What will it take to dislodge Ali & Louis from 1&2?

The trouble is Holmes didn't face the best of his era (mainly in the second stanza). You yourself have conceded this (but not while arguing him ahead of Lewis of course) on previous occasions. Post Cobb (many say post Cooney but going in Cobb was a very rreasonable if not dangerous defense) he avoided all the very best competition. He stated this himself in interviews plain as day. For some reason he is given a free pass for it where as most champions would have been lamblasted. The old he beat the guys who beat the guys doesn't stand on various levels as he gave up his title to chase easier defenses and the other guys were actually fighting each other. There had to be losers.

That's the problem with Holmes reign. It was a decent era but he held the lineal title to ransom from the start of 83 until the Spinks loss which was 7 so called "defenses". Instead of chasing his legacy he chased an easier path to retirement.

It's surreal (and very disappointing) really because once he was inside that ring he had legendary courage and determination. A guy like Joe Louis chased the best and went right after rematches when he had a tough or controversial fight. By contrast Holmes kept clear of rematches which can be real legacy enhancers.

You yourself said "I think his failure to grant Witherspoon and Williams immediate rematches hurts his standing most." That's a fair assessment. You've also as i said conceded he avoided the tough matches later on including Thomas.

There's this post from you as well -

"I think the lack of a Carl Williams rematch in 1985 is even more damning to Holmes. Since by then, Holmes was being given a bit of free reign by his new sanctioning body, the IBF.
They would have been happy for him to fight anyone. And the Williams fight was highly controversial, 15 rounds, very close.

Any champion who has fights as close and as disputed as those should want to settle matters with an immediate rematch, or else retire."

And lastly this - "Thomas might well have been too much for a 35 year old Holmes. He was fit and strong with a great jab."

Holmes best win is probably Norton who was turning 35 and whose first two fights against Ali were some 5 years prior.

Titles were going everywhere weren't they. The top guys were fighting each other (well most of them) hell west and crooked.

Another comment of yours that is spot on - "But then again, with Weaver, Witherspoon and Williams, it's perhaps lucky for his legacy that those guys are considered quite a lot better now than they were thought of going in to the fight.
Especially Weaver and Witherspoon, who often get listed among his best wins and in the top 5 HWs of the entire era."

While it's not absolutely everything in this case it is very important to note reputations and standings going into the fights.

Oh come on. The people very much wanted to see a fight against Thomas and they were very very keen to see how an aging Holmes went against Page who was more highly regarded than Witherspoon who had just run Larry extremely close. The talk was he was ready to fall and it's obvious from here on he became vulnerable but he didn't fight the more dangerous guys to show just how vulnerable. He may well have got past them but he may well not have to. Free passes can't be given out.

Unbeknownst to most Holmes not to long before Spinks had tried to pitch rematches against Marvis Frazier and Gerry Cooney. Cooney had a couple of fights just prior and Marvis had axed David Starkey 5-7-0.

That's my problem with Holmes reign. There's no way on mother earth he'd topple Ali or Louis for the top spots. Even given all the above i think it's fair to rank him as high as #3 but i'm certainly not going to come down on anyone putting him in the bottom of the 10 either. I have him around #4 to #7 depending.

I truly wish he'd chased that legacy. Even if he had a close loss to a Page or Thomas and retired i would have excused that to a large extent and if he'd won over these two and say a Witherspoon rematch i'd have to look very closely at that #2 spot and make some assessments.

 

The Big Dog.

 

All things considered, as I wrote, I think he did.

 

That's all true.
But look at the fighters he "missed" in 1983-'85. They weren't much better than the "easier path" that he actually took.
Witherspoon rematch and Pinklon Thomas (whose reign only overlapped with Holmes's by 12 months anyway). That's it.
Holmes did agree to fight Coetzee in 1984 for the WBA, that should perhaps be acknowledged. But it fell through.

He ducked Greg Page and then Page went and lost to Witherspoon and Bey, got a win against Coetzee and then lost to Tubbs, Douglas ..... 4 losses in his next 5 fights within 2 1/2 years of being ducked by Holmes.
With historical hindsight, it's impossible not to consider that Holmes perhaps should have ducked some of the "easy ones" and fought some of those tough ones he "ducked" !
It turns out Bonecrusher Smith was no easy bum, a big hard-hitting guy (with a name like that, who would have thought it) ... Carl "The Truth" Williams was no easy bum.

I agree that he was steering clear of the more seasoned top fighters and he said so, he also said he was willing to fight them only if the money was big. That's why he signed to fight Coetzee, the offer was big.

i don't give Holmes a pass but I don't think it matters too much.
Lots of great fighters did similar things towards the end of their reigns, and increased their pay demands to take on the best challengers. Muhammad Ali was doing it even, in the post-Manila days.

