Top 10 heavyweights divided into two distinct timespan

Always feel like Holmes is more talented and skilled then his resume really shows

 

But how could that be proven if the wins weren't there/

And if true, then why not fight a #1 contender or unify?

 

That's the real question isn't it? On paper he's one of the most skilled HWs ever. In reality his career is a bit disappointing and he had way too many competitive fights with guys he really should have dominated. So who can say what went on in his head?

 

Didn't you have Foreman above Ali and Tyson above Holmes? I'm curious what changed your mind.

 

It's more his longevity and the fact only Mike Tyson didn't have issues with Holmes in a 75 fight career spanning till 52. Which can make up for perhaps not having some more names on there.

Where he ranks is subjective of course but just adding that's why he gets rated so high.

 

And at the end of the day, you can only beat the guys in front of you.

 

1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Sam Langford
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jim Jeffries
6. Jack Dempsey
7. Harry Wills
8. Max Schmeling
9. Jack Sharkey
10. Ezzard Charles

Tough leaving out Gene but his work in the division is limited.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Wlad K.
4. Tyson
5. Lewis
6. Holyfield
7. Foreman
8. Frazier
9. Usyk
10. Liston

 

But longevity against who, though? His "longevity" doesn't count for much because he didn't beat the #1 contenders and unifications of his day. It should earn him a respectable 9-10, not #2. There is no justification for #2. None at all.

 

This split is kind to Floyd Patterson (Ingo happened in 1960) but his resume up through 1959 doesn’t justify top 10 all-time in the division from its start up to that point.

Looks like most don’t have him in their 10 for that era but OP did.

 

I think in the later part of his reign he could have got a couple more names he should have fought and did sign to fight Coetzee but the fight fell through.

Still I think it's a very rare feat to be contending into your 40s and to have that many defenses. Which is why I think a lot of people have Holmes that high heavyweight even though you obviously disagree which is fine.

 

By the time he was negotiating with Coetzee, he had already abandoned and title and split the championship in three by accepting the IBF belt. It was already a meaningless fight.

He gets some credit for fighting in his 40s...enough to get him to 9 or 10. We have to stop this nonsense about him being literally the second or third best ever. The wins aren't there and that is all.

 

Ok. There are some really well respected posters on here who rate him in that range though.

 

Thats the problem. They have every right to rate him that high, but there is absolutely nothing to back that up.

Anyone can think and say anything they want. It doesn't mean that it is a logical assumption that withstands scrutiny.

 

The main criteria that people use to rank him is longevity and his undefeated streak. But i agree personally Lewis has a much better argument for being higher then Holmes based on his wins and imo Wlad too but thats a bit of a hot take over here lol

 

To each of his own. Not sure I would have him top 3 as mentioned but I do rate him higher than you at 10ish I say.