Why is it not held against Holmes legacy more that he was never the undisputed HW champion of boxing

If you have reach for this “point,” I think you understand why I rate Wlad more favorably.

Btw unifying establishes lineage, like what Wlad did and Holmes didn’t.

 

Holmes re-established the lineage too, which is the most important thing here.

 

Whatever you say, boss.

 

Glad we agree.

 

Just like Wlad.

 

He should have done a little more to get the belts unifed, but it was a great career overall. Everyone knows that I am critical of Holmes, and especially the nonsense about him being a top 4 heavyweight, but I will say good about him:


-He cleaned out the 70s remainders well--Norton, ShaversX2, Leon, Ali (whatever that was worth)

- He beat arguably the two best of the 80s alphabet champs in Witherspoon (two-time), and Berbick (who himself holds wins over Page and Thomas, the two guys most cited as ones Holmes should have fought), as well as Weaver and Bonecrusher

- He gave everyone the fight they wanted in Cooney

- 20 defenses is an impressive stat

- Everyone loves the comeback

But no, not only did he not unify, he contributed to proliferation by accepting the IBF belt.

 

These are the 2 best points in this thread IMO.

After Holmes beat title claimant Norton, lineal champ + living legend Ali, & ex-champ Spinks, + Tate lost to recent Holmes victim Weaver, Holmes was universally recognized as THE true hw champ. The notion that (re-)unifying titles just for the sake of (re-)unifying them was some sort of absolute necessity for a fighter's legacy didn't exist back then.

A couple of other points to consider:
-Dokes expressed no interest in fighting Holmes during his own reign, even when directly questioned on the possibility of a match by the media.
-Holmes actually did sign to fight Coetzee in a fight that would've partially unified titles, but the fight was abruptly canceled shortly before its date when the promoter failed to secure the necessary funds to finance it.

 

It’s clear that Holmes didn’t really seek out the best challenges though, whether they had no titles or not. Just look at the rematches he didn’t give while champ.

 

That’s just you being you.

Neither can rank higher.

 

It is held against him at times from what I see here.

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/mike-tyson-had-a-better-career-than-larry-holmes.669560/

 

I’m probably one of Mike’s biggest ever fans.

I’ve defended him for years against ignorant fans.

But the truth is, he only gave us about 6 years as being a truly great fighter.

In terms of ability, I rate him very highly.

But under traditional ranking criteria, he can’t rank higher than Larry. Not by any metric.

He doesn’t have a better group of wins.

He doesn’t have the longevity.

At an age when Larry was holding his own against a prime Evander, as well as beating a guy like Mercer, Mike wasn’t even boxing.

Mike was no longer a world level fighter, even in his mid 30’s.

He was finished.

He didn’t have the reign that Larry had.

The consistency.

Having the 3 belts was impressive, but not enough to surpass Larry.

There’s just no way that he had a better overall career, and no way that he can rank higher all time.

 

Which is stupid.

 

Except that everyone has done it before, and strove for it since.

Remember, split titles go back to to the NYSAC and NBA, and even before that. Every major champion has tried to unite titles--Holmes split them. That doesn't go away by saying times were different in in the 80s.