You should know the heavyweight division is given special status. Has been from the sports origins. The worlds heavyweight championship has always been the greatest prize in all of sport. It indicates its champion is the physical master of all men. As such its champions are given a far more difficult standard. You have all time great hwt champions that went to hell and back and did not quit. You cannot place a hwt champion who gave the title away on his stool the same status as those before him that chose to fight on. They also could have quit but they had the intrinsic strength and desire others lack to continue and not quit no matter what. Those here should understand this as a historical precedent that is very important to maintain. Make the sport stronger by insisting upon tough standards. Do not jump at unproven talent insisting they could KO past proven ATG. (Don't be a Seamus amateur in other words) Insist champions are continually held to tough historical standards.
Ali was not hwt champion. He did not lose his title, throw it away, sitting on his stool. Liston did. He had so little respect for his title he gave it away instead of fighting on.
Ali was fighting for the championship and gave it away by sitting on his stool. Pus sy. And don't forget that Ali was ready to quit on his stool in Manilla. And don't forget Duran in New Orleans. And don't forget Sugar Ray Robinson against Joey Maxim. And don't forget Tyson, or Kostya or Oscar. You, sir, are nothing but a simp.
So fighters in any division except Heavyweight can quit and be relieved of their title and still be ATG's yet heavyweights can't? Hmmmmmmm
Suggest you get a grip on heavyweight boxing history. Worlds heavyweight championship has always been a special case. Tough standards since the prize is so robust.
Its hard for me to favor Wlad in really any of these match ups prime for prime. What I will say is I think if he fought these 10 in there primes he would definitely win some but likely lose more. I wouldn't count him out in any of the match ups while I wouldn't count out the others from beating him either. I'd favor Ali, Foreman, Lewis pretty comfortably. Holmes, Bowe, Liston, Tyson I'd still favor but give him a fair chance especially if he caught them at the right time. Holyfield and Frazier I think would be the two he'd have the best chance of beating.
Seamus greatly favored Kovalev to knock out both Dempsey and Marciano. Plus he stated Kovalev had a 50/50 chance of knocking out Joe Louis. He stated this at least ten times with great earnest.
I know you are a massive fan of Roberto Duran. I'm keen to hear your thoughts on his quit vs SRL. How you perceive it and how it's affects his ATG status, or doesn't. It could well be the most infamous quit in boxing history.
Although I agree that media confers status upon the heavyweight champion that it doesn't upon the lightweight champion, i disagree that this "special status" makes literally holding heavyweight champions to a higher standard is reasonable. For me, the lightweight champion is just as special as the heavyweight champion, and he is also, usually, the better fighter p4p (faster, more mobile, a better combination puncher, etc.). The idea that HW's need to be held to a higher standard to qualify as ATG than fighters in every other division is unreasonable. Well, again, I see that as reasonable only if applied equally. What I do personally is apply a less rigid approach (Fewer "cannot" and "will not"). Liston lost to Ali. He separated his shoulder as testified to by seven doctors afterwards and felt he couldn't continue. Whether or not it was reasonable for him to quit, only he knows - i suspect he could have carried on, but he was getting outclassed by my eye. That's a loss and I treat it as a loss and it tells me something about the heart of the fighter in question, maybe. I would not use it to preclude his ATG standing for all time any more than I would for Langford, Duran, De La Hoya, Morales etc. I think that's a more reasonable approach than excluding for all time any fighter who quits, excluding for all time any fighter who quits in a fight I personally denote as important enough to warrant this treatment. But you're not doing that; these standards aren't tough at all. They pertain to ONE division, relate to two fights a year only, and even in those fights, they pertain to only one fighter. This is a very, very slack standard.
I'd apply it to all world championships. With the emphasis on the title holder. Non-title fights I'd probably give a pass to. The problem with applying it at all though is making a judgment call on whether it was reasonable to quit. For example, Duran's quit job seems indefensible, Willard's seems fair enough. Liston's is in that middleground, it's hard to say.
While I disagree that Ali did everything better,Holmes had the better jab,imo Ali had a better hook than Holmes who rarely used his. Ali wasn't slapping when he ko'd Bonavena with a left hook!
Holmes was a poor man's nobody,prime for prime he would give Ali one helluva fight, and would probably split a trio.