Who do rate higher P4P Canelo Alvarez or Larry Holmes?

He did beat guys who beat these guys tho. Thomas came along later stage of Holmes' career when he indeed was cherry picking. You can say he ducked Page, but then beat Bey who beat Page. He scheduled the fight with Coetzee (which was partially responsible for him not fighting Page) so hard to say he ducked him. Tate was a title holder for a short bit and there were no talks of the fight from Arum side, who wanted to hold to the WBA strap for his own fighter. Holmes also beat Weaver and Berbick who beat Tate. Dokes was a Don King fighter like Holmes was and Don didn't want his two best heavyweights to go at it. Nobody called for the rematch with Weaver nor Whiterspoon.

 

And?

We factor that into circumstances, along with many other factors.

We apply context.

Otherwise, we'd be rating Canelo over Ali and any other HW who only fought in the one division.

 

Single strapper, but had the lineage of the other belt twice over. Not to mention the real lineage.

 

Holmes.

 

You gave me **** all no direction there bud. Where TF else do I start but the beginning and where everyone agrees?

If you don't want to start with the simple stuff and can't be ****ed to tell me exactly where you got confused or whatever it is that got you to quote me, why are you even asking me to clarify?

That said, I'm going to continue the slow pace simple **** until you give more direction than "What are you talking about" and "We apply context"

Canelo is a 4 weight class champion with an undisputed title in one of those four

Holmes is a single strapper in a single division

Agreed?

 

Close one I think. Always hard to campare a one division fighter with a multiple division one.

Canelo has faced the ones who really matters with two exceptions across four divisions and only taken two Ls. On the other hand, Holmes only lost when he got old but he failed to ever meet the top contender at the time.

You can only get so far on "but he beat guys that would go on..." and "he beat a guy who beat the guy he didn't face". Actually beating your top opponents and doing it when they are top opponents matters.

 

What direction do you need?

We just use traditional ranking criteria, where we look at lots of relevant factors.


Yes, Canelo is a 4 weight champion.

Yes, Larry was a one weight champion.

We are comparing a JMW-LHW, with a HW.


So of course Canelo won more titles at more weights.

And??

It doesn't automatically mean that he was the better overall fighter who should rank higher.


Where do we start?

We start by looking at their overall ability, their resumes and their best wins.

That's where we start.


Then we can look at achievements, longevity and losses etc.


If we all be objective and we apply context, it will make for a great debate.

 

He's a lot closer to the point. Just saying.


You're talking about the title that goes back to Sullivan and Corbett, careers prior to ratings, but was handed to Wlad based on rating. Agreed?

I'm going to say it again, when a fighter we respect does not achieve an award we simply elevate them to the status anyway, and that devalues the status of award.

 

It is extremely hard to compare fighters from different weights.

Absolutely.

But we just have to try and be fair and objective.

We need to analyse their resumes and every other factor.

 

The concept of the title goes back to Sullivan and Corbett, but not the title that Holmes held, as the line was broken multiple times by that point. But he was the man who beat the man in Ali. Yes. Wlad became the lineal champion in my eyes because of his domination and defeating every top contender before and after his brother's retirement. He's the definition of the one and only champ.

I personally don't care about the belts. Holmes had the WBC belt by beating Top 3 HW on the planet at that time (Norton) and then he had 2 WBA holders in his resume (Ali & Weaver). He was clearly the man. Then he beat the best available heavyweight that he didn't beat in Cooney.

 

I did not quote you asking you to clarify anything. why are you asking me what direction I need? ... ... ... ... The source of your motivation for quoting me in the first place.

I can't even tell you if you're confused are just looking for an argument ... because you've said NOTHING to reveal the POINT of contention. FFS.


It's cute you believe you can tell me what to value. The short answer to that is no. Your eye test and what names on what records give you feels does not mean anything to me. That was the original point I made. I made, being key, you have yet to actually tell me if you got that and disagree with me or if you are still trying to understand the message in the first place.

 

What is wrong with you?

Seriously?

Why is it so hard to have a debate with you?


You mentioned that one was a multiple weight champion, where the other wasn't.

Yes, everybody knows that.


However:

1. That's just circumstances.

2. There's obviously LOTS of other factors to look at.


Compare their skill sets and their resumes/wins.

If you do that, it's very close.

 

It says everything we need to know that you've made two posts already that brought Ali into this.

Holmes never even beat a champion who was coming off a successful title defense.

 

The point was it's an inconsistent title whose very definition is debatable. It seems like every modern lineal champion comes with some new modern-lineal debate. Probably because you can go back in history for any precedence you need and claim it given exact opposites happen in lineal all the time.

I do not put that much weight into a title whose transfer can cause debate simply by bringing up exact dates for when Fury was champion.

Are the dates when Larry was WBC champion debatable?

Are the dates when Canelo held undisputed debatable?

But when Wlad became lineal? When Fury is lineal and when he's retired? Debatable. They honored Louis' retirement. Not Corbett's though. Honored Hart's selection, did not O'Donnel though. Super excellent title that I should care so, so much about I am willing to deseat undisputed? Bro, I can't tell you how to be but you can at least understand where I stand.