Greatness born of adversity

It may be correct to assume that fighters like Jones jnr and Tyson fall short of true greatness because of their lack of real defining fights which tested them. Not many come from behind, against the odds fights on either resume but why lump Larry Holmes with it? Like Tyson and RJJ Holmes was dominant in his prime but for me he showcased the accepted requirements that justify real greatness against Shavers.

Most will agree that fights that propel a fighter into the memory of fans are the fights where uphill battles are fought and won yet its easy to forget these fights when a fighter is so dominant. Duran had Leonard 1, Leonard had Hearns 1, Marciano had Charles, Ali had Forman even Corrales is deemed as great for his incredible come back against Castilio. So why does Holmes not get credit for a fighter he states ''hit him harder then anyone....EVER''?

I believe Holmes should be rated higher top 5 at least.

I'v always thought Holmes got bags of credit for getting up from such a hellacious shot.

People always rate his desire among the very best.

It should be the fight that defined him but people won't go that far. Duran was up against it against Leonard 1 in terms of weight, age and popularity but thats most def his stand out fight without it what does he have exactly?

Duran had a record of 72-1 going in to the Leonard fight I believe and had cleared a division out in about as clear a fashion as you would hope to see in the modern game. As most know I hold Duran in nowhere near the esteem of some on here but to suggest he does not have much to shout about outside of Leonard 1 is a claim even I would balk at.

Rowley wrote:Duran had a record of 72-1 going in to the Leonard fight I believe and had cleared a division out in about as clear a fashion as you would hope to see in the modern game. As most know I hold Duran in nowhere near the esteem of some on here but to suggest he does not have much to shout about outside of Leonard 1 is a claim even I would balk at.

He dominated before Leonard we know that. How many tests in that time. Estjesus? koed him twice not really the boogy man of Duran he is made out to be. Buchanon? won by a foul and never granted a rematch. Leonard was against the odds and that was the fight that stands out.

Durans has wins over the following current, former and future world champions

Marcel
Kobayashii
Buchanan
De Jesus
Ishimatsu
Mamby
Palomino
Cuevas
Moore
Barkley
Castro

Ignoring those 11 men it is just Leonard and a few poor losses you're right OneTwo.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Durans has wins over the following current, former and future world champions

Marcel
Kobayashii
Buchanan
De Jesus
Ishimatsu
Mamby
Palomino
Cuevas
Moore
Barkley
Castro

Ignoring those 11 men it is just Leonard and a few poor losses you're right OneTwo.

2 names well done.

Four hall of famers, a three weight world champion, 3 lightweight champions, a light welterweight champion, a middleweight champion he beat aged 48, long standing super featherweight champion and then Marcel the future featherweight champion who retired after defeating Arguello. From all that you think only 2 are worth while wins?

I'll give you Barkley.

What about Kobayashii, Castro, Marcel, Cuevas and Palomino, are they not worth while wins?

No

straight forward wins. 

Testing fights make greatness.

You think beating Castro when you are 48, 3 stone above your starting weight and having lost to him in your previous bout is a straight forward win?

Making a fight straight forward doesn't stop it being a great win, Jones beating Hopkins and Toney easily shouldn't take away from the fact he dominated two great champions. Beating a great fighter with ease should be lauded more than struggling with great fighters.

Should Also see Camacho duran 1 and Paz - duran 1.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:He dominated before Leonard we know that. How many tests in that time. Estjesus? koed him twice not really the boogy man of Duran he is made out to be. Buchanon? won by a foul and never granted a rematch. Leonard was against the odds and that was the fight that stands out.

If you don't think De Jesus was a real test of Duran's recuperative powers, ability to keep a cool head and most of all a test of his fighting heart then you can't have seen their second fight, fella. As for Buchanan being a straightforward fight, it was only straightforward because Duran made it so. Yep, ended on a foul, but not before Duran had outclassed Ken for the entire fight and made him hold at just about every opportunity. Buchanan was a top class boxer, but was made to fall apart under Duran's assault. Don't forget how highly rated Ken was at the time.

Captain loves Buchanan........But when you consider other top quality boxers managed to offset the Panamanian legend........The fact Buchanan with the added advantage of being a southpaw looked outclassed..........

Is "Interesting" ..........How good was he really ??

I say it all the time but Buchanan was a lightweight who didn't benefit from being significantly bigger than Duran, he was bigger yes but not by a lot. Duran could impose his will on those of similar size quite easily and it's no shame being outclassed by him at lightweight.

Duran should have just fought dwarfs.......

Well I think if you'd never seen Buchanan before the Duran fight, and only had that one outing to go on, you'd probably end up thinking he was really just a serviceable Lightweight who was good enough to keep the belts warm for a little while in those gaps you tend to get between the really outstanding divisional champions.

But it's all relative. On the night he was in there against arguably the greatest Lightweight in history, who was in red-hot form. I think Buchanan was totally unprepared for a fighter like that; Ken had been voted the American writers' 'Boxer of the Year' only a few months previously and there was serious consideration in some quarters that maybe, just maybe, he was in the running to be the sport's best pound for pound fighter in 1972. He was expected to beat Duran, who was young and unbeaten but who hadn't beaten anyone of note in most people's eyes (Marcel was still a few months away from winning his world title) and who hadn't had much of an amateur career either.

I think Buchanan perhaps didn't do himself justice with his performance against Duran, but no matter what he did I think that fight would have always shown the difference between the very good and the truly great.

So why does Holmes not get credit for a fighter he states ''hit him harder then anyone....EVER''?

For me it's becasue there's no way a fighter of Holmes' ability should have even been in a position to be caught by that shot in the first place. For all his power, Shavers had very little else that should have troubled any decent HW. I think Shavers was winding that punch up before he left the dressing room and it still landed flush.

Yes you got up again Larry but ffs you should have seen that coming a mile off. You could have gone home, had something to eat, had a bath, a nap and STILL had time to duck that punch.

That punch certainly travelled some distance. Felt a similar thing about curry mccallum. Everyone shouted duck, but don wasn't listening.