top 5 Heavy/Achievement

If Ali was a 3 time champion, then Holyfield was a 4 time champion. When Ali beat Foreman, he only won ONE belt. When he beat Spinks in the rematch, he only won ONE belt-the other had been given to Norton.

 

No he didn't. The opponents he met in the 60's were mostly overhyped or over the hill. The 70's heavyweights are over rated. The early 90's featured the best heavyweights of the 20th century.

 

Not at all. It's a legitimate critique that he never even tried to unify the title. Plus, he gave away the WBC belt rather than face their mandatory challenger.

 

The Marvis Frazier fight was a non-title bout.

 

Actually, all of the above.

 

Sorry-mistake

 

Will somebody teach torchkit the difference between world champion and merely holding an alphabelt? I have to go to bed. I got work tomorrow. It will have to suffice to say that Ali was three-time world heavyweight champion. Holyfield was two-time world champion. Ali won the championship from Liston, Foreman, and Spinks. Holyfield won the championship from Douglas and Bowe.

If Marvis Frazier had (and the universe would have to be different for this to have happened) defeated Larry Holmes, then Frazier would have been the world heavyweight champion. Unless it is an exhibition, whenever the heavyweight champion fights, his championship is on the line, no exceptions.

 

You're obviously one of those "linear champion" afficianados. There's no other way you can credit Ali with 3 championship reigns while denying Holyfield his 4. Also, since Holmes/Frazier was not sanctioned by the IBF and was only scheduled for 10 rounds, the only "championship" that could have changed hands was the ethereal and spurious "linear" version.

 

You fellows know a lot more about Holmes' competition than I do, but I did look up the Ring Magazine ratings from 1979 to 1985. Seven men were rated #1 or #2 contenders. Of these, Holmes fought two--Weaver and Cooney--and did not fight five--Tate, Coetzee, Dokes, Page, and Thomas. Not that good, I think. Nor were all of them that inconsistent. Thomas did not lose at all while Holmes was champion. Dokes lost only the one fight to Coetzee between 1976 and 1989, a thirteen year run.

In contrast, 14 men were rated #1 or #2 contenders between 1938 and 1948. Of these, Joe Louis defended against 9 and did not fight five while champion. Of these five, he fought two, Charles and Bivins, in his comeback. He did not fight Lem Franklin, Melio Bettina, or Elmer Ray.

 

Nice analysis, Old Fogey,

but I think you'll find most on the forum have Louis ahead of Holmes, either at #1 or #2. I dont think there is any need to debate Louis legacy versus Holmes, as you did. Louis is better and thats pretty much the end of it.

We should focus the Holmes era debate against the other 7 potential top10ers (i.e excepting Ali, Louis and Holmes).

Against these 'also-ran' guys, I suspect Holmes overall record stands scrutiny pretty well, in terms of a combo formula of # defences, qualiy of opposition, ranking of opposition at time of fight etc...

Also, earlier in this thread I noticed a lot of talk about Pattersons blow outs against Liston. They were big dramatic losses and rightly count against him. That is why most on the forum have him outside the top10 (although I have him scraped in at 10 for the moment).

But, it is interesting to me that Lennox Lewis has two blow outs equally as awful, yet he routinely gets ranked as high as #3 all time. On top of this, his blow outs were not against a prime Liston, one of the hardest hitters of all time and a consensus ATG, but Rahman and McCall. To me it is an interesting comparison...How do we compare Lewis's and Pattersons blow outs? Whose were worse? How does it effect their standinfg relative to each other??

 

The post I answered claimed Holmes as fighting tougher competition than Louis.
Of the other champions, I can analyze Marciano. Eight men were ranked either #1 or #2 contenders between the time Marciano won the title and the end of 1955. Marciano did not fight two of them--Valdes and Baker. He fought five--Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore--in title defenses. The eighth, Layne, he had knocked out in 1951 and Layne lost to LaStarza and Charles in 1953 and thus lost his high ranking.
On Patterson--After all, the blowouts by Liston are not his only defeats. He was also blown out by Johansson in their first fight and beaten badly by Ali. He was also edged by Maxim, Quarry, and Ellis. It was not like he was totally dominant other than for Liston.
Lewis was dominant other than his two defeats.

