Who do you rate higher Ali or Holmes?

Well it’s no small point that he didn’t have the competition for it, either. Holmes needs to come in for more scrutiny with his long reign. Anybody difficult was never given a rematch & I count it against him as no coincidence.

 

Yes. For example a Weaver rematch would have been warranted for unification. I don't know how much alpha politics came into it not happening, but from 1983 onwards he was all for the easy money fights. We've had some epic threads about that over the years, but it don't know if anyone is left of the contingent that would defend Holmes all the way despite not facing the nr 1 guy even once over a 7 year reign.

Had he beaten everyone of note - Tate, Coetzee, Dokes, Page, Thoma and Tubbs - and rematched Weaver, then it would be closer.

 

I'd take Tubbs well out of it and talk a Witherspoon rematch. Tubbs was never in line really. To be fair you could take Tate out as they would have built to that IMO if he didn't lose and the Weaver rematch would have covered it. Weaver, Page, Thomas and Witherspoon 2 would have made for a notably better resume and he would have been a standout #3 instead of a debated one. Even if three of those bouts came off it would have been big.

 

No, I don't mean that Tate and Tubbs were guys he needed to face, but just in comparison to Ali - who faced every relevant contender whether there was much of a need or not. But, yeah, Tubbs was at the very end of Holmes's reign so maybe he doesn't even fit into that context.

 

Ah fair enough mate. Yeah Ali would have faced the lot of them. I follow now.

 

And I agree, a Witherspoon rematch would have been nice. A guy who puts up such a good effort with so few fights behind him (was it 13?) deserves another go. That Williams didn't get one is quite understandable since it was at the very end of Holmes's reign.

A Weaver rematch for unification would have been smack in both guy's primes, though, so that is the one I'd really would have liked to see. You know that period very well, was it the orgs that kept it from happening or was it the fighters or King or something else?

 

The orgs could be awkward and we had two big promoters running around but if a huge name wanted to get something done it could happen. To be fair per Holmes - Weaver Holmes dealt with Shavers and shortly after Weaver was winning over Tate. Holes did have three very soft defenses after Shavers tho, in a row. Weaver could have easily fit into that period and been worth miles more money than all of them. After impressively beating Coetzee Weaver copped some injuries and legal drama over Tillis and Cooney then Holmes got the cherished signature of Cooney while the King gang angled Dokes into the WBA title. The time to make the fight would have been 1980 but Cooney was starting to loom large in everyone's mind as he was where the money was. Perhaps they hopes Weaver might build some momentum but that was part of Holmes problem too, in every big fight he had he was the B side.

 

You could also say him beating Weaver and Weaver being WBA champ for years alleviated Holmes of the need to unify with whoever beat him. Bey got a title shot for beating Page who'd then beat Coetzee who'd beaten Dokes. Not that Holmes couldn't have fought better opponents but the reason he never unified the WBA belt is the WBA champs of his reign didn't require him to. The seperate WBA belts origin was Coetzee beating Leon Spinks who'd gotten lucky against the worst version of Ali. In previous post you mentioned Ali fought all belt holders. But his belt holders were more serious. And the least serious one Terrell he took a few years to fight.

If you look at the timeline of Holmes reign he didn't have much time to fight Pinklon and Tubbs. He loses his title in late 1985. All the best alphabet champs come at the end of Holmes reign if not after it altogether. Witherspoons the only one who emerged early enough for Holmes to get blame for ducking and he emerged that early because Holmes fought him and he almost won.

I don't believe theres a combination of opponents he could have fought that would have elevated him above Ali. Or produced anything more than a mild improvement to his resume.

 

Sure, but Weaver is a bit if a strange case. He was at best a fringe contender with numerous losses on his record when he met Holmes, and started his run of notable wins after that, so the question is if he improved significantly or if he was just better than generally believed when he faced Holmes. A rematch would have given more insight into that.

The first fight was also a good one, with Holmes badly hurt at one point, so that was another reason for a rematch.

No, I said that Ali beat all relevant contenders, not belt holders (which there were few of during Ali's time). If you look at the The Ring annual rankings at the end of 1963 and 1973, you'll see that Ali beat everyone except Machen, who dropped from the rankings in 1964 already. So he really cleaned house.

Now, if we do the same for Holmes for, say, 1977 and 1983, 10 fighters are missing. This thread is about comparing Ali and Holmes, and Holmes clearly falls way short when it comes to cleaning house.

Not to mention that he's also missing names of the magnitude of Liston, Frazier and Foreman. That' why there's daylight between them and then some.

 

Ali by a mile

 

Tyson is 2-3, better than Holmes.

 

I think that, contrary to appearances, Holmes was not in his prime at that time, not yet. So, in my opinion, Norton never fought prime Ali and he never fought prime Holmes. Holmes had more longevity than Ali. Were Liston or Foreman fighting Ali great champions or big names? note that they were huge favorites but fought less often and for a shorter time than Ali when they fought him. I miss the rematch with Foreman, the circumstances in Kinshasa were special and the rematch with Liston was strange.

 

I disagree. Homes was 28 and came from perhaps his best performance, his first win over Shavers. Maybe not at his absolute peak, but certainly close enough to it to be prime by any useful defintion imo.

And the crucial thing is that he was closer to his best than Norton was. That much I think is undisputable. As is the fact that Ali was further removed from his than Norton was when Ali beat him in 1973.

 

The undisputable facts in this case is that Ali was facing champions that came off of their best performances. Holmes never beat anyone who came off anything closer than miles from that.

Norton came off of a somewhat controversial win over Young when Holmes just edged him. Cooney came off emphatic victories over well past it fighters, had not fought one live contender, and had had two rounds in the last two years - if we're going to talk activity. Weaver came off of what? Same with Witherspoon.

So those are the hard facts. You really have to go into some truly wild speculation to find an edge for Holmes anywhere here.

 

There's so much wrong with this post i can barely find anything right.

The WBA belt was separated due to Ali retiring and John Tate and Coetzee facing off among countless other things!