Holmes 7 year reign or Holyfield 4 HW titles - what's more impressive?

On the face of it.....

A seven year reign was much more impressive. Afterall, to become a four-time champ you have to lose the title.

A bit more digging is required though.

 

Let me get this straight.

If Holmes had managed to lose his title and regain it three times during his reign, he would somehow be regarded as better than having held it continuously and made twenty consecutive defences ?

 

It is better to have never lost it, even once, than to have lost it three times.

 

Holmes reign

 

It depends who those were against.

The likes of Tocker Pudwill or Robert Allen don't qualify.

Had Calzaghe (for instance) beaten 20 guys as good as Reid/Woodhall, then fine, but he didn't.

 

Both are just about equal, look at what it took for Holyfield to get that 4th title stripping lewis and barely beating Ruiz. Then you have Larry Holmes of which during his reign there wasnt alot of great talent on the scene in them days.

 

What the **** has Calzaghe got to do with what i posted ?

Or are you just obsessed ?

I compared two scenarios, both involving LARRY HOLMES and HIS twenty title defences.

 

Holmes title reign beats Holyfields by a decent margin IMO, maybe if there wasnt so many world titles Holyfields MIGHT be better but as it is, Holmes is better.

 

Its a known fact that Larry Holmes never got his due credit for being such a long reigning champion. I always found that odd (and somewhat sad), that he just never seemed to click with the boxing public, even though he was an alltime great heavyweight.

 

two reasons, Larry was smack dead inbetween Ali and Tyson that is why its a shame becuase Larry doesnt really get his due as he should but i think most knowledgable fight fans know Larry Holmes was on a whole different level, i mean imagine him in his prime in the 90's Holmes would have been the dominant heavyweight IMO of those years, only to have trouble with Lennox Lewis.