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

On paper, not objectively. As I have explained.

By your reasoning Berbick did better objectively against Ali than Frazier.

 

Berbick did do objectively better against Ali than Frazier.

Holmes wasn’t supposed to do better than Lewis, objectively. He was old.

And I correct myself. Lewis went 4-1 and Holmes went 1-3. I forgot that Tyson laid out Holmes.

 

Yeah but when Mike Tyson beat Berbick, you don't give him credit for doing so in 2 rounds!!!!

 

You and I have a different definition of objectively, it seems.

Or at least the confines of it.

I'd say that Frazier objectively won against a much younger and much, much, much better version of Ali.

Just as I'd say that Holmes was objectively older for all the common opponents they faced, much so in most cases, that he he faced much declined version of Holy and Tyson and that the only time Lewis beat McCall, McCall was in such a state that he had no business being in a pro fight.

I'll leave it at that.

 

You don’t seem to understand the definition.

 

I expanded a bit:

"You and I have a different definition of objectively, it seems.

Or at least the confines of it.

I'd say that Frazier objectively won against a much younger and much, much, much better version of Ali.

Just as I'd say that Holmes was objectively older for all the common opponents they faced, much so in most cases, that he he faced much declined version of Holy and Tyson and that the only time Lewis beat McCall, McCall was in such a state that he had no business being in a pro fight.

I'll leave it at that."

 

4-1 is objectively much better than 1-3. No qualifiers needed.

 

Did he openly say he wouldn't be fighting them tho?

He dropped the title and skipped Page prior to a Witherspoon rematch and Thomas bout. Hindsight is wonderful but Page at that time was considered a likely heir apparent. Holmes declined to fight him for over $3mil and told the WBC to shove their title.

Opening odds when Holmes was ordered to fight Page had Holmes an 8-5 favorite. Holmes was 6-1 fave over Witherspoon. I think they wouldn't post odds on Frank. He was 4-1 over Frazier. They wouldn't post win/loss odds against Bonecrusher and instead bet on whether he would last 7 rounds. 4-1 over Bey. Williams was a 6 1/2 - 1 underdog. Spinks was a 6-1 underdog. So Page at 8-5 was considered at the time of signing (and the fight was actually signed) was considered a far far tougher challenge. Witherspoon too would have been far shorter than his first fight odds and i'd say Thomas would have been a 7-5 underdog or very very similar. The above is exactly how things stood at the time.

At some point it becomes about championship pride and honor. The comments made and actions thereafter taken post Witherspoon are part of his reign that comes into consideration.

This fits into my comments above. He may have also lost one of the above fights and some certainly would have been HARD.

Again it's about the expectations of an ATG. Guys like Hagler, Arguello, Monzon and others set the standard. Look at Hagler, he was taking on all comers and the most dangerous when he full well knew he was slipping and getting prone to cuts. Many others gladly gave rematches of tough championship fights to make sure the public full well realised who was the better man. Look at the immense criticism and certainly at times hate Leonard gets for not rematching Hearns earlier than he did and also Hagler.

Neither were anything like world beaters either. Williams had glass in his chin against decent punchers and Bonecrusher was extremely limited. Bruno who you oft criticize heavily was winning easily in their bout before dropping in the last stanza and even Smith said he was shocked he got him.

A funny story on the Holmes - Williams match that not many know. They were showing Holmes tapes and selecting an upcoming opponent. Williams had just fought Tillis and on went the tape. The light hitting Tillis dropped Williams twice in the first rounds with right hands ( one of Holmes signature punches) and had him in all sorts of trouble. Holmes said he'd seen enough and the match was made. As the story said he should have watched the next 9 rounds as Williams put a jabbing and boxing clinic on Tillis.

But given your penchant toward hindsight above regarding Page, Thomas et al it should be noted that a fading Weaver pole axed Williams in 2 rounds not long after the Holmes fight and Tyson decimated him in half a round.

He claimed he would fight Page for bigger money but not for King. It was never going to happen without King. If you have any proof he said he would fight Witherspoon again and Thomas for big money I'd love to see it. The Coetzee offer wasn't big it was insane and worth far far more than his value as a fighter of course. It was also too good to be true.

Ali isn't remotely in the league of Larry tho. He beat the best two contenders in 76 for heavens sake right after Manilla. He was going easy fight, tough fight for a short while and then it was over.

Even with the above said Holmes is an automatic top 10 Heavyweight both resume wise and H2H of course. There is a little bit more room to maneuver than some seem to think however. Matt's lists are some of the best researched you will ever see and extremely respectable and he slotted Larry in at #7 and from memory Lewis at #4 or #5 but i can't find it online nowadays. The bottom line is that you can absolutely argue Lewis ahead of Holmes and you can also for sure argue the other way.