 

I also don't think Holmes should be ranked above Ali or Louis, and there might be a couple of others I'd put above him too. George Foreman, very possibly, for example.

I think the main weakness with Holmes's opposition is the amount of "novice" types he faced when he was in his prime, meaning fighters with 15 fights or so, sometimes less. On the plus side, a lot of those guys were strong, young and ambitious and fought above what would be expected at their experience-level, but Holmes did enjoy an unusually high advantage in experience in a lot of those fights.

 

Ocasio actually had 5 more fights at heavyweight after that including two back to back against a young Dokes. It was 3 years later he dropped to cruiserweight.

 

That's true.
He went to cruiserweight in 1982 and then back to heavyweight in 1988 (where contenders and up-and-comers, including Lewis and Mercer, beat him by decision on their way up).

 

Yeah it was a bad run at the end.

 

He was well into his 30s at that point, to be fair. Looking for paydays I guess, but never disgraced himself. Cagey, crafty kind of fighter. Even when he was 13-0 against Holmes he seemed to know a fair bit about the craft of boxing. Just a bit on the small side with no real HW power.

 

The first half of the 80s was musical chairs. You can't say this guy beat that guy because it's true for all of them.

Thomas made it onto pfp lists and Dokes was top 3 for three straight years. There are a lot of guys who I listed who wouldve been good challenges, but Holmes was busy fighting guys like Evangelista and Frank. I couldn't care less if Holmes beat washed up versions of Leon and Ali.

Lewis did a better job of fighting everyone. He only really missed Ike, who went crazy, Byrd, who I don't think had any chance, and Bowe, who refused the fight. Tyson was still top 3 when that fight happened. He also wiped of a list of "heir apparent" types and avenged his loses.

Morever, I don't get the sense that Lewis was looking for soft touches like I do with Hiopmes.

 

Holmes lost to Holyfield.

Lewis beat him.

There's no way he did better.

 

Except Holmes. Holmes wasn't playing musical chairs. He was winning and was almost ten years older than most of them.
I think it is relevant that Berbick (who Holmes absolutely schooled) beat Tate, Page and Thomas when they were undefeated. Those are 3 guys who people say Holmes 'needs' on his resume (Page and Thomas especially), but Berbick beat all three and no one even rates Berbick very highly.
I think it is relevant Holmes beat Berbick, Witherspoon, Bey ... and Page lost to them.
Make up your own mind what it means.

I think it's fine to say Holmes didn't fight the best available opponent at every opportunity, and a couple of them at certain stages would have been tough fights that he could have lost. But when you view the big picture, Holmes is clearly the dominant figure of the era.

 

You couldn't care less if Holmes beat washed up Leon Spinks, but Spinks deserved to be ranked in the top 5.
Ring magazine had him ranked #3 contender at end of 1980 (behind Weaver and Cooney).
Holmes beat Leon in June 1981. (Weaver he had defeated in 1979, Cooney he beat in 1982).

You name "Ike, Byrd and Bowe" and you give reasons why Lewis didn't fight them, but if I did it with Holmes you'd say I was making excuses.
Holmes did sign to fight Coetzee, for example.

What I see people doing with Holmes often is finding names of HWs who might have been the rival champ for a short time, and ranked for several years, noting Holmes didn't face them, and saying he "missed big fights".

I could do the same with Lennox Lewis.
For example, take Michael Moorer.
On the Ring magazine end of year ratings, Moorer features in the top 10 HWs for eight consecutive years. (1991-'98)
For seven of those eight years, he's ranked in the top five.
At the end of 1991, Ring magazine had Moorer at #10, and Lewis at #9.
For the next seven years, Ring has them both in the top five. Year after year.
But no one makes much of an issue of Lewis "missing Moorer".
Yet Holmes takes a lot of flak for a 'missing' a few guys who flittered around the rankings for far less lengthy periods, towards the end of his reign.

No one makes much of an issue of Lewis "missing Wladimir Klitschko" either, but Ring has Wlad ranked #1 at end of 2001, through end of 2002.
But Holmes "missing Thomas" is made a huge issue.

I don't think people are being consistent.

 

Ancient Holmes lost to prime Holy in a fairly competitive fight and prime Lewis beat old and shopworn Holy in a fairly competitive fight (at least the rematch - the first was actually more comfortsble for Lewis) . That's true.

It's also true that ancient Holmes did better against Mercer and a mentally healthy McCall than prime Lewis did (his win against a mentally collapsed McCall unfortunately doesn't mean much).


That's the whole pictures.

 

4-1 compared to 1-3. Lewis did better objectively.