Who do rate higher P4P Canelo Alvarez or Larry Holmes?

Because you're super thirsty to fight but weary of giving me anything to argue about? I dunno bro, you quoted me then started being withholding.

How is it, in your mind, my job to lead this debate when you took issue with my stance and I took none with yours?

 

I'm not super thirsty to argue.

Let's just start again.

Both guys are/were great.

So let's compare their skills, resumes, wins, achievements and longevity etc.

It will be an interesting debate.

 

Canelo is 23-2-1 in title fights across four divisions, unified 2 belts at 154, 3 belts at 160, and 4 belts at 168. And the loses were to Floyd and Bivol, not an easy night's work.

This is so obviously better than what Holmes did thar there's no point in listing Holmes' accomplishments.

 

you're probably going to just be frustrated with me.


I'm not going to define those terms the way you are used to and that might be frustrating for you.

Skills is not part of how I weigh boxers because skills is eye of the beholder and I try to do away with debatable elements. Or rather, take myself out of debate entirely. Was Marciano skilled or a brute? That's a debate that has raged since he was active. Skills are debatable.

Resume and wins is a bit like when you posted context and circumstance at me. I don't see the difference or rather I'd need you to tell me why those are different. That said, I'm just going to stab a guess here and assume you mean rated by TBRB and Ring opposition. Frustratingly, and I promise you can check my post history, I am not just messing with you, I have been consistent; I respect the sanctioning bodies and actively disrespect the popularity contest youse lot call "real" ratings. Mandatories, Volunteers, top rated opposition rated by the body whose belt you carry along with ducking causing stripping is the only rating I actually care about. Let me know when Ring strips a champion for failing to fight a mando. That's the day I give any shits about Ring rating. If resume simply means the names that give you or myself feels, nah, don't care.

Achievement, I'm going to guess I put WAY more into it than you do. This is the meat and potatoes of the stance. Undisputed ****ing matters. Undisputed >Unified>Single>Lineal. Did not achieve means did not achieve. Larry chose to work the fans, and get paid, rather than achieving what his idols had. Larry compared himself to Rocky despite Larry only having a section of Marciano's belt and fans cosigned that. I don't. He held a portion of the title. His time in position, his defenses, his rated opposition, all of that SHOULD be lesser than a single undisputed defense. Something we have not seen at HW since 1992. Larry never proved he was the best of his era, he lacks the title that is the proof. That's the point of it. Lineal is not. Singles are not. Unified implies there's more to gather and by way of gathering; prove.

Longevity, honestly I do not know how to handle it. Canelo is active. I doubt Canelo stays as long as Lar did. Then again I doubt Canelo stacks old man losses as high. Bit of a wash imo.

 

Really can't decide. Canelo has faced better opposition, but has taken two Ls and one D against them and several of his best wins on paper are close and controversial. Too bad he never faced Beterbiev at 168, because a win over him would have cemented him as an ATG at 168. As it is now he hasn't truly dominated a division he's been in. His best non-controversial win is probably Jacobs, and that was a good one but not great.

On the other hand, there are question marks over Holmes domination at HW also. Post '82 he just didn't face that good opp, and when he did it was close. 78-82, yes, but the Norton win was also close and Weaver was pretty much a journeyman when he beat him, so it's a question of how much credit that win is worth. And I think that was a weak era. A bit of transition between the strong mid 70's and the many talents that started with boxing during one of its absolute golden eras in terms of exposure - i e Dokes, Page, 'Spoon, Thomas, Tubbs etc.

 

Canelo is a twenty one year pro. Larry doesn't even have longevity on him.

 

Beterbiev could never make 168. Maybe you meant Benavidez.

 

Holmes beating Weaver in '81, and becoming undisputed, would be quite similar to Usyk beating Dubois now. Good to see them repeat it when the guy in question actually has some live bodies on his resume, but not that dramatic.

Winning back his WBC title and also the WBA title in '84/'85 would be a significant legacy booster, though. That would certify his nr 3 spot at HW for me.

 

Well ****, I did not notice. GD man, getting old. I still think of Canelo is a kid.

 

Canelo beat; Austin Trout, Erislandy Lara, Miguel Cotto, Liam Smith, Gennady Golovkin x2, Daniel Jacobs, Sergey Kovalev, Callum Smith, Billy Joe Saunders, Caleb Plant, Jermell Charlo, Jaime Munguía

Holmes beat; Earnie Shavers x2, Ken Norton, Mike Weaver, Ossie Ocasio, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Gerry Cooney, Randall Cobb, Tim Witherspoon, Marvis Frazier, James Smith, Carl Williams, Ray Mercer

Looking at the list while Holmes might have few more wins I think Canelo's are way better Golovkin is the best fighter that either men beat even if he was faded as you say still a P4P great at that point and the rest of the wins I would say follow a similar pattern Canelo beat better fighters and beat them in multiple divisions including 3 undefeated champs in Smith, Saunders, and Plant which Holmes never did. Seems clear cut to me tbh

 

I can and I disagree. I don't really care about the undisputed in the era of so many belts. Let's wait for IBO to become a major body too. How we can compare undisputed with only 2 bodies to the undisputed with 4 and 5? That's why the lineal, even if inconsistent, is just more appealing to me.

I don't care Holmes didn't have the WBA belt. In 1980 he already beat the current holder (Weaver) and defeated the last guy who vacated it without losing it in the ring (Ali).

 

Loudon will just invoke the "in context" argument to come up with reasons why scraping by Carl Williams is better than beating GGG.

 

Larry makes it difficult for anyone to discredit, but at the same time I do think it is disrespectful to those who were undisputed to act like there is anything anyone can do other than hold the title to equal the status.

IMO Evander is greater than Lennox or Larry before resume is even considered. He defended undisputed. So while they may have resume, resume is nothing more than my feelings toward the fighters. Evander has status. A title that proves his superiority.