Between Joe Louis, Wladamir klitschko, & Larry Holmes

The only worthy opponents he missed were coatzee, tubbs, page, and thomas due to the feud with don king and the WBC.

He KOed an undefeated renaldo snipes who beat coatzee. Mike weaver also brutally knocked coatzee out in a title fight and holmes brutally koed weaver.

He beat a prime witherspoon (with dundee in his corner) who beat both tubbs and page. Witherspoon would later become a 2x belt holder andis a HOF candidate.

Page also managed to lose to a way past his prime joe bugner and a 13-0 novice David Bey. Bey was knocked out by Holmes. Page lost to berick who, again, lost to Holmes. Notice a pattern?

I know a vs b vs c logic doesnt always work in boxing, but think critically here. Coatzer lost to two guys who holmes knocked out. How big of a travesty is it that he didnt fight coatzee? Its just like when people try to tear down mayweathers career by saying "he didnt fight margarito" even though he beat both mosley and Pacquiao who beat the crap out of margarito! That has to count for something right? Margarito was NEVER on Mayweathers level and wouldnt have suddenly boosted his ATG ranking several notches higher. I see Coatzee vs Holmes as being similar.

Tubbs lived up to his name and was fat, lazy, and inconsistent. Page, as i pointed out, lost to two guys holmes beat and a washed up joe buner who was B level at best even in his prime.

So out of the 4 best guys of the 80's he didnt fight, the only one left who might have been on Holmes level and was worth fighting was Thomas. And we both know Thomas was dealing with major drug issues and had inconsistent performances. Besides, im pretty sure if the belts werent split up and they challenged holmes hed fight them. Holmes wasnt "afraid" of anyone and the primary issue was don king.

Am i missing someone? 2nd longest title reign and only 1 or 2 or worthy opponents he never got around to fighting, does that make Holmes a fraud? You could make the same argument for literally any champ in any weight class or era that they missed a few key fights.

Now as far as the guys he did fight, again id like to point out

-many of louis' opponents were smaller, cruiserweight sized, and lacked the polish "sweet science" and ring of modern fighters. Walcott was his most technically sound opponent and some feel he was robbed in the first fight. Conn was a light hitting light heavy moving up. The baer brothers, simon, and carnera were big, tough, and powerful, but slow and again lacked the finesse of later giants like lewis, bowe, etc. The only guys on louis resume i see holmes having a hard time with are walcott and marciano (whod both be giving up at least 30-40 lbs to holmes & 4-5 inches in height).

-wladmir had a few elite, athletic heavies (haye, byrd, chambers), but many of his opponents were plodding oafs (samuel peter, pulev, wach, etc). He had no business losing to a fat part time golfer corrie sanders, a loss he let his brother avenge for him. His fight with povetkin was horrendous--by far one of the ugliest hw title fights ever full of blatant wrestling, excessive clinching, etc and he should have lost many points for that. He was outboxed and embarrased by a fat novice tyson fury. He was brutally stopped by anthony joshua.

Holmes beat

Norton, a hof atg belt holder with wins over other hof fighters (ali, young, quarry, etc).

Cooney, tall, powerful, could have been a champ in another era if managed better.

Shavers, arguably the most devastating puncher of all time and multi-title challenger who beat some of the best hof fighters of the 70's.

Witherspoon, a guy who could switch between orthodox and southpaw, good footwork, good power, good defense, high ring iq, 2x belt holder.

Smith big, powerful beltholder, granite chin, applied lots of pressure.

Do you think wladmir and louis would just walk through these guys and mow them down?

So again, id like to hear your thoughts on how holmes title performances were so much worse, or how his opponents were horrible compared to Louis and Wladmir's?

 

Here are my issues:

Norton was a fine fighter, but he was clearly not the best around in his prime, and he was past his prime when Holmes fought him.

Cooney never beat anybody ranked in the top ten. This is really not something that you want to be parading as a top win, in this particular discussion!

Shavers was possibly the hardest puncher of all time, but you have the same problem that you have with Norton. He was clearly not one of the best contenders in his prime, he just outlasted them.

Witherspoon is in my opinion, one of the best heavyweight contenders of all time. This was a fairly green version however, and some thought that he won the fight.

Smith was a good contender, but nothing exceptional.

It seems to me that Holmes's challengers were not outstanding, compared to other all time greats, and that he often didn't fight them when it counted!

The name that you missed out is Mike Weaver, who was better than a lot of these guys!

 

On paper, he kind of peaked higher!

He hit the current #1 Ring Magazine contender, twice in succession.

When you factor in his mandatories, he might well have made a more honest attempt at defending against the best, than Holmes did!

 

I guess that the question that has to be asked, which I have not yet worked out is:

Compare the rankings of their opponents (Ring), at the time that they fought them.

That might give a bit of perspective!

