"Larry Holmes was the GOAT"

Fleischer had Johnson #1, for starters. He knew the guy, and everybody who came after him for quite a ways.

"Greatness" is a less measurable quantity than even "head-to-head" criteria, I think.

In theory, you could settle who the best heavyweight was head-to-head by having them all fight. The consistently top scorer would be it.

"Greatness," though? It's an imprecise category that includes a grab bag of pretty much anything the boxing fan values, and that even includes head-to-head assessments alongside everything else.

Let me illustrate what I mean, if I may. What is your current top 10 list for heavyweights?

 

It's a historical fact who beat the most Ring top 10 contenders. Just like it's a historical fact which authors sold the most books, won the Nobel Prize for Literature, etc.

I have never seen a demonstration that Louis or Ali's "greatness" is a fact in the same sense that their tallies of Ring contenders beaten are facts. No more than it's a fact that Orwell was "greater" than King or Austen or F. Scott Fitzgerald or Chaucer as an author.

It's a question like asking, "What's the best dinosaur?" Well, I don't know. It's not a scientific or paleontological question, even though the debate might include paleontological data.

If boxing greatness isn't just a question of personal taste, value, or aesthetic judgment, I would like to see some demonstration that using certain criteria for greatness is objectively correct. And the justification would have to go beyond, "People agree" or "common sense." That's just another way of saying it's customary to use these criteria.

And you can call Fleischer a potato if you want, but calling him names doesn't demonstrate the superiority of your criteria over his. Although it's a useful shorthand way to mark him as an outsider from the community whose criteria you have adopted. (Which is a good reason to call him a potato, I suppose. Also, it's funny.)

Haven't done one in years.

It's not a whim, so much as to illustrate my point for the sake of clarity. But you're free not to, obviously.

Instead, I'll use one of @catchwtboxing's old lists, since he's a clever chap and is involved in this conversation too.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-10-heavyweights-of-all-time.651950/page-2

His list goes --

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Lewis
5. Foreman
6. Frazier
7. Holyfield
8. Wlad
9. Wills
10. Tunney

A fine and conventional list with a couple quirks that I also happen to like. I have no real quarrel with it, although Marciano's high placement has become unfashionable these days.

But wait! Note that Holmes is completely absent. That *IS* unusual. Most members of BF24 would put Holmes way higher. He's usually at least top 5. But @catchwtboxing has apparently chosen different criteria than the majority, and I see nothing wrong with that, since there are no "Rules For Judging Boxing Greatness" written in the stars.

But, OK. Let's compare @catchwtboxing's list to another one. If you don't like Fleischer's, here's George Foreman's:

1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. John L. Sullivan
4. Jack Johnson
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Floyd Patterson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Mike Tyson
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Jack Dempsey

Wait a minute! This is the same Big George Foreman who was ranked #5 on @catchwtboxing's list. Foreman personally fought the #1, #6, and #7 guys on @catchwtboxing's list. He is also the world's leading expert on @catchwtboxing's #5, since it's himself. Foreman is one of the world's few two-time lineal heavyweight champs, and he fought in BOTH of the alleged "golden ages": the 70s and the 90s. He's forgotten more inside-baseball stuff going on behind the scenes in those periods than most of us have ever learned. And yet his list would get raked over the coals if he was just some random poster.

George Foreman is not a potato. He knows his stuff. He just has different criteria from most of the rest of us.

That's just the way things are, IMO.

 

I'll put it another way:

If you got prime versions of every heavyweight champion into the same room, you could figure out the best fighter head to head. It would just take time and fights.

You would remain no closer to objectively proving who was "greater."

With head to head, you're using really unreliable guesswork to measure something concrete and real. With "greatness," you're debating something we made up.

 

I was joking a bit with Shilstone. But if we're talking about how unlucky Larry was, we can add that he was the chosen test case for what happens when a challenger preps using newfangled sports science. It was a close fight *with* Shilstone's toys.

 

You can certainly posit that certain metrics must be used. My question is how you ultimately justify those metrics.

I'm sure Fleischer or Foreman would be just as good at banging their fists on the desk and saying, "We will use my criteria!"

Ultimately, how is the question "Who is the greatest boxer?" relevantly different from "What's the best dinosaur?"

 

Good point. I suppose you could argue that if he'd been on point and paying attention, maybe *he* would have been the one to hire a sports science guy.

Might not have used him as heavily as Spinks (don't take unnecessary risks!), but might have helped him turn the clock back even in moderation.