I don't think you know the meaning of the word "troll". Any rational person would admit a guy who beat about 20 top 20 hw's against only 2 (undecisive) losses, who is in the top 10 all time in 1. consecutive championship defenses 2. overall time as champ 3. overall championship defenses 4. time in a single reign as champ, and has the 2nd best ko percentage of all hw champs either should be regarded as a top 10 HW or close too it. Again, you fail to offer any rational defense of the indefensible, just (bad) one liners. Keep trying little eggshell!
Take two brain cells, rub them together, hope it gives you enough intelligence to argue with me, and call me in the morning:good
Yeah, I don't think Holmes was shot. Past his prime, yes, but not shot. He was also coming off a layoff. Holmes had been declining since 1983. Given his age and mileage, his performances in losing efforts against Holyfield and McCall were pretty impressive. Holmes was very crafty and had some success off the ropes against Holyfield.
Oh, ok. That makes more sense. The response to that is that anybody who knows anything about boxing would not put much weight onto a win over a badly faded Holyfield. It's the same reason Holmes doesn't get credit (indeed, he gets vitriol) for beating Ali's corpse.
atsch gtf out of here, he was well past prime. And incidentally the only HOF Holmes beat was a shot to bits Ali.