The ' Who did he beat' question

Its funny because in College football its exactly the opposite.

 

For all this, his best win was an almost 35 year old Norton...a lesser version of the fighter that was arguably Ali's sixth best win.

After that, a fall-off to talented but inconsistent Witherspoon. Beyond that, very beatable and oft beaten guys like Shavers, Cooney, Mercer, Berbick.

And there is the "he can only beat who is in front of him" argument, but of course, there was Page, Tubbs, Dokes. Coetzee, Thomas...some of which wanted to fight him.

I am not sure of your timeline with Thomas, but I had an old boxing magazine when he specifically said, when Thomas was champion, that he would only come back if they gave him guys he can beat (the context was no Thomas and no Williams rematch). Of course he openly ducked Page. I mean, there is just no way of getting around that fact that a champion bears some responsibility for pushing unification...Holmes subdivided the titles by accepting a belt from the gutter.

Holmes deserves some criticism for the mess that was the early 80s. At the end of the day, Norton, Witherspoon, ShaversX2, Cooney, Berbick, Weaver, Bonecrusher, Leon Spinks, and Mercer is a good, quality legacy...but not jaw dropping. The head to head argument that people make for him being the third or so best...sometimes the best ever...makes no sense at all in terms of who he actually beat.

 

I'm about to sleep, so I'll respond when I wake up, but tell me why you think his best win is a past it Norton. Norton was obviously on a decline, and Holmes was on the rise and about to reach his prime, so it doesn't entirely make sense that this match up is the one that's his best, when he faced much better opposition later on.

 

Wins against Tate, Dokes, Page, Thomas and a rematch win over Weaver in, say,1981 and he's probably a lock for top 3 in terms of resume, maybe even has an argument for top 2. Thomas would have been especially impressive, since Holmes was clearly slowing down at that point.

I'm not saying it's all his fault that these fights didn't happen, but they were top rated guys and are missing from his resume.

 

I agree Berbick gets underrated (you could make an argument that he was the best contender of the 80's and Holmes's best win), but you can can't do the he beat x who beat y who beat z, v and w and therefore he gets those wins as well. In that case Norton has wins by deduction over Liston, Frazier etc. And ST Gordon, who beat Berbick, has wins over Tate, Page, Bey and Thomas.

Styles, at what point you meet a certain fighter, how they have prepared for you etc will have bearing on these matters as well, so the only way to truly know is to settle it in the ring.

 

I had him 4th.

Theres a lot of guys Tucker fought who should have been doing more after Tucker fought them and they just didnt. In other eras your criticisms would go further but in this era Tucker stands out. He has the most excusable losses for the longest period.

 

In college football on the other hand where that constantly. Because everyone has a 0 or 1 loss record. The NFL has a playoff bracket that almost every good team will make. Theres no reason to grade teams like that because they are all making the tournament anyway.

 

When I see comparisons for college football and basketball teams for the playoff/NCAA Tournament, I always hear them discuss best wins. I don’t recall discussions around teams that should make it because their only loss is to Alabama (football) or UConn (basketball) without their win resume being included.

 

Coetzee did not whoop Thomas quite badly. As a matter of fact the only thing that saved him was Thomas being a little too respectful in the early rounds. It's one of the fairest draws in the history of boxing.

 

But this almost never trumps having less losses. At least not in football. I don't watch college basketball like that.

In college football a team with only 2 losses to the best would be rated very highly especially if everyone had less explainable losses.

 

At the time, for sure, but looking back, we can clearly see who the better men that Holmes fought were. In terms of his best 5 wins in his first career, I'd say something like-
Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon, Smith, Williams.

 

I saw what I saw.

 

NUMBER of losses is a different matter entirely. Nobody says a team with a 7-5 record in college football is a great team, or that beating them is a great win lol.

We’ve seen plenty of college football teams not get in the playoff or even be in serious contention for it with only one or two losses to good teams.

Louisville in 2004 lost only to ranked Miami (No. 3), beat no ranked teams. Nobody considered them a contender as they lost the only game on their schedule that mattered. UCF in 2013 lost only to ranked South Carolina (No. 12) and beat one ranked team. Nobody considered them a contender. Penn State last year lost only to Ohio State and Michigan in the regular season. Beat one ranked team. Nowhere near playoff consideration.

I just don’t see what you’re talking about. Teams with one loss might be compared head to head on ‘who did they lose to’ but equally ‘who did they beat.’

 

Most debates in the history of college football have been comparing teams with 1 loss on occasion 2. And in that comparison who the team in question lost to is usually the most important variable between teams with the same number of losses. It doesn't always decide the argument but its always discussed and matters a lot.

2004 had 3 undefeated P5 teams, 2 undefeated GO5 teams and 2 more with only 1 loss to one of the undefeated P5 schools. 2 loss Virginia Tech and Georgia with 2 losses were ranked above Louisville because 1 of their 2 losses were to said undefeated P5 schools. Also Miami didn't finish number 3 they finished with 3 losses.

Last year there were 7 schools with 1 loss or less why would a 2 loss Penn State have been considered?

College football has over 100 teams and 2-4 playoff spots until this year. A school being in contention depends how many deserving schools there are and their record. There are teams who were in the mix one year who wouldn't have been in other years and vice e versa. If theres 3-4 undefeated teams theres very little room for anyone else. But who a school lost to and how good a fight they put up is super relevant and it was relevant in the situations you described.

In any case the most important thing is the number of losses. And SOS will usually never top that unless the SOS is truly awful like 07 1 loss Kansas which was ranked behind 6 2 loss teams. Kansas kind of proved that wrong by beating the number 3 team in their bowl. FSU last year had bad competition too and an injured QB.