How would you change my top 5 heavyweights

Foreman number 1. Louis number 2. Take Wlad and Usyk out. Maybe maybe I'd put Wlad before Holmes in number 5 eh thats a tough one.

 

I wouldn't change it. It's your list and I have no idea for your criteria for ranking.

 

Foreman has a few more significant wins than Holmes but Holmes has way more filler to his resume.

For example Foreman only beat 4 ranked fighters where as Holmes beat 15 ranked fighters, Foreman only made a combined total of 5 title defences compared to 20 for Holmes.

So Holmes had x3 more title defences than Foreman and has almost x4 as many wins over ranked opponents.

 

1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Holmes
4 Lewis
5 Foreman

 

Yes, but who were the "ranked" fighters?

The problem here is that is used to be agreed that greatness mostly boiled down to who you beat. Now we have a situation where people are pushing a lot of "ranked" guys, and let's be generous to them, were bums.

As for title defenses, he was never undisputed, and in an easy era when there were only two belt. In fact, he gave credibility to the IBF when by accepting their belt from the gutter, so he contributed to proliferation. I would argue that Foreman had more defenses of the true championship than Holmes.

 

These guys didn't lose to 35 year old Norton.

Page los ta lot of early fights, but he had got it together for one moment to become a legit #1 contender.

Thomas was a drug addict, but before he fell apart, he was a heck of a fighter. Thomas was offered, and Page was a mando. IF Holmes was so far above Page, you think he might have fought him.

 

Norton was not kryptonite at 35.

Ok, so there were reasons that he did not fight Page, Thomas, Coetzee, etc. Now he has a pitiful resume.

 

It depends on your criteria I'm not saying you're right or wrong but honestly Foreman's record in his 2nd career is not exactly filled with great names either. Obviously the win over Moorer at age 45 is a great achievement but then you have guys like Schulz, Grimsley, Briggs, Savarese, who are not so great.

Obviously Foreman has the best stand out win by far over Joe Frazier, but then after that there isn't too many wins that could you definitely say are much better than Holmes's resume especially since Holmes has so much more filler.

As I said it all depends on your criteria but I wouldn't say Foreman is definitely above Holmes I can see an argument for both honestly.

 

Yeah, his second career. But he had a great first career, and the Moorer win.

And lets be honest that the other guys he beat the second time around-- Stewart, Rodgriguez, Cooper, Qawi, Cooney, Schultz-- were right in line with the bums Holmes was defending against.

 

They had another fight booked with Holmes backed out of.

The bottom line is that the best names of Holme's day are not on his resume, and all of this is a diversion from the fact that the point is that his resume is not that good.