I get your point, but the problem is that you could write a similar paragraph for most HW champs. Getting that crown and holding it against top opposition is one hell of a hard task, which is why there're not a lot of guys with résumés looking like Ali. Marciano's got that undefeated record, but you could argue that his best wins were against old guys and that he had troubles against Lastarza. Liston had a great run to the title, but he only defended it 3 times and lost it in a bad way against Ali. He only beat Patterson as a champ, a guy he had a great stylistic advantage against. Foreman took the title in brutal fashion against Frazier and he sure looked impressive against Norton... However he was supposed to be in his prime when he got KOed by a past prime Ali and thrown to the canvas by the feather-fisted Jimmy Young... He also went life and death with Lyles. I love Foreman, but he had his limitations. Jack Johnson is another easy target. The art of Boxing still had to be perfected when he was the champ, so he doesn't rank that high H2H. If I wanted to pick is résumé apart, I could talk about his KD against the MW Ketchel... or ay that his best win was against a guy coming off a 6 years retirement... Some of his others best win being against a 5'6 Langford. Dempsey : there are already enough threads on the subject. Frazier : KOed against Foreman in his prime. Not the longest résumé out there, so you could say that one BIG win made him great. See : I can find holes in most ATG's career even if, in my opinion, all of the cited fighter could be included in anyone's top 5 without too many people crying for madness. Same with Holmes, who's definitly a top 15 HW and who could be anywhere in that top 15.
On reflection,Marciano gets a bit of a bum deal regarding his title opposition. Ezzard Charles,Roland La Starza and JJ Walcott (first fight) were classy fighters.
Of all the eras, I find myself watching the 40's and 50's more than the others. Moore, Louis, Walcott, Holman Williams and Charles are really fun to watch. These guys knew how to box.
Head to head and ability wise he has a case. Dominance/longevity he has a case. Resume and flashy names he probably doesn't, but in terms of ability, size and skill of his opponents he fought in 1 of the better eras Nothing wrong with Holmes at number 1, if Louis has a case why not Holmes?
The Easton Assassin could be ranked as high as #3, but no lower than #7. Very hard to put him ahead of Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis. Very high accomplishments. The Burt Lancaster of the Heavyweights, quietly Great.
Holmes beat some big, prime, athletic, highly skilled fighters....Tim Witherspoon, Ken Norton, Carl Williams, Michael Spinks(2nd time) and some ferocious punchers like Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Gerry Cooney, Bonecrusher Smith, Ray Mercer
Astonishing. While I have no problem with anyone preferring Louis or Holmes over Ali to have Dempsey in your top 2 ahead if Ali really says something. How was Dempsey superior to Ali by way of resume, Head to Head or legacy? And I love Dempsey.
I doubt very much a 38 year old Holmes would have been a prime Ali`s top sparring partner either to be fair.
You`re talking to a guy that dedicates 98% of his time on here digging out interviews, old newspaper clips, quotes etc etc just to discredit Muhammad Ali, any reasoning with him on this matter is a waste of time.
In one way, I agree that Larry Holmes was the "greatest" of all time. He was the most emotionally stable and the best businessman of all the great champs. Ali was a mark for himself who ended up a financial and physical mess. Louis couldn't contain his addictions and ended up the same, etc, etc, etc. Holmes maximized his talent, ended up physically intact, never showed any cracks mentally in the ring, and ended up owning almost his whole hometown. Who has a resume like his?