Top 10 HW of the 70s

I said in the disclaimer I have Holmes 7th if hes counted in the 70s which I choose not to do because he only pops up at the end.

You know I have Foreman as the HW GOAT but I'm open to putting Ali number 1 if we're talking just the 70s resume.

I used to have Frazier over Norton and changed my mind.

Lyle over Quarry would be a no brainer if not for the H2H. And I'm honestly befuddled how befuddled some are about that.

 

Why would Holmes not be counted in the 1970s ?

Holmes turned pro in 1973 which is well into the decade.

Holmes went 32-0 in the 1970s.

Holmes won 5 World title fights in the 1970s which is joint 2nd with the most world title wins in that decade along with Frazier.

Holmes also beat two fighters who you rank in the top 10 for the 1970s.

 

Ali's notable wins in the 70s

Foreman
Frazier
Frazier
Norton
Norton
Quarry
Patterson
Bonaveno
Shavers
Young
Lyle
Spinks



Foreman's notable wins in the 70s

Joe Frazier
Joe Frazier
Ken Norton
Ron Lyle


It doesn't appear close.

 

Laughed out loud at this.

 

Holmes was born the same year as Foreman yet turned pro when Foreman was champ. I feel in that case I can hold someones age against them.

And the rest of my top 10 list fought at least half my top 10 list. So only fighting two makes it very hard to compare. If he fought 1 and 2 thats one thing but he barely beat 3 and beat 7 twice.

But if you read the disclaimer I said if I had to rank him he'd be 7th. Right above Shavers. Holmes is not getting above Foreman, Ali, Norton, Frazier, Young and Lyle in this era because he won a belt at the end of the decade without fighting most of them. They mostly fought each other.

I respect Holmes early title defenses by the way I actually have Weaver as his worst 70s title opponent But winning the title doesn't put him on a pedestal over these guys any more than it does Leon Spinks.

 

I don't see what has to do with ranking Holmes in the 70s though ? Holmes didn't have a successful Amateur career and needed more time to develop as a professional. Holmes started boxing at 18 and turned professional at age 24 that's quite a late start to boxing.

But where they all as successful ? for example looking at your top 10 list you have Ellis there who has 0 wins against anyone in your top 10 and who wasn't really a factor in the 70s fighting up until only 1975 with a record of 13-7.

But somehow you think Ellis warrants being in the top 10 and not Holmes ? do you realize what you're saying makes no sense at all ? Holmes was a world champion and won 5 world title fights and beat two of the top 10 fighters in your list. And also fought in more of the decade than Ellis did with much more success not losing a single fight.

But just fighting good opponents doesn't mean you necessarily rank higher it depends on your success. Young for example had a better single win over Foreman which was a very good win, but he followed that up with losing 4 fights at the end of the decade. Holmes also beat 3 fighters who held wins over Young aka Norton, Ocasio, Shavers. So i think Holmes's better record, becoming world champion, multiple world championship wins, ranks him above the likes of Young, Lyle, Norton.

Spinks was a flash in the pan i can't comprehend how you think Spinks is comparable to Holmes.

 

I said if I included Holmes in my ranking he'd be 7th above Shavers......and Ellis. I only rate fighters in multiple decades if they were relevant for a certain amount of time in the decade. Think of it like stats where you need a certain amount of appearences to qualify.

That timeline led to him being undefeated and running into a division where the 70s guys were all gone or leaving. Going into the Spinks fight Holmes was 48-0 with so many title defenses its something thats fair to hold against him if you're going to hold lack of world title wins against the other fighters.

Spinks wasn't comarable to Holmes it was an example.

Truth be told the fairest way to do these rankings would be to organize them by debut year but then you'd end up with Moore in the 30s Foreman in the 60s etc. Sorting fighters into decades is a pain because fighters careers don't neatly fit.

 

But again it makes 0 sense why Holmes would not be included.....Holmes was a bigger part of the era than someone like Ellis.

Ellis went 13-7 in the 70s and only fought up until 1975 with 0 wins against any top 10 fighters in the 70s.

Holmes turned professional in 1973 and become a champion in 1978.

So Holmes fought for 7 years in the 70s had the 2nd most title defences in the 70s had over 30 professional fights in the 70s has 2 very significant wins over 2 of the top 10 fighters in the 70s.

But yet you think Ellis was more relevant in the era than Holmes was....

I'm done with this conversation this is ridiculous if anyone is reading this please explain it to me because how does any of this make sense ?

 

Lots of real fine lists well here is mine
1. Ali
2. Foreman
3. Frazier
4. Norton
5. Lyle
6.Shavers
7.Holmes
8. Young
9. Quarry
10. Bugner

 

Wait dont forget he fought Young! oh..wait... And what did Ali do to young again?