Between Joe Louis, Wladamir klitschko, & Larry Holmes

Louis ,louis and louis.

Larry holmes was probably the worst

 

Louis, then Holmes,.............. Then Klitschko

 

Best Reign, Wlad. #1 for 10 years without anyone being close to beating him

Best competition? Maybe Holmes via narrow margin.

Best performances? Louis, but he also had the worst performances and the weakest competition.

 

After to read it i have to go very fast to the wc

 

I think Louis had the longest reign and the most title defences.

Wlad had second most.

And Holmes is third.

Competition wise Louis fight all the best of his era, Holmes mostly did, and wlad did somewhat.

My rating would be
1st joe Louis
2nd Larry Holmes
3rd wlad klitchko
I put Holmes above wlad because Holmes beat more legendary fighters than he did

 

louis obviously. then holmes.

 

Larry holmes avoided pinklon thomas,tate and page . no rematch with spoon. I like your post except the part of holmes

 

Louis by pretty much any measure.

 

Louis obviously had the best reign. Not just because of his number of defenses, but because he avenged his losses/close controversial wins and made great adjustments in the rematch (schmeling, walcott, buddy baer). He had the hw division by the balls at his peak and only a handful of champions would have flat out beaten him h2h and even fewer would win in a best of 3.

Wladmir is a close second, but its tainted because he let his brother beat up the guys who beat him. And yes i understand he supposedly told his mom they wouldnt fight (even tho theyd spar...), but when your brother is literally the only guy who could possibly challenge for for 7, 8+ years in a mediocre era (and u never fight him) thats gonna affect your atg rankings. His record is also tainted due to referees allowing excessive clinching and leaning which helped him considerably against more aggressive up close fighters.

Larry Holmes reign was split with the creation of the ibf, and there were a few guys he missed like tubbs, thomas, etc. I understand he had legal issues and beef with don king (who didnt?) But for legacy's sake he should have made more effort to unify. Still impressive 20 defenses against many highly rated fighters.

Competition

Holmes obviously, both in terms of h2h and p4p factoring in he aberae size of hws in each era. Holmes had norton, shavers, cooney, berbick, witherspoon, the spinx brothers, williams, etx. He later came back to compete in the late 80's and 90's against tyson, mercer, holyfield and mccall and although he came up short in some of those fights, he was still impressive and competitive and never got a 1 sided demolition in any fight (except a prime tyson after a layoff coming off a loss). That says a lot compared to wladmir and louis who faced lesser men and struggled more often.

Performance.

Well, this one is trickier.

Louis best performances: schmeling 2, billy conn, max baer, buddy baer, walcott 2, abe simon

Louis made good adjustmentss in these fights against dangerous, skilled opponents. He was able to apply pressure, dictate the pace, and make adjustments after they either previously beat him or made him srrugge throughout the bout. All were highly rated hof candidates and kept things competitive. And he stopped all of them.

Wladmir klitshko best performances: david haye, chris byrd, brewster 2, chambers, brock, samuel peter 2, chagaev, pulev

Like louis, wladmir proved he could make adjustments either in rematches or during a match. He got away with a lot of holding, but his atg skill, power, and heart are ATG world class. Also like Louis his best opponents (especially byrd, brewster, and haye) would be competitive contenders in any era.

Holmes best performances: norton, shavers 1 & 2, cooney, witherspoon, leon spinx, james smith, snipes, berbick, evangelista

So as ive pointed out before, holmes only had 1 devastating 1 sided loss (to a prime tyson of all people) while past his prime and coming off a 2 losses and a layoff. Who knows what would happen with a prime in shape and active holmes. In every other fight, holmes was competitive and made his opponent work their ass off even when he lost. Compare that to Joe and Wladmir being stopped multiple times (even in their primes) and struggling with b level opponents.

Holmes has arguably the best title fight of all 3 (against norton) and he did it with a torn bicep. This was also Nortons FIRST 15 round fight.

However, you could argue both louis and wladmir have a higher number of title fight wins where they clearly dominated or ktfo their opponent from start to finish. Many of Holmes fights went the distance, and the ones that did were often close calls. This ends up becoming an apples vs oranges debate as while louis and wladmir have highlight real kos over ranked opponents, they rarely did so against opponents who were on their "level" as far as skill, experence, and athleticism are concerned. Louis brutally stopped schmeling and buddy baer in the 1st round and koed walcott in the rematch (who went on to become champ after louis' 1st retirement) so i guess louis has the advantage in that regard over both holmes and wladmir.

Wladmir has some impressive title fight kos as well, but often against fat, slow, lumbering oafs with little defense (peter, wach, etc) and isnt as impressive even if they were ranked high. Wladmir often had a big advantage in reach, height, weight, or all 3 and had emmanual stewart in his corner along with elite trainers, cornermen, etc. Tbh, his opponents had many cards stacked against them.

Overall, i have to give holmes. He had the stiffest competition as far as elite, fit, skilled prime boxers re concerned, and you could make an argument he had the best performances given how stiff the competition was and that he lacked the power of louis and wladmir (needing to rely on ring smarts and incredible toughness and will to win). So thats 2/3 for me.

 

I really can't see any argument for Holmes having fought the best opposition of the three.

It also doesn't help his case, that he missed some key opponents.

 

Louis then Holmes

 

Exactly

 

I think Holmes has the best opposition in the sense that his opponents would beat Joe's or Wlad's in some kind of team tournament. I'd bet on that pretty heavily.
(In fact I could easily see, say, Cooney blitzing Wlad early in much the way Sanders did, even if it's hardly the most likely outcome.)

 

You are kind of predicting outlier outcomes there.

We have to look at who those fighters were, and what they accomplished.

What is quite damaging from Holmes's perspective, is that none of his opponents really look like standout contenders, even relative to the era.