Whatever the case (I’d have to look) I think it’s pretty understandable right after Frazier, & immediately before Norton.
I am going to defend Jeffries and Johnson up to a point here. There was some level of public demand for these fights.
Roman was in the Ring top 10 at the end of 72. Hed beaten all 3 contenders he'd fought up to that point in Wepner, Daniels and Ramos. Thats about the easiest list of contenders you could fight in that era but he was generic lower top 10 guy.
It seems we have two schools of thought developing here. Those looking at defenses in context, & those solely judging the opponent in relation to the title-holder. I’m of the former school of thought myself.
Bowe had a pretty shameless run after beating Holyfield to become champ, against Michael Dokes and Jesse Ferguson.
So it wasn't done by anyone at heavyweight, and the bantamweight who managed had defenses against people with records of 2-10, 0-1 and 0-2 while holding the title a fraction of the time Louis did. From 1937 to 1948 his outstanding contenders were Farr, Schmeling, Galento, Pastor, Conn, Nova, M. Baer, Maurielo, Walcott, all of whom he beat. He only missed two number 2s Franklin and Ray which are easily explained by Franklin's KO defeat against Pastor and Ray losing the title eliminator against Walcott, who got the title fight. Given how many ranked fighters Louis beat, it's ridiculous to criticize him for a subpar title defense. Why should he fight Nova, Franklin and Conn back to back when basically no other champ would defend against his top contenders in that rate? He was going to miss Franklin anyway because Lem was ranked for all two months before Pastor defeated him. Weak title defenses need to be put into context. If it's used as a replacement for the leading contenders, it's heinous, but if the two top dogs get crushed back to back then there's no reason for the champ to get criticized for extra work.
To be fair, what would have been his next successful defense was Holyfield had he won it (he arguably did).
True, but those two fights after the first Holyfield fight when he first became champ were a bit anti climatic I thought. I cant remember the reasoning behind it, I guess a few soft touches before taking on Lewis or Holyfield for the rematch. They seemed like pointless fights.
Holmes fought Ocasio who had just defeated Jimmy Young when Jimmy was still a top four fighter. Holmes fought Shavers who had just KO'ed Norton in one round Holmes fought a highly motivated Weaver who'd go on to win a title Holmes fought Berbick who had just thrashed top contender Greg Page Holmes fought Leon Spinks who just peaked with a very impressive stoppage of Bernardo Mercado Holmes fought Cooney and Cobb when they were in their primes Holmes fought Smith right after Smith destroyed Bruno Holmes fought David Bey right after Bey upset a come backing Greg Page Foreman had how many title defenses ? The character you're playing here is only mildly entertaining when you accompany it with some knowledge and not just positioned opinions.
Pedro, you're the guy who believes an active champion fighting whomever as long as the opponent has a pulse is OK, and I'm at the other end of the spectrum where I have a problem with a challenger if he lost his last fight, let alone 3 out of his last 4. And we don't seem to want to come off our perches. So its time to agree to disagree.
Foreman would have had forty title defenses had he Holmes’ competition stretched out in front of him.