If your best win is a past it Norton who wasn’t great your not an ATG. Holmes is very good but he didn’t get to test himself enough to be called “great” looking at the entirety of boxing. It’s a a tall order for a HW to be fair.
Hilariously bad post. Holmes fought a DOZEN Heavyweight champions. Went unbeaten for 12 years. Made 20 successful title defenses. And he didn't "test" himself? He was still beating guys like Ray Mercer while he was in his 40s wearing contact lenses.
I wasn’t tying in his seven year run to just light heavyweight. But yes. He went 41-1 from 1944-1951 and that run was loaded with hall of famers, ranked contenders etc. so your assertion that he was over rated because he lost 25 times is lacking big time in context as it ( intentionally ) omits that he had one of the greatest streaks of all time.
This post makes no sense. He won the WBC in 1978. Who was he supposed to "earn" his lineage against exactly? The best heavyweights when Holmes fought for the WBC title in 1978 were Leon, Norton and Ali. He'd fight them all of them in title fights and won. The best heavyweights in 1979 and 1980 were Shavers, Tate and Weaver. Holmes stopped Shavers and Weaver in title fights, and Tate lost to Weaver and Berbick. So then Holmes fought Berbick in a title fight and beat him. What exactly did you want Holmes to do beginning in 1978 to "earn" his lineage? Wait around for five years for until Pinklon Thomas kicked his heroin addiction and won a title so they could unify? I rooted for Norton when he fought Holmes. I rooted for Weaver when he fought Holmes. I rooted for Shavers when he fought Holmes. I rooted for Ali when he fought Holmes. I rooted for Leon when he fought Holmes. I rooted for Berbick when he fought Holmes. You have to go like five years into his reign to start nitpicking who he did and didn't fight. By then, he was already considered the World Champion.
And if it were JUST their title reigns we were comparing then you would be correct. But there are the small inconvenient details of Wlad losing to Sanders, Brewster and purity while still being in his twenties. And vitali stepping in to either avenge his losses or beat less palatable contenders. And the technical decision he got over Davaryl Williamson in a fight he was losing. other than all that, you’re right
If you don't count his losses before he turned 23, if you don't count his losses after he turned 29, if you take his non-title wins over light heavyweights and pretend they were light heavyweight title wins, and you pretend wins over name heavyweights in their late 30s count, but Ezzard's losses in his early 30s don't ... I'm sure it all makes sense. You need to put a lot of blinders on to rank Ezzard Charles anywhere near the #1 fighter of all time. He wasn't the #1 light heavyweight of all time. He never even won a title there. And he wasn't the #1 heavyweight of all time. I doubt, at his best, he even beats Floyd Patterson. He shouldn't be totally overlooked, but he shouldn't be blown WAY out of proportion, either. And saying he's #1 all time is a monumental overreach.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Nobody is “ pretending “ that his light heavyweight wins were “ title wins “. But yeah going 3-0 against the second best light heavy of all time along with plenty of other 175 lb HOF’s kinda helps when assigning him his rating. And I never said I pretended his losses didn’t count. but I’m assuming that a knowledgeable expert like yourself would take into account that fighting 121 times over 17 years and through 3 divisions and against a murderer’s row like he did would indeed result in plenty of “L’s”. Especially considering that he’d sometimes be back in the ring within days or weeks after a tough fight. And then there’s also the issue of robberies which he had a few of. The man is rightfully appraised for his achievements.
Wladimir actually had a longer lineal title reign: https://titlehistories.com/boxing/world/world-h.html Also, ABC or lineal, weak comp is weak comp. That's not to say Holmes actually did fight only weak competition, just that it's absurd to claim weak competition adds to legacy as long as you fight them as lineal champion.
How is it an overreach? When you fight the competition he did ur gonna take an L here and there. Most of his losses were way out of prime. I don’t think anyone has a better who’s who of scalps then Charles Moore Louis Walcott Maxim Marshall Burley Bivins Ray Layne Satterfield Oakland Billy smith Many of these men most hall of famers beat multiple times. As far as top ten scalps goes he probably has the best
Based on who's career I would want to have most, in order (not real ranking, just who's career purely in the ring I would want to have): 1=Louis 2=Wladimir 3=Ali 4=Marciano 5=Holmes 6=Lewis
Well, maybe he just decided to block out fights Wlad had before 2005 and just focused on the amazing 10-year run he put together from 2005 to 2015. That seems to be the trend around here in threads with guys like Ezzard Charles. You understand.
Charles should be rightfully praised (not OVERLY PRASED) for his achievements, and also it should be acknowledged he never won the light heavyweight title, and it should be acknowledged he lost 25 times, including some pretty bad fighters as well. And if his wins over light heavyweights in heavyweight fights count as embellishing his light heavyweight record, then his losses to light heavyweights (like Harold Johnson) at heavyweight should count AGAINST his record there, as well. Wlad didn't even lose to Davarryl Williamson, and you appeared to hold that fight against him. When he was 34, Ezzard Charles lost to Toxie Hall and Young Jack Johnson for ****'s sake.
