Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

Defined as top 10 ranked by Ring Magazine at the time of the fight.

Holmes has wins over more than double of them than Foreman.

Foreman has the higher quality of their respective best two wins.

The above I consider as facts, only the final paragraph is subjective and I know you won't object to it being presented as a fact.

How people rank the two relative to one another comes down to criteria and personal preference.

 

That’s why I used the term misleading, & not, ‘false.’

 

Stating the number of ranked contenders that Holmes beat isn't misleading (unless the number being used is incorrect), even if you don't consider some/all of those contenders to be material to his all time ranking.

It's just a fact. The significance of the fact to the subject matter, is down to individual interpretation. It holds at least some relevance to me, perhaps non to you.

 

Shopworn ? In the previously eighteen months he clearly defeated and was robbed against Ali, crushed Bobick, thrashed Zanon, beat top contender Jimmy Young in a manner that Ali and Foreman couldn't and went a fast , hard fifteen rounds with a prime Holmes in a fight that could have went either way ... Norton was not shopworn.

 

Holmes stuck to business, which was boxing. As I recall, he didn't play the race card. He fought back hard after being knocked down, as against Snipes, Williams, and Shavers. He worked very hard at his game, particularly on his left early in his career after badly breaking his right hand, perhaps one of the reasons he didn't seem to have KO power in his right. Holmes-Norton was an awesome fight, and I thought he won the second fight against Spinks.

 

‘Ranked contender’ is being used in lieu of, ‘great opponents.’ Because there aren’t any. Not one (& it’s not as if he breezed through them all, at that).

I consider that pretty material, but maybe you don’t.

 

While you guys do make very good points, Foreman has a huge advantage in terms of quality wins. For example, his three best wins (against Frazier, Norton, and Moorer) are individually better than Holmes' best win. I also give him credit for regaining the title 20 years after he lost it. That's absolutely ridiculous.

That's why I rank him number 3 which I understand is too high for some.

You can put Holmes, Lewis, Cleveland Williams, Marciano, or Foreman at number 3 and I'd have no issues with it.

 

Fraziers the only Foreman victim who could be considered great and he faced a poor version of Frazier out of shape in both fights plus shot in the rematch.

Louis didn't beat a great heavyweight either

 

And went on to draw with Scott Ledoux.

Everyone knows that when a fighter gets old, he gets old fast.

 

Yeah, Holmes was the start of a losing streak. I have said correctly.

 

Less than 100%? Certainly. A, “poor” version of Frazier in January 1973. That’s a stretch too rich for my blood. I agree he was no good in the return though.

Moorer was not a great Heavy in & of himself but it is an all-time great win - really great - in context of Foreman being a shanty off age 46.

 

Matt has the best most comprehensive lists in history and they are devoid of bias. He has Holmes at #7 and foreman at #6 so it's not as if you can't have Foreman above Holmes. He will say himself tho that's there's very little if anything between many of them after #2. It's mostly resume with a dash of how good they looked in the ring/H2H from memory. There's nothing between them, go for the criteria you fancy.

 

Haven’t seen anyone saying Foreman must be above Holmes. Not true in reverse lately, which I find pretty hard to swallow honestly.

 

I'd say most will have Holmes ahead but having Foreman ahead is hardly silly.

 

No, it's not been used in lieu of great opponents at all.

I, and others, have specifically said, multiple times, Foreman has the highest quality couple of wins, Holmes the deeper wins, citing number of ranked contenders to qualify that statement.

There is categorically nothing misleading about that whatsoever. It's a fact. As you allude to, it's significance to the subject matter is down to the individual.