Can You Make A Case For Holmes Above Louis?

Maybe had Holmes unify the title he may have a case, and don't get me wrong had these fights happen, I would of favor him in all these fights to do it. You can't really be number 1 or even 2 if you're letting all these other alpha guys claiming to be champ. I ranked Tyson over Holmes, and it's not because Tyson blasted Holmes out, He unify, Usky unify, Lewis unify, owning all the belts in this era really means something imo. Louis is 2 because of what he meant to the sport, his 12-year reign, and 25 title defenses. I mean it's very hard to top a run like that, and yes had the likes of Conn, or Godey were walking around with an alpha title, I can see Louis going after them and unifying the title.

 

People are talking about the title run but look at Holmes pre and post title SOS and compare it to Louis's.

Holmes had narrow time to fight Buster, Tucker and Pinklon as champ but when he started his comeback he had ample time to fight them or rematch Witherspoon and he didn't do it. Opting instead to go back to padding a win streak to earn title shots. In his first 18 non title fights his best opponents were Mercer, Ferguson, Everett Martin, Ribalta, Pourier. Then he rematched Smith and Weaver cause after Holmes reign people were clearly losing sleep he didn't rematch those guys.

Holmes was born in 1949 same year as Foreman. But while Foreman became champ in 1973, Holmes was making his debut and waited for the 70s generation to kill each other before picking up the pieces and being a dominant champ. It'd be one thing if Holmes was the brilliant best fighter of a weak era and just wasn't getting credit because of 70s nostaglia. But Holmes was from that generation, aged them out(and got lucky with Foremans mental health) then ruled over a transitory period. And he has the balls to poop on George who made his whole life possible by retiring and going to preach! He should be the biggest Foreman fan in the universe.

 

George didn't make anything possible. He couldn't even beat Jimmy Young so not sure how he factors in at all.

Also not sure how he benefits from aging guys out if the subsequent era is stronger

 

The 70s is considered the best era. And either way the early 80s was the weakest part of the 80s as very few top HWs were born in the early and mid 50s. Between Foreman/Holmes and Witherspoon and co you've got a noticeable weak period there.

Well at least he fought peak Jimmy Young. If Foreman was around in the 80s Holmes reign isn't possible.

 

Of course it's possible. Do to proliferation of belts Holmes wouldn't have to fight Foreman to begin with regardless of who you think would win.

1975 to 77 wasn't a strong era at all. Maybe you are thinking of the early 70s but after 74 Ali was badly faded and Frazier quickly fell out of contention. 78 to 83 had Thomas, Witherspoon, Weaver, Coetzee, Tate, Berbick, etc

 

With his great jab and a cross right Holmes could give Louis trouble.

 

Realistically, no. Unless you’re doing some sort of H2H senior career versions of them and counting that in. Senior career Holmes would beat senior career Louis, despite being older.

but resumes? Accomplishments? H2H when both prime? Have to give the nod to Louis by a bit.