Why is it not held against Holmes legacy more that he was never the undisputed HW champion of boxing

Typical laundry list of excuses. With exception to Tate, who fell off hard and quickly, there were windows for all of these fights to get made. Sure, a Coetzee fight fell through once, but he was relevant for virtually all of Holmes’ reign. Add in that Holmes didn’t take rematches with Williams and Witherspoon and did fight plenty of inexcusably poor opponents and it’s clear where this is going. He’s number 6 all time, not too shabby.

 

Heavyweight rules.

 

This debate is looking like a literary version of Mercer-Morrison.


Unfortunately for you, I haven't listed any excuses.

I have given you specific REASONS.

I have given you verifiable FACTS.


No, they weren't viable windows for all of those fights to have taken place.

And why are you so hung up on him having missed out on mostly B level guys, who'd already lost to him and his past/previous opponents??

It doesn't even make sense.

It's just been critical for the sake of it.


Yes, Tate fell off quickly.


No, a Coetzee fight fell through 2/3 times, not just once.


Again, every opponent has been fairly analysed, including following the specific timelines for reference.


Your list is an utter joke.

The fact that you can't refute it speaks volumes.


Look at you.

Because you can't refute what I've said, you've now moved the goal posts to criticise him for having fought rematches against Williams and Witherspoon.

Pathetic.


Number 6?

Yeah, to either a troll or a donut.

You'd probably rate David Haye ahead of him.


Now this isn't a good look for you.


You better gather up some of your friends to help.


I have ripped your post to pieces.

 

The funny part is that Holmes still doesn’t get credit for unifying or beating the majority of the best fighters of his era no matter what you type out.

 

No.

The funny part is, you have come on here and criticised my posts, yet I have decimated yours, which you can't in any way refute.

 

Do you think 6th is unreasonable just to ask? Not meaning to butt into your convo with No Neck so I will tap out after your response but I found that part interesting.

 

He beat everyone he could have beaten except for Page and Pinklon (while beating a guy who beat Page), and as already pointed out, nobody cared about unifying at that time. There was also no pressure for the rematches you mentioned. Holmes is a consensus Top 4 on this forum, so he gets a lot of credit anyway.

 

Beating Page and Thomas would’ve been huge for his resume. He’s overrated by two spots.

Saying unifications didn’t matter in the 80s is like saying breaking the color line didn’t matter sixty years earlier.

Each suddenly mattered once they happened.

 

Please feel free to butt in.

That’s why we’re here.

I will welcome your posts, irrespective of whether I agree or not with your points.


No Neck is probably baiting.

I don’t really believe that he thinks that he’s 6th.


Yes, I think it’s unreasonable.

I couldn’t name 4 guys ahead of him after Ali and Louis.

Not on:

Ability
Resume
Wins
Accomplishments
Longevity

Along with ambition and taking risks.


People will say that he was risk adverse and unambitious etc.

He wasn’t.

The timelines are there to look at.

And after his reign, he fought prime versions of Evander, Mike and Mercer, whilst in his late 30’s to 40’s.


Now there’s a lot of factors to look at. And it’s very difficult to rank guys what tick all of those boxes.

It’s why Mike Tyson doesn’t make many people’s top 5-10.

Because he only gave us 6 years of being a great fighter.


So which 4 HW’s are you going to put ahead of Larry, after Ali and Louis.

I could never put Wlad there.


Who else is there?

Lennox and Evander.


Who else?

 

Ha!

How on earth would a win over Page have been HUGE for his resume??

Utter trolling nonsense.

 

You think he is, consensus disagrees. He beat the guy who beat Page tho, so it's even better for his resume, right? I agree beating Pinklon would boost him a bit.

Look at the press released from the time - Holmes was universally recognized as the undisputed champion, there were no pressures for unifications, at least until 1984, where he actually decided to unify. He beat multiple WBA title holders anyway. Unifications started to matter when Holmes was slipping and cherry picking, but it was after he was the champion for over 5 years.

 

I have him higher as well like you.

But even those who agree Holmes is 3rd/4th usually have a extended range were it's ok to have him a few spots lower as we have had many threads were people actually have Holmes a lot closer to those below him (sometimes even outside the top 10) than Ali and Louis who are usually ranked above him. I think it's when you get to the low end of the top 10 or outside it that people would start to rebel strongly. I think 6th would be a range which most on here could accept but of course I am not saying you have to side with that as people have there own opinions.

 

I imagine that Holmes was regarded as worse than 4th after losing the title and that the favoritism is largely driven by the fact that he’s an American who you could sit down and have a beer with whereas Tyson and Lewis don’t quite have that vibe.

Existing pre internet and bridging to Alii’s era also helps.

 

Well, they are only your imaginations.

 

“ The Middle Range (#3 to #5): Holmes was most frequently grouped alongside Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, and Rocky Marciano.

The Floor (#6 or lower): Critics who placed him further down often elevated George Foreman or Joe Frazier above him due to their higher-profile victories in stronger divisions.”