Based simply on resume does he deserve to be the 3rd best heavyweight behind Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis (whatever order you put them in)?
He has a great resume, but after the Witherspoon fight (scare), he looked to avoid the best in his division, like Page, Thomas, Tubbs, Dokes, etc. But, he'd already been champion 5 years by then, so yes, I'd say he's the third best based on his earlier wins.
NO if we are gauging Holmes by his resume. But in skills and h2h wise - YES I use mixed system and Holmes is between 3 and 6
Résumé-wise, he has the numbers. In fact, in defenses he is only behind Joe Louis, one notch above the Lip. As regards quality of opposition, some castigate Holmes, particularly for fighting people like Lorenzo, Marvis and Scott. Moreover, he was never a unified heavyweight champion. But he was the man. From his defeat of Norton to the upset loss to Spinks --seven and- a-half years, as Larry likes to say-- I don't believe he ever climbed into the ring as underdog, even reducing rival WBA champ Weaver to the second tier on the strength of already having defeated him. Coetzee? He couldn't stay champion long enough for a unification match to happen. There was never a desperate number-one contender dogging Holmes. The Assassin certainly never had his Harry Wills. Late in his reign, Holmes simply, on the one hand, coasted, something perfectly acceptable, except to those who have never fought for a living. On the other hand, he simply wanted to keep more of his purse money rather than suffering yet further robbery at the hands of Don King. He thus promoted his own title bouts or turned to other promotors, and thus fought people like Zanon, Frazier and Scott, rather than every last of the relatively inconsistent young lions prowling around in the background. Even so, having turned back upstarts such as Bey, Williams and Bonecrusher Smith by kayo as an old man is pretty impressive. Longevity as champion is a very powerful indicator of greatness. Thus, Holmes was a very great champion.
holmes without a doupt takes a place in the top 5 , third place is debatable there are so many other charecters you could argue deserve 3rd place over holmes however hes a strong contender, i think its a toss up between lennox lewis and larry holmes , wow holmes vs lewis what a matchup !!
I rate holmes high. He may not have been undisputed champion but he was undisptutedly regarded as the top heavyweight in an era. His rival beltholders were not good enough to keep their belts long enough to ever mount a unification. Holmes still beat beltholders weaver, smith, berbick and witherspoon anyway. Tate, coetzee and page lost badly to guys holmes beat. Wasnt Holmes as good as the guys dokes lost to? I regard holmes as the champion of his era. I regard each of his rival beltholders as a #1 rated contender he either fought or who blew their chance to fight Holmes. Larry was the man to fight not them. In most cases the claims of many belt holders was prety worthless anyway. They beat guys who almost chalenged or were beat by the real champion. I never understood why the w.b.a had coetzee vs tate as a vacent title when ALI retired. They should have shifted their recognition to Holmes since he beat the next best man (norton) who the previous champion would not face. Holmes not only beat norton who spinks avoided but knocked out weaver who took tates w.b.a belt! weaver should never have been alowed to call himself champion until he rematched holmes and not the other way around.
He was the lineal champion for a number of years. I go by how a fighter looks in the ring. Based on that, he is the second best heavyweight I ever saw, right after Ali.