes victims.

No one really ruled in the 90s as the title went back and forth, and i don't really think much of Lennox Lewis's reign in late 90s early 2000s either. So thats why i think Larry Holmes is well up there, because except for Muhammad Ali no other real Heavyweight champion ruled in a really strong era.

But Larry Holmes has the 2nd longest reign in Heavyweight history, he is one of the most skilled Heavyweight champions of all time. Aswell as one of the bravest and in his 2nd career he should of been a world champion at 45, like George Foreman but was unlucky not to get the decision against Oliver McCall.

[JazMerkin]

I think his peak was between 1978-1982 when his prime weight was between 209-213. When you watch the Larry Holmes that fought Earnie Shavers 1, then watch him against Michael Spinks. You can see his skills and attributes had eroded.

And you can see this clearly in the Carl Williams fight aswell, even though Carl Williams was a pretty tall fighter, with some good skills and a good jab although his chin was pretty suspect.

I don't know if you know this but Larry Holmes actually had, a torn bicep going in his fight with Ken Norton. So he wasn't 100 percent but he still beat Ken Norton more convincingly points wise than Muhammad Ali IMO. I think you have to watch that again bro, because the fight wasn't as close as some people thought.

And i think the rounds were pretty easy to score except the last round, but Ken Norton clearly won the 1st round. Then he went on to lose 7 rounds in a row pretty clearly IMO, he comeback and won most of the rounds after that.

But i know he lost atleast another 2 rounds. One was the 13th round and there was another round but i can't remember. I had Larry Holmes a clear winning in a closish fight even if he lost the last round.

I understand what your saying about Larry Holmes, not ruling in a great HW era but except for Muhammad Ali. What other Heavyweight champion really ruled in a strong era ? Joe Louis's era wasn't that much better than Larry Holmes's.

Rocky Marciano's wasn't either. Mike Tyson's era was probably one of the weakest. And he just cleaned up on some of the 80's eroded stars aswell as old Larry Holmes victims.

No one really ruled in the 90s as the title went back and forth, and i don't really think much of Lennox Lewis's reign in late 90s early 2000s either. So thats why i think Larry Holmes is well up there, because except for Muhammad Ali no other real Heavyweight champion ruled in a really strong era.

But Larry Holmes has the 2nd longest reign in Heavyweight history, he is one of the most skilled Heavyweight champions of all time. Aswell as one of the bravest and in his 2nd career he should of been a world champion at 45, like George Foreman but was unlucky not to get the decision against Oliver McCall.

I am not saying he was prime against Spinks, however I don't feel he was shot either. I think the years he took out after the Spinks fight meant he was shot when he came back against Tyson.

I've watched the Norton fight a few times, & every time I give it to Norton by a round. I do remember Holmes dominating the middle rounds, but I thought Norton dominated the latter stage of the fight.

On the eras, I feel as well as Ali, both Jack Dempsey & Jack Johnson ruled in strong eras, although that might not put them above Holmes. I also rank Frazier above Holmes personally although I know most rank him lower. If I had to an all-time Top 10, Holmes would definitely be up there, but I don't think he makes my Top 3.