Big George vs Tubby Lar

[QueensburyRules]

- -Proposed several times, but Lar in his comeback failed to capture the public adulation of George.

Promoters could never meet George's guarantee that he made knocking around Young Studs.

Hence Lar's bile spilled over during his HOF Induction rant about George. I can't think of another fighter who so publicly soiled his reputation in such a big event.

For the record, they're the same age, but Lar never Ring ranked when George was active. Then he stunk around long enough to have Butterbean laugh at him running and then knock him down in another fight nobody wanted to see.

[Quicksilver*]

Holmes his whole career never really captured the media or fans. Remember the butterbean fight, still at his age jabbed the crap out of the bean and won.

[QueensburyRules]

Holmes his whole career never really captured the media or fans. Remember the butterbean fight, still at his age jabbed the crap out of the bean and won.

- -He certainly captured the public vs Cooney.

That captured the attention of the FBI who placed snipers on rooftops surrounding the fight.

Wonder if the fighters knew about that?

[Quicksilver*]

- -He certainly captured the public vs Cooney.

That captured the attention of the FBI who placed snipers on rooftops surrounding the fight.

Wonder if the fighters knew about that?

I would say no, but that was some crazy sh**.

[SaturdaysRadio]

"For the record, they're the same age, but Lar never Ring ranked when George was active."

Like, Ring Magazine ranked? They were both in Ring's top-ten from early 1976 to Foreman's first retirement in 1977. They were even both top-five for a bit.

In the 1990's, George and Larry were both in the Ring's top-ten from early 1992 to early 1995, often one or two positions within each other.

Holmes-Foreman is one of those fights that should have happened. It could have at a couple different times; two top-ten (or even top-five) heavyweights going at it. Too bad it didn't.

[QueensburyRules]

"For the record, they're the same age, but Lar never Ring ranked when George was active."

Like, Ring Magazine ranked? They were both in Ring's top-ten from early 1976 to Foreman's first retirement in 1977. They were even both top-five for a bit.

In the 1990's, George and Larry were both in the Ring's top-ten from early 1992 to early 1995, often one or two positions within each other.

Holmes-Foreman is one of those fights that should have happened. It could have at a couple different times; two top-ten (or even top-five) heavyweights going at it. Too bad it didn't.

- -No they weren't.

Don't make me rub it in though I will acknowledge tubby Lar briefly touched top ten after Mercer chose to slap him silly to humiliate him instead of punch him and lost the decision.

[SaturdaysRadio]

- -No they weren't.

Don't make me rub it in though I will acknowledge tubby Lar briefly touched top ten after Mercer chose to slap him silly to humiliate him instead of punch him and lost the decision.

It's there in print in the old Ring magazines.

[QueensburyRules]

It's there in print in the old Ring magazines.

- -Not in the annual Ring Ratings in Boxrec.

In 77 George fought Young in Puerto rica and retired. Lar on the undercard fighting a novice scrub, just pitiful, but it was a long road back after being KOed by Bobick in the Olympic trials. The difference in class between George and Lar, esp in those early years could not be more stark, Man vs boy stuff.

[SaturdaysRadio]

- -Not in the annual Ring Ratings in Boxrec.

In 77 George fought Young in Puerto rica and retired. Lar on the undercard fighting a novice scrub, just pitiful, but it was a long road back after being KOed by Bobick in the Olympic trials. The difference in class between George and Lar, esp in those early years could not be more stark, Man vs boy stuff.

As far as who was better or more developed at any given time... I totally get it that in the 70's Holmes didn't emerge until Foreman retired in 77.

But regarding the annual Ring Ratings in Boxrec... I'd much rather go with the monthly ratings printed in the magazine than what BoxRec says. In the Ring's monthly ratings, Foreman and Holmes appeared in the same top ten several times, both in the 70's and in the 90's. Many of those ratings are not from the issue of Ring BoxRec says they are. For instance, Boxrec says that Randy Neumann was #10 in the March 1976 issue ("1975 Annual Ratings"). Nope, it was Holmes. Neumann was #10 in the February issue.

I tried to address this issue with them nearly two years ago and got no response. Here's what I wrote in my post to them:

Another thread - the "Bugner W 10 Jimmy Ellis" thread in the Boxing History forum - brought to my attention that the "Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings" page has several sets of heavyweight ratings attributed to the wrong issue of the magazine

I've been "collecting" heavyweight ratings from various sources (mags, organizations) for years and have them listed chronologically in a document. In the Bugner-Ellis thread mentioned above, a poster made a reference to an Ellis ranking in the "March 1974" issue of Ring, according to BoxRec. I had a look and noticed that the ratings listed on BoxRec were actually from the February 1974 issue. Then I noticed that the "March 1975" heavyweight ratings were actually from the February 1975 issue. Another poster scanned and posted several sets of Ring ratings from 1974; these perfectly matched what I had in my ratings document.

This prompted me to do some digging. What I discovered was that there is at least an 18 year streak, from 1960 to 1977 in which the heavyweight ratings are from a different issue than they're attributed to. I noticed some discrepancies in a few of the 1950s ratings, but I don't have enough back issues of Ring to correctly figure out which issue the ratings are from. Keep in mind that I only collect heavyweight ratings. I don't know if the other divisions are inaccurate as well. Here's what I found:

BoxRec says: --- Actually:
Feb 1960 issue --- March 1960 issue
Feb 1961 --- December 1960
Feb 1962 --- March 1962
Feb 1963 --- March 1963
Feb 1964 --- March 1964
March 1965 --- Feb 1965
March 1966 --- Feb 1966
March 1967 --- Feb 1967
March 1968 --- Feb 1968
March 1969 --- Feb 1969
March 1970 --- Feb 1970
March 1971 --- Feb 1971 and March 1971 have the same top 10 in the same order at heavyweight. I can't verify the issue date.
March 1972 --- Feb 1972
March 1973 --- Feb 1973
March 1974 --- Feb 1974
March 1975 --- Feb 1975
March 1976 --- Feb 1976
March 1977 --- Feb 1977
March 1978 --- Feb 1978 and March 1978 have the same top 10 in the same order at heavyweight. I can't verify the issue date.
March 1979 --- Feb 1979 and March 1979 have the same top 10 in the same order at heavyweight. I can't verify the issue date.

The ratings in the 1980s are from the issues they're attributed to.

These errors worry me. Several posters on various forums reference the "Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings" page and what they found there. The page is an excellent resource. The ratings, in the years I found the errors, are always within a month of the issue stated (except 1960), so they give people a reasonable picture of who was rated where at that time. But I've always assumed that BoxRec strives to collect and provide dead-on accurate data. How do we fix this?

[clemenza]

Hey Queensburied you were talking about this same fight years ago. Stop. Or like I said and I quote “ Did you grow up in Easton Pennsylvania or Phillipsburg NJ and Larry Holmes took your lunch money .”
Why so angry at the Easton Assassin