 

Actually I do give Tyson credit for what he did to Berbick. I think everyone does. That's one of his best performances, maybe his best win.

 

I don't know. I don't know what he said about Ruiz or Byrd. I don't know what he said about Mercer rematch.
It doesn't matter much.
I agree that Holmes openly said he wouldn't fight some of those guys unless the money was huge, from about 1983 onwards. But ultimately I have to rank them on what they did, not what they did or didn't say.
I look at Holmes compared to his era, and conclude he faced a substantial number of the relevant fighters, and performed well doing so, for years.

 

Williams wasn't great, and nor was Holmes's performance against him. But Holmes also lost to Spinks the following fight.
I don't dispute that he was looking for easier fights at this point in his career.
We're talking about the final stages of his reign.

Yes, but 1976 he needed debatable decisions to retain his title against Young and Norton, and didn't give them rematches after.
At the end of 1976 the RING ratings had the contenders:
1. Foreman
2. Norton
3. Young
4. Bobick
5. Lyle

Norton and Young deserved rematches, Foreman had earned a shot too .... Ali went and fought Evangelista, Shavers and Leon Spinks instead.

I've timestamped the interview below where Ali is questioned about fighting Ken Norton again by a caller to the Donahue show in 1977 :

This content is protected

Sounds very much like what Larry Holmes was saying post-1983.
Of course, Ali isn't "as bad as" Holmes in this regard, primarily because we rate his previous achievements higher than Holmes's. But Ali is the gold standard, more or less. And he is openly using the same rationale as Holmes did later on.

 

If I remember rightly, off the top of my head ....
Monzon refused to fight Rodrigo Valdes and was stripped by the WBC in 1974, then eventually faced Valdes 2 years later, sometime after Valdes had suffered a hand injury in a car accident.
Hagler did not fight at all for 13 months between beating Mugabi and facing Leonard, and one or two deserving contenders were left on the shelf in the final two years of Hagler's reign and passed over for the undeserving Leonard. The WBA stripped Hagler for his refusal to fight Herol Graham.

Yes, if Holmes was worse, Holmes was worse. That's a reasonable call.
But I don't think Holmes was doing anything much different to what these "gold standard" ATGs did towards the end of their reigns.

 

I think you both make good points and have interesting viewpoints. Should one consider how champion conducted himself at the time or only look at what history shows us in hindsight? I tend to lean more in the direction of the latter, but see the former point as well.

Among the better fighters during his seven year reign. Holmes never faced (for whatever reason) Tate, Coetzee, Page, Dokes, Thomas or Tubbs, and never rematch Witherspoon or Williams. Lewis had a longer time at or near the top, but never faced (for whatever reason) Bowe, Moorer, Foreman, Seldon, Ike, Bean, Byrd, Ruiz or Wlad, and never rematched Mercer and his rematch with McCall unfortunately doesn't tell us more than that McCall was a wreck at the time. Both lost a belt for not facing a mandatory.

So Lewis missed out on more and better top opponents, but he was also at or near the top for longer and during a stronger era. On the other hand he only beat a one of the the five best fighters of that era while the fighter was in his prime (that was a hell of a win, though) and he lost while still at a prime age.

 

A point needs to be made on this.

Holmes held one title, the WBC belt. He had held it for half a decade and let it go when he refused to fight his mandatory against Page.

Lewis regained his WBC title when he beat McCall in a rematch. He then defended it 4 times. He then gained all the belts when he came out victorious against Holyfield.

He had to answer to not 1 but 3 organisations. Well 4 if one counts the IBO. The WBA was demanding he fight Akinwande straight up, a guy he had beaten just 2 years prior. Akinwande however was injured so they changed and said he had to fight Ruiz. He fought Grant. The WBA voted to let it go but Don King and his corruption became involved and influenced to the point of where Lewis was stripped.

Lewis then defended the trio of belts for 4 fights before losing them to Rahman and instantly regaining them.

Lewis actually vacated the IBF title by not fighting the IBF mandatory in Chris Byrd and instead facing number #1 WBC contender in Vitali.

To sum up Lewis was having to sing to the tune of multiple organisations (vs just 1 for Holmes) and he actually fought a tougher guy in Vitali rather than going the weaker road per the IBF. He also still held multiple titles after dropping them vs Holmes who had no title at the time he was stripped by the WBC.

 

None of these alphabet organizations are worth much at all.
Both Lewis and Holmes benefited from the organizations stripping others of recognition, and both were stripped or vacated by the organizations in turn.

To be fair to Holmes and the IBF, they were sanctioning 15 round fights after the WBC switched to 12.