 

Fair enough,

I concede that Lewis has a MUCH more solid record on paper than little Floyd. But the story doesnt quite end there. After all there are lies, damn lies etc...

I think a closer analysis of their two careers brings them somewhat closer together than others on the forum would have it. I am writing this because LL is considered top5 or even 3, whereas Patterson struggles to make top20. I dont think this is reasonable.

I wanted to align Pattersons 2 most notable losses with Lewis's two losses as a stand alone comparison. I think that Pattersons are MUCH more excusable given the opposition. There is no comparison between 1962/63 Liston and McCall and Rahman.

Also, Johansson was a known banger and that particular loss was avenged twice. The first vengeance including the supreme left hook of twitching foot fame. Surely one of the greatest return match comebacks ever?

Two other losses came to '65 and '72 Ali who beats everyone else in the top10 save arguably Frazier and Louis? I mean, what would have happened if LL had faced both '65 and '72 Ali, seven years apart in his career (say '92 and '99)?

As for the Maxim loss, it was highly debatable. ALL ELEVEN newspaper correpondents scored the fight for 19 year old Patterson. Interesting to compare this to Lewis's fight with Mercer, which could easily have been scored in Mercers favour although I know that it wasnt...

Of course Patterson has two more less excusable (points) losses to Quarry and Ellis. But then again, LL never faced the 3 top guys in his era when it mattered, the early 90s. I would bet he would rake up at least 1 more loss against those 3, and if he faced each twice. hmmmm - maybe a couple more losses.

Come on fellas, give little Floyd some more respect.

Four of his fights were '62 Liston, '63 Liston, '65 Ali and '72 Ali. How many other TOP20 HWs would score 0-4 against that lineup? A lot!

 

Lennox lewis avenged both of his defeats in emphatic form,and defeated every man he faced...He also was bigger,more powerful,beat very good opposition in his title runs,was dominant and got knocked down a lot less than patterson.....Really there is no comparison with LL and patterson,maybe p4p but not head to head or at heavy....Patterson should have been a cruiser...
Could anyone ever see patterson avenging liston yikes atsch .) or some of his other heavyweight defeats?????

 

Holmes gets credit for his consistency, albeit against rather weak opposition.

That's a nice way to say it.

Another way to say it, would be: "Holmes dropped his WBC belt and was gifted the IBF belt".

Yet another way to say it would be "Holmes didn't want to fight his mandatory, Greg Page, and would rather be stripped and beltless in a time when the IBF belt meant just as much as the IBO belt does today - nothing".

No one denies that Holmes was more consistent than his other potential opponents, with the exception of Thomas and perhaps Dokes.
But him not fighting 4 very deserving challengers (Thomas, Page, Dokes, Coetzee), dropping the at time ONLY recognised belt to avoid one plus ducking the rematch every single close fight he had (Norton, Weaver, Witherspoon and Williams) is a bit too much.

Whether or not the challengers he ducked could remain consistent after they missed their title shot is completely irrelevant. You think Holmes was going around saying "well, Page is the most deserving challenger now, but i'm going to fight Marvis Frazier next... what? No, not Joe, Marvis. He's undefeated in all of his ten fights! ...I'm not going to Page because he's about to lose to Witherspoon.... yes, the guy who i'm not going to give a well-earnt rematch".
At least that would be classier than "I aint fighting no coke addicts" (referring to Thomas).

All champions had some cannon fodder, but Holmes was drowning in it.

You can go on lengths on how they were undefeated, but in reality, all that meant is that they didn't fight anyone with a pulse and were very inexperienced. Holmes was more consistent than anyone around, but how much does that mean if he's not fighting the toughest challengers around while they are fighting each other and as a result of that, losing some?
I think Holmes could've beaten most of them, but he never proved it in the ring and that bothers me.