Could you make a case that Holmes was the hardest heavyweight to beat?

In his prime Ali didnt have any close calls. And in answer to the Q, No, he was in a weak era, an older Norton than Ali faced too Holmes to an SD and a novice Witherspoon took him to an SD, the Williams fight was close and ofcourse he lost 2 to Spinks (controversally) past his prime like Ali fought close fights with lesser fighters past his prime.

 

To me Ali is always going to take that spot. I don't want to start another Ali praising, but here we go:


Yes, Ali was out of shape for some of his fights, however, note that all of those were later in his career when he seemed to be more interested in the publicity and being a star-side than boxing itself. But despite that he still kept winning most of the time.

Now, we're talking about "which heavy is hardest to beat head-to-head?": would it be reasonable to match an out-of-shape Ali with someone, because he tended to be in that condition near the end of career? During his prime, Ali was always in top condition.

What i consider to be way more important is that Ali is much more proven than Holmes. Ali was a true champion. Holmes wasn't. He dropped his title to avoid Page. Didn't fight Thomas (#1 contender for more than 2 years), didn't fight Coetzee, didn't fight Dokes (top contender for 4+ years), and on top of that, he refused rematches in close fights with Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver and Williams. Those are 8 fights, at least SOME of which should've happened were he to be a true champion that always rises to the challenge.

Holmes, as he'd always done, choose for himself and "use boxing because it has used me", and that's his own choice. But in the end, it does detract from his legacy, and besides not looking quite as impressive as Ali did during his prime, i think that's the most important difference between Ali and Holmes.

Ali took on the unbeatable monster in Liston and not just beat him, but embarrassed him, humiliated the mob-controlled beast and made him quit. Holmes on the other hand fought a very close fight with Norton when he was at or near his peak; Ali got similar results when he was past his prime, against a younger Norton as well.

 

Totally agree with Chris.

 

Yeah, he more or less sums it up.

But Mendoza has a point that Holmes had fewer flaws than Ali, was more complete. He was vulnerable to the right, though.

 

Well put.

 

I will also ad to Chris's most exquisite post, that in addition to taking on all comers, Ali also generally defeated a better spectrum of opponents who varied all over the place in styles. Although I have always liked Cooney, Witherspoon, Mercer, Berbick, Norton and Shavers, Ali has chalked up wins over Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Patterson, Lyle, Young as well as younger versions of Shavers and Norton - whom he fought much later in his career. Of course, Chris had already touched upon some of that.

Nevertheless, I can't see Holmes being more difficult to beat than a man who fought so many greats with so many different attributes and still came out a winner. His adabtability is quite possibly the best of any heavyweight ever.

 

I'd have no trouble with Holmes being put second. Probably between he and Louis, some might argue Lennox.

 

Haha, your initial post was good enough McGrain. I echo Chris' thoughts, Ali will always take that spot for me.

 

In terms of difficulty in defeating? Although, I think Lennox is a monster in any head to head matchup, its a difficult argument to make on the surface given the two losses that he has, and who they are against. I realize that this means little when matching up directly against his predecessors, but again on the surface I don't know if Lewis can be placed in a top 3 or 4 list of the least beatable champions.