Burns may have had a good chance against McVey, but I still wouldn't rate him anywhere near the top 20 heavyweights or the top 100 all time. To be a candidate for a top 20 list, he would have to be considered as a light heavyweight.
IMO, Floyd Patterson is overrated as a heavyweight by many of the posters on this forum. He was a very nice, soft-spoken man. That makes it easy for people to want to view him in a favorable light. I believe he was in the middle of the pack as far as rating him among heavyweight champions goes. I grew up as a little kid following his career (starting with the first Johansson fight) as it unfolded. I remember D'Amato's policy of avoiding the top challengers -- by hiding behind his feud with the IBC. I remember how bad Floyd looked against Liston (twice!!). Floyd did a great job rehabilitating his career afterward, but he still lost to Quarry, Ali, and Ellis (controversial yes, but he still lost the decision. I am one of the minority fans who believe he was so inactive in the later rounds as to deserve the loss), and he had no interest in fighting Frazier or Foreman.
Armstrong sure, but I just can't give Greb a fair shake. No video is a big problem. At that point you could just call Daniel Mendoza the GOAT since they have the same amount of footage. His resume is there but the lack of film kills it for me. Greb might as well be the tooth fairy. Armstrong is on film, something real and tangible.
The thing is there is film of Grebs opponents, and how good they are, such as Tunney and Walker. You can more accurately judge how good he was based on this IMO.
Larry Holmes wanted no part of a rematch with Mike Weaver to unify the titles and was smart to feel that way.
But then Larry knocked him silly again a bit later. The only reason Holmes didn't look so great against Weaver (the first fight, the second one he mopped the floor with him) is because he didn't train as hard as he could due to a flu. Btw for those of you whom weren't there, I didn't know a single boxing fan whom really took Weaver's WBA title seriously. In those days it was Holmes all the way, because he'd beaten Weaver more than convincingly. That right uppercut, plus Larry's resilience over the knockdown (yeah it was a knockdown, folks, don't know what the referee or timekeeper saw) proved Holmes' total dominance of the division and champions' heart.
Well, Holmes was no spring chicken either. And yes it was meaningful...end result was Weaver got knocked silly by Holmes twice. The boo-boos made by Holmes during that first fight don't make Weaver a particularly significant fighter, it just made him a far more viable contender than he'd ever been before. I should mention, I like Mike as a fighter, and was thrilled when he beat Tate out of nowhere. I was touched by his attempt to be "Rocky" to Holmes' Apollo Creed, and outraged both when the Dokes fight was stopped ridiculously early and when Mike didn't get the decision against Dokes II. But Holmes was significantly the better fighter...Weaver would have been beat by any of the 60s and 70s champs except maybe Leon; he had a wonderful heart and at times a sensational punch, but...well, he just plain lost too many fights.
Ok so the Tyson blowout of Holmes is also significant. I'll adjust my thinking on that one as i hadn't previously placed much emphasis on it. Holmes struggle with Weaver is solely due to Holmes excuses? Give Weaver some credit, he put up a great battle that night. He'd turned the corner with his career not long prior and fought extremely well for a 6 or 7 year period. Holmes struggled with a few fighters he was expected to get past easily. It happens, particularly when you don't have that big punch.
