Aaron Pryor

[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.