 

-bull. Norton had JUST previously beaten the slick counter puncher jimmy young for the tile. He was on a win streak having stopped top contender quarry, along with stander, and arguably got robbed against Muhammad Ali! He also KOed #1 contender bobick, an undefeated 6'3 power puncher. So no, he wasnt in his prime biologically at 34, but career wise thise was arguably the best time of Nortons life! Far from washed up. A comparable example would be Leanard when he beat Hagler. Past his prime, but had enough in the tank to beat an ATG middleweight champion so obviously not "washed up". Nice try tho.

-cooney: bullcrap again. Norton was ranked #10 by ring magazine at the time cooney koed him

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Ken_Norton_vs._Gerry_Cooney

6'6 81' reach, devastating body shots and hook. Ranked either #1 or #2 in the world, undefeated. Yes it is absolutely a noteworthy win for Holmes, only an idiot would say otherwise and I know youre not an idiot Janitor so stop playing games. Cooney was a live, dangerous opponent at his peak and i stand by what i said, he could have beem champ if managed better and would be dangerous in both Louis and Wladmirs era.

-who did shavers "outlast"? He either knocked you out or got knocked out 90% of the time, he always went for broke. Do you mean outlasted them career wise? Nonsense, shavers had very unlucky management and got a late start as both an amateur working in a factory on the side, and a late start as a pro. Many top fighters avoided him, including foreman and frazier.

Shavers beat norton, bugner, ellis, young, three of whom became champions and one who got robbed in a title fight. He gave Ali and Holmes hell and dropped Holmes. THAT version of Shavers was BETTER than the younger version who had terrible stamina, terrible defense, a lazy jab, swung for the fences, didnt know how to cut off the ring, etc. He showed massive improvements in his fights with williams, ali, norton, and holmes. Way more disciplined, paced himself better, highrr ring iq, better stamina, excellent timing.

-No, i saw that fight twice. A fight can be close without it being a "robbery", withersooon wasnt busy enough to win the title. Holmes dictated the pace, the range, and finished strong. Witherspoon had many great moments but Holmes took it clearly.

You keep making a big deal of fighters not being in their "prime", then you try to take it away from holmes claiming witherspoon was too "green". Apparently he cant win with you, either the opponent was an old man or a kid. Common hater tactic.

I didnt miss Weaver, i mentioned him in my first post. Holmes busted him up with his upercut. And Weaver won the belt beating the crap out of coatzeer, a guy Holmes "ducked". Thanks for helping my case.

 

The Coetzee win won Snipes robbery of the year. Coetzee beat him comfortably, knocking him down in two separate rounds. Most cards had Coetzee winning 8-2 or 7-3. It was a disgrace.

I'd drop Tubbs out and throw up rematches with Weaver or Witherspoon. Regardless Larry shut up shop totally post Witherspoon and held the title to ransom to be fair.

Dundee was in the commentary box not Witherspoons corner, tho from his commentary he may as well have been Witherspoon had only beat Snipes narrowly at that time.

 

Possibly avoided Coetzee too ...

 

Did you watch the Snipes / Coetzee fight? Gerrie dropped Snipes like 3 or 4 times and the outcome was a classic Don King decision.

 

1 . Louis, - Exiting fights, longest reign, fought many great fighters but also feasted on bums of the month
2. Wlad. - Could be number one, fought very good opponents all the way. These are super heavies and none were under 200 Lbs. Close to Louis in length of reign. BORING STYLE. He could be rated higher than Louis but his victories were never that exiting. Wlad destroys all of Joes challengers, Louis would lose to some of Wlads.

3. Holmes. - Great fighter, boring and lackluster career.

 

Klitchko wasn't remotely close to losing under Manny when he was on point. Holmes was in many competitive bouts as was Louis.

I think overall Holmes had the overall better competition but Klitchko had those few guys who would be tougher than a Witherspoon or Spinks to deal with.

Louis struggled with guys like Conn and Galento etc...these guys should not have been any problem for him but were.

Really Klitchko never lost AS champion under Steward , his one sided fights really make it hard to go against here . He won 16 straight fights under Steward for 8 years and fought all comers not losing another 3 years after Manny.

If we went on better fights Holmes would win here but Klitchkos dominance would over shadow them guys.

 

that would be because he was facing a bunch of jokes who wouldnt be getting title shots in the other guys times. Effectively he defended a european title for most of his reign, though thats not to say he doesnt have a few good wins.

After he lost to Sanders he rarely ever again made the mistake of facing someone who would fight back like a top five 90s contender generally did.

Holmes fights were more often than not competitive because they were world level competition.

So were Louis until he ran out of them and had to start BotM club.

 

3 of my top 4 heavies. Of the choices i have it Louis, Holmes, Wlad.

Louis clear for me.

Holmes beat better names so I give him #2

Wlad's best case is that he was SO dominant. Once he got with Steward guys just couldn't compete with him for a decade.
Barely losing rounds. That's amazing.

Louis

Holmes
Wlad