To me Holmes, and its a no brainer. I'm of the opinion that Holmes is retrospectively overrated, but resolving that 'left on the table' would somewhat validate his current standing among boxing scholars.
Al Weill's theory of managing a heavyweight champion was to have two fights per year to allow for a long build-up and to save his fighter from taking too much punishment. I think he might have had a more ambitious plan for Rocky if he had known in advance that Rocky was going to retire rather than hold the title until he lost it. My point here is that Rocky was defending his title twice a year, usually in the early summer and late summer (because the outside venues that were available only in the summer held more people) so that during the course of the year as much as six months or even nine months would pass without a title defense. During that time, a lot could happen in the ratings and several different fighters could hold the no. 1 contender spot during that period. That's why Valdes was not given a chance. He didn't hold the spot long enough. Moore beat him in the meantime. I suppose you can fault Marciano for not defending more often, but he defended on average every six months, and that was accepted then. With hindsight, it is easy to complain that Cockell wasn't no. 1 overall, but he was right up there in the ratings, and he was the no. 1 non-American challenger in the Ring Magazine ratings at the time he fought Rocky. The championship was a world title, after all, and it can be argued that Weill and Marciano were entitled to give the rest of the world some consideration. I, for one, think Cockell is given a raw deal by today's armchair pundits. I think he was a decent and courageous fighter. He would have done a lot better against Valdes if he had fought him before Rocky beat him. He got a raw deal against Marciano in SF. The press berated him, the commission ignored his request for a larger ring (he had been promised one), and the referee allowed Marciano to foul him repeatedly. He was demoralized by the entire experience and never had his head in the game afterward.
I would have to say Johnson by a substantial margin. Sam Langford was the standout contender over the majority of his title reign.
It’s Johnson. I have him as my no.10 heavy. Had he fought those guys when they were in their primes (he had filled out as well) he might well be higher. As it is his reign is only marginally less disappointing than Dempsey’s.
The poll isn't exactly fair as two candidates have only three names mentioned, while the other has five. Those voting for Marciano are just wrong. Valdez was the only #1 ranked guy he didn't fight, and Valdez ranking at #1 did not last that long. Johnson avoided #1, #2, #3, and the #4 contender for several years, and he did not bother to avenge a draw and a fight ruled a News draw. That's what I call ducking. Holmes had the most boxing politics to deal with. How long was Page top three ranked? Page;s tenure as WB was a very short one. 5 months. That's it. Holmes fought Bey instead who beat Page, so this very brief avoidance as a * attached to it. Dokes and Thomas were the other Alphabet champions, and as such making a unification match was not easy. I suppose he could have picked one of them instead of Williams or Spinks.
How many championship level fights can you recall were the a guy was ahead substantially on the cards but lost on a cut? Its a good question to ask. Sorry Philly, Lewis was very tired. Even Max Kellerman, who was anything but a fan of Vitali at the time of the fight agree. Lennox would be unlikely to get his second win. Vitlai? He showed plenty of energy when he learned he fight was stopped by the ring doctor on cuts. Lewis said he'd re-match, and the boxing world wanted it. The money was there. He can't say he wanted to retire, because he tried to make matches with Roy Jones and Kirk Johnson. The retirement came when the WBC order the re-match. It was Lewis only belt left and only fight left he could make. It was only then that Lennox retired, saying his mother wanted him to, but if that is the main reason, she must have been fine with her son fighting Jones or Johnson.
I could say the same about you on many fighters as well, but answering my questions or refuting the facts is a place your not going in this thread. There was every reason for a rematch, not to mention the first fight was a classic. How many heavyweight classic fight do we really see? Maybe just a few a decade. If Lewis said no thank you, or let me think about it okay. But he said he'd accept the re-match several times and ran his mouth, actually grabbing the microphone to take control over a very old Larry Merchant during the interview process.
What was your scorecard at the time of the stoppage? And why should a 38 y/o great champ (who I am not even a fan of by the way) keep fighting till he loses? He got stopped by Rahman, returned the favor but really hadn’t looked committed in his last 3 fights with the possible exception of the Tyson fight? What does he stand to gain? And why is it a detriment to him?
I don't think that the case against Marciano is very damning. He basically missed one guy, who was the #1 contender for a short period, and was almost irreproachable in defending against the best qualified challengers. The case of Holmes is a bit more complex, as are the politics behind the fights not happening. Individually, none of the omissions are damning, but collectively they mount up. I am probably as staunch a defender of Jack Johnson as any here, but I cannot buck the facts on this one. Whatever the politics behind it, he did miss the most important challengers of his title reign.
I disagree strongly that it's Johnson at all, let alone by a substantial margin. The main factor being, he already defeated these men rather easily, and in some cases multiple times. Holmes didn't do that, and neither did Marciano. If you already defeat someone convincingly once and other multiple times, where is the big outcry to see these fights again? Could they have happened, sure, but they certainly didn't need to happen. This whole notion that Sam Langford had a good chance of winning is silly imo. His results were in and of itself a mixed bagged during the time. Many draws and losses mixed in with some good wins. When there is some inconsistency with a fighter, that can derail any timeline of a championship fight taking place and being realistic. Sam got utterly abused the only time they met, him adding more weight wasn't going to change the results imo.
Here I have to disagree. Bear in mind my defense of Johnson in other threads. Just because you beat a fighter early in their professional career, it doesn't mean that you have answered any future challenge from them as a contender. How good were these guys when Johnson beat them? Langford was making his first tentative foray up to heavyweight, and he was a nobody in the division, though he was gaining a reputation. McVea was being talked about as the logical challenger for Jeffries, by some newspapers, despite being only 19! Jeanette was just a local level fighter at the time, and frankly he probably never forces the issue, even at his absolute best! So who could Johnson have denied a title shot, based on the previous fight? Langford could not reasonably have been denied a title shot, based on Johnson's previous win. McVea probably could have been denied, but he was a top contender for so many years, that the issue could perhaps have been forced further down the line. Ironically the Boxrec warriors, put McVea at the bottom of the pile when Johnson fought them, but he is actually at the top! Jeanette was probably at the weakest stage of his career when Johnson beat him, and he got the best results of the three. While Johnson dismissed him the least convincingly, he probably had the weakest claim to a title shot!
It's Johnson or Holmes for me and then daylight. Marciano would not move in my top 10 with Valdez etc. Holmes would have cemented #3 where as he floats from 4 to 6 or 7. Johnson might be just outside my 10 and if he fought these guys at the right times he'd be inside it for sure.
