Biggest "forums darlings"

If Wlad and Holmes did hold the belt's at once curious to know how much higher people would rank them here.

 

Most of the people don't care that Holmes didn't unify and was never technically undisputed. Most have him as Top 3 or Top 5 of all time. People just like to pick on Wlad for some reason. Undisputed championship has no value of it's own. Nobody can tell me that Leon Spinks was greater than these guys just because he was undisputed at one point.

 

I was directing towards the posters who do care.

 

Sorry I have tried to stay out but it's too tempting not to chime here and there

 

Holmes not unifying the title post 1982 had nothing to do with boxing. It had more to do with his finances as well as not doing buisness with Don King.
If anyone eaned the right to say no it was Larry Holmes in that moment in time.

It definitely wasn't about avoiding anyone in King's stable. Larry Holmes earned the title of "champion" he did it in spite of Don King.

 

So, Wlad not unyfing all belts had nothing to do with boxing either. It had more yo do with WBC championship policy and Don King and then Shelly Finkel not wanting their fighters to unify against Wlad. Wlad earned the title of THE champion depite not having 1 of 4 belts. He wasn't avoiding anynone.

 

If Wlad beat Wilder Stiverne for the WBC belt it wouldn"t meant much for me, but if he had taken it from Vitaly it would have made a difference for sure.

For Holmes it also mostly depends on when. If he had taken back the WBC and also taken the WBA in 84-85 it would make a clear difference, but less so if he had taken the WBA from Weaver

 

I don't care about alphabet belts and would still rank Holmes at #3 and Wlad at #7 all time, assuming their careers were otherwise identical to reality, of course.

 

Fair enough. It was addressed to those who are heavy on the undisputed thing based on Wlad and Holmes's standing and think it effects it in particular with Wlad.

 

I'm guessing because of Wlad's losses? If so fair enough some people count losses more then others. Otherwise don't really see a reason to rank Holmes higher. Wlad beat better fighters H2H and dominated them all till he was old while Holmes struggled more with his competition and arguably lost three fights and then lost to a LHW. Just trying to see the logic here to rank Holmes ahead of Lewis or Wlad.

 

I don't think anyone is "heavy on the undisputed thing". It is just a fact about Wlad's reign - Perhaps a noteworthy counterpoint to those who are heavy on Wlad's 'dominant longevity' as a key contributing factor of his rating.

The bigger point is that - strictly speaking - Wlad didn't fight the best fighter in the world, barring himself, until 2013.

Holmes established genuine Lineal status early in his reign, which I think helps considerably with the notion of him being THE champion from 1980 onward, despite the belt fragmentation.

Thus, I suspect it is this latter factor and not the belt-ownership per se that carries more kudos when it comes to ratings.

 

This is wrong as we already went over with McGrain. He beat Byrd the best fighter in the world in 2006.

 

There’s been a lot of talk about appeal to authority lately.

I’ll throw out the psychological phenomena of confirmation bias and belief perseverance. Not only are alleged boxing fans reluctant to demote Holmes from the number 3 all time spot that he occupied until at least 88, but Wlad also had a David Price like downfall that these people require a totally unrealistic burden of proof to discount in light of his subsequent reign which stands right next to Louis.

 

TBF lot of people here have replaced Holmes with Lewis. Right now the challenge is ranking Wlad on the same level as these two which imo he clearly is but I guess that's still a minority position for now.