The ' Who did he beat' question

You forgot the fact that Dokes was a Don King fighter just like Larry, so he didn't want his 2 best heavyweights clash.

 

You're trying to criticize Joe Louis for beating Tony Galento

 

And then this about Holmes being hard done by...

It seems most here have him in the top 5, many in the top 3 and you even see calls for top 2 (despite there being a lot of daylight between his resume and Ali's and Louis's).

So he is highly rated, but it is also pointed out that he cherry picked his way through the last three years which of his reign, which he said himself. This is just a statement of facts as is that he never faced his nr contender.

The latter can be argued not being his fault, but it is nevertheless the case.

 

I don't disagree

Only loosely relative, but I think if Tommy Burns had retired instead of fighting JJ he'd be considered a top tier ATG.

 

Khaosai Galaxy.

47-1. Hall of Famer. Ranked pound-for-pound by various publications in his day.

Who did he beat? (Crickets)

 

Holmes never beat a great fighter no but to be fair during his reign he never actually had a great fighter too fight so that's not his fault. His other rivals from his era were too hit and miss so there was never really any big rivals for him to set up big fights, did some of the contenders like Page, Thomas, deserve shots towards the end of Holmes's reign ? yes but again a fighter like Page was too hit and miss and i don't think Page would've added much to Holmes's resume even though it would've been nice to see the fight in 83.

Holmes still beat 15 ranked Heavyweights which is the 3rd most wins any other Heavyweight has over ranked Heavyweights apart from Louis, Ali.

 

Galaxy is very overrated he primarily fought in Thailand were some shady stuff went down i heard. He also never unified and avoided some major rivals during that time like Moon, Konadu.

 

Considered one of the best pound-for-pound in his era and an easy pick for those voting for the Hall of Fame. Didn't beat anyone.

 

If i'm being quite blunt he wouldn't even be in my top 100 and i have see him rated as high as top 50 which is baffling.

 

But Holmes didn't beat "the best fighters of his time" after the Witherspoon scare. And Cooney was overhyped - probably not the toughest guy Holmes could have fought in 1982.

Tyson wiped out the divison by the time he beat Spinks. Holyfield hadn't really moved up yet.

 

Go on boxrec and examine the number of guys he beat who later won a title. it's quite a few.

No brainer IBHOF pick.

Dude was an absolute beast.

 

Can't believe you typed those posts back-to-back.

Look at the number of guys Holmes beat who later won a title.

There was: Mike Weaver, Trevor Berbick, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith.

Not to mention Ali, Norton, Leon and Ray Mercer, who had also held titles before or were coming off title wins.

If #1 WBC and WBA contender Cooney wasn't the "toughest" guy Holmes could've fought in 1982 ... the other options were Mike Weaver (WBA champ) who Holmes already stopped. Or Greg Page, the #2 contender, who lost on the undercard of Holmes-Cooney to Berbick, who Holmes had also already beaten. After which Page lost to Spoon (who Holmes beat) and Bey (who Holmes also beat) in back-to-back fights,

Galaxy went to 47-1 and retired. Holmes went 48-0 before he lost to Spinks. He later came back and beat another champ in the unbeated Ray Mercer, who vacated the WBO belt before the Holmes match.

The arguments against Holmes are laughable. The same guys bashing Holmes give guys like Galaxy and Lopez a pass and their opponents weren't nearly as good.

Fans are too hypercritical of heavyweights.

 

Someone once observed that boxing is the only sport where credit is given for who they lost to more than who they beat.

You never hear an NFL team is great because ‘they only lost to the Patriots with Brady, Colts with Manning and the Steelers’ when they played in a weak division with a weak overall schedule so their best wins are against .500 teams, lol.

But Tony Tucker gets propped up as a huge win for Mike Tyson because … why? Buster Douglas (who was a 42-1 underdog to Tyson, so obviously no one regarded him that highly) gave Tucker a really good fight and then just kind of quit on his feet after getting hit a few good shots.

Outside of that, what is Tucker’s resume? “He went the distance with Tyson.” Never mind that ATGs Mitch “Blood” Green, Quick Tillis and Bonecrusher did the same, lol. But Tucker’s a great win because he basically avoided all top opposition for most of his career (and lost every major step-up fight unless you consider the Douglas win super significant). In fact, I challenge anyone to tell me what Tucker did to get a shot at the vacant title vs. Buster — at least Douglas had fought some good opposition, whereas Tucker was just ‘well he fights for Manny Steward so we’ll give him a pass.’

 

I hate to call someone out but me and @HistoryZero26 were going back and forth on Tucker recently. He believed Tucker was top 3 or top 5 of that era ? Which I found quite baffling but yeah there are people that do rate Tucker highly.

I do think he is overrated myself due to not having alot of notable wins and I think alot of hype comes from the undefeated record and the fact he went the distance with Lewis, Tyson, which is to be respected.

But when you delve into Tucker's resume in regards to top wins there isn't much there of note to be quite honest.

I've said this often before but I'd compare Tucker to Bugner two big men who were on the defensive side who were both durable and who are mostly known for going the distance against popular fighters in losing efforts.

 

I don't really think that there were many fighters he could've faced before his first retirement that would've made a difference in his legacy. The only scalps he missed out on were Tate, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Thomas, and Bruno- And he faced and beat men superior to every one of them, Berbick went on to beat half this list but he isn't valued as a high win.