Who do rate higher P4P Canelo Alvarez or Larry Holmes?

That's fair bud. I struggle to see the IBF or WBO as more than just parts of the WBA.

 

I don't put as much stock in undisputed as you do. It makes no difference to me that Usyk hasn't defended undisputed. Beating Dubois again would to a certain degree, though.

For me it weighs heavier that there wasn't really any time during his HW career that Holy clearly was the best. I'd say Holmes clearly was 78-82, but a second win against weaver would have put it beyond any doubt. Canelo also has this problem for me. He was quite possibly the best at both MW and SMW, but never clearly.

 

And at the end of the day, undisputed title is still a consensus title, not something set in stone. Lennox Lewis was the undisputed champion holding WBC, WBA & IBF. But WBO was out there, Vitali Klitschko was the title holder. WBO was of course lightly regarded at that time, so the consensus was, Lewis was undisputed anyway. The consensus changed in 2007 and from then you needed to have 4 belts to be undisputed. But it's still just that - an opinion of the public about the status of the sanctioning body. We have the IBO now that is lightly regarded, but who knows, maybe in 10 years the consensus will change and you will need 5 of these belts to be undisputed. Then the difficulty of collecting every belt will increase, making this even more about boxing politics. The greats like Manny or Floyd were never undisputed (Manny was never unified) in their weight classes, but they were considered rightful champions in at least 4 of them.

 

Yes, any notion that Usyk stopped being champion when he rematched Fury instead of Dubois is downright silliness. And of course Holmes was the champion after beating Norton, Weaver and Ali.

 

Beating Ali means nothing given how shot Ali was. Crazy for anyone to claim otherwise.

And Weaver soon lost to Dokes which would mean Holmes soon had a co champ he hadn't beaten

 

I look at it like this: he had a claim to the championship after Weaver beat Tate, became the champion by beating Ali and solidified his status by beating Cooney. Kinda similar to Ezzard Charles as he didn't have one crowning moment as well.

 

Well, like I said, the IBF and WBO are just portions of the WBA. The WBA and WBC both have roots to regional bodies from before a time when there was world bodies. Until an actual new entity, like the IBO, gets granted recognition, imo, consensus is not the driver, history is.

When some modern title with no ties to the beginning of sanctioning bodies is granted equality by those who do have ties to the beginning I will no longer care about body belts. But until then, there is no real linkage between Oleksandr Usyk and John L Sullivan. There is, however, linkage between Usyk and Langford. Langford may not have ever held the most respected title, but he did bank a ton of early body titles. Those bodies would hand over world claims to the WBC who now represents bodies like the national sporting club on the world level. That's why an EBU title gets you a WBC rating regardless of who you are. Also, I believe in that mechanism, regardless of who you are is super important to anything claiming to be a sport. So, in the lineage, if you like, of the WBC one can go beyond the history of the WBC for modern representation of very early titles. The WBA is cut off at the NBA but the NBA is still really early. The IBF and WBO share the exact same early history as the WBA and only has its own distinction by the 80s.

I do not need consensus to link Usyk to Dempsey. I do not need consensus to link Usyk to Langford. All I have to do is tell someone who questions it the history of the titles. My being right or wrong about that isn't a matter of opinion it is a matter of history. Either the FBF called Langford HW champion of the world or they didn't. If they did and we can agree the historians who cite that are not lying or making stuff up (It happens! It could even be the case!) then you need only look at my super exhaustive history of the bodies thread to see what the FBF's modern claims to world championships look like. Handed over to the EBU who handed it to the WBC.



Lastly, I do not think the bodies recognize one another happily. I'm pretty sure it is a begrudgingly situation.

 

I feel so popular!

I apologize if I miss someone. There's a lot of responses and it is working hours where I live. ... I'm working. If it's super important you get a response out of me just quote me or notify me again.

 

It doesn't do much for his legacy, but beating the last lineal champion strengthens case for lineage, I'd say.

But let put it this way, Holmes had beaten the guys he needed to in order to become champion. If you think Ali was surplus to requirements, fine, but it's true in either case. I can agree that Norton and Weaver is enough, but beating the lineal is the cherry on top.

 

I just don't really like the HWs tbh. Too slow for my tastes and they're mythologised to the point that you can get drawn into arguments spanning across pages over asinine things like whether Marciano's win over Moore should be rated above Holyfield's win over Moorer or something along those lines. I much prefer watching little men box than I do watching big men box.

 

Holmes was very well-paid in both instances though remember, whereas the challengers who wanted to usurp him near the end of his first reign weren't anywhere close to the box-office sensation that Mike was, nor even as popular as Evander. Politics ofc got in the way of those fights happening but let's not excuse Holmes when, at the end of the day, these fights never got made and he himself admitted to avoiding the top contenders at the end of his reign because he felt entitled to his championship.

 

Absolute yapper I swear. I'm not getting into another fight with you, it's really not worth my time, I've got more important things than replying to your vapid essays.

 

Beating your fellow champions and top contenders in their pomp is more impressive than waiting out until they themselves lost. Holmes should have been the one to hand them those losses. I admit that politics got in the way but let's not treat Holmes like a child and try to absolve him of all blame for the blemishes in his career. The absence of their name hurts his resume regardless and he wasn't exactly going to the ends of the Earth trying to get those fights signed either.

 

Yeah, it seems like Canelo has got to the same stage where Holmes was after Cooney. Only Canelo had won titles in four divisions and been lineal in two of them by then. This perspective actually probably swings it in Canelo's favour for me.