top 5 Heavy/Achievement

[fg2227]

1 Ali- Champ 1964-1967, 1974-1978, 1978-1979

2 Louis - Longest reigning camp.

3 Marciano- Never lost a fight.

4 Foreman- Twice champ with a twenty year gap.

5 Holyfield- 4 time champ.

[Jack Dempsey]

6 Dempsey - Most 1st Rd KO's

[fg2227]

how many has he got?

[Jack Dempsey]

how many has he got?

Think its 25, he supposedly has the most of the HW champs

Tyson has 23 I think

* Actually website I checked says 26*

[Minotauro]

Floyd Patterson- Youngest ever champion at the time and first heavyweight to regain the title. Plus the last linear heavyweight champ to win the title while weighing under the cruiserweight limit 190.

[Jack Dempsey]

Floyd Patterson- Youngest ever champion at the time and first heavyweight to regain the title. Plus the last linear heavyweight champ to win the title while weighing under the cruiserweight limit 190.

He's also the HW champ who's been knocked down the most

[Street Lethal]

1 Ali- Champ 1964-1967, 1974-1978, 1978-1979

2 Louis - Longest reigning camp.

3 Marciano- Never lost a fight.

4 Foreman- Twice champ with a twenty year gap.

5 Holyfield- 4 time champ.

It's a good list, but I want to take issue with one thing. Holyfield was not four-time world champion. He was two-time world champion. He won belts, but he did not hold the world championship more than two times, and I think you should recognize that. Muhammad Ali is the only three-time world heavyweight champion, and his record should stand until it really is broken.

This isn't a big deal, but you might also want to note that Ali defended his title 19 times, which is second only to Joe Louis, and Ali's title defenses were against much better opposition.

[Street Lethal]

He's also the HW champ who's been knocked down the most

And got up the most times after being knocked down.

[OLD FOGEY]

1 Ali- Champ 1964-1967, 1974-1978, 1978-1979

2 Louis - Longest reigning camp.

3 Marciano- Never lost a fight.

4 Foreman- Twice champ with a twenty year gap.

5 Holyfield- 4 time champ.

My list:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Lewis
5. Johnson

I would like to say about Marciano that I would not consider going undefeated as a pro his greatest accomplishment. I think it was knocking out every man he fought who was ever rated in either the initial bout or a rematch. No one else has come close to that.

[Street Lethal]

6 Dempsey - Most 1st Rd KO's

But you know, many of those were just barnstorm fights against local tough men.

[Muchmoore]

And got up the most times after being knocked down.

Getting knocked down more than anyone else in history isn't something to be proud of, however you spin it.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think Harry Wills deserves a mention. He has seventy-odd victories over "name" fighters during his career, more than any other heavyweight. Few heavyweights even have seventy-odd fights.

[janitor]

Getting knocked down more than anyone else in history isn't something to be proud of, however you spin it.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Not sure.

Some of the most durable fighters in history have been guys who were relatively easy to knock down but almost impossible to put out.

[janitor]

1. Louis-turned two eras into the bum of the month club. Even managed to destroy the colour bar to boot.

2. Ali-Beat a deeper body of ace opposition than anybody else.

3. Langford-Beat the best and beat them regularly in a desperate atempt to get a title fight.

4. Jeffries-Tore the division apart in his first dozen fights and beat every great heavyweight
since Sullivan.

5. Johnson-Like Langford he had a serious rampage in the heavyweight division beating the best multiple times.

[Muchmoore]

When you get up and win it is.

Yes but when you get knocked out in 1 round twice it's not good.

[Muchmoore]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Not sure.

Some of the most durable fighters in history have been guys who were relatively easy to knock down but almost impossible to put out.

The last part I agree with but getting dropped and hurt more than any other champ isn't something to be proud of.

[Vantage_West]

And got up the most times after being knocked down.:good

[Russell]

Yes but when you get knocked out in 1 round twice it's not good.

Foreman tore Frazier apart in a manner which wasn't too different from how Liston did it to Floyd twice.

People don't tend to hold that against Frazier.

Not to mention, you know, Floyd wasn't a terribly big HW...

[Bummy Davis]

My list:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Lewis
5. Johnson

I would like to say about Marciano that I would not consider going undefeated as a pro his greatest accomplishment. I think it was knocking out every man he fought who was ever rated in either the initial bout or a rematch. No one else has come close to that.


:good

[Bummy Davis]

Louis was knocked down 11 times .....


Frazier was knocked down 6 times in the 1st Foreman fight alone, 2 more in the 2nd, 2 by Bonavena and another one early on in his career and he had 25 less fights than Joe Louis, but we cant say Frazier had a glass Jaw and no one ever Knocked him out cold,Lewis never got up from the floor to win,Tyson never got off the floor to win, what does it all mean:smoke

[rekcutnevets]

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Marciano

[Duodenum]

Larry Holmes. Most consecutive HW title fight victories by an undefeated boxer. First undefeated boxer to win 20 consecutive title fights. First HW champion to successfully defend his title in eight consecutive calendar years. (Louis was inactive for three years during WW II.)

[ChrisPontius]

Louis had harder fights in exhibitions than most of the jokes Holmes defended his title against.

[Muchmoore]

Well, it´s Liston, a fellow atg. He had his number like Foreman had Fraziers.

Yes but my post meant that it hurts Pattersons achievements. You can't just brush it off and say well he had his number so I won't count it against him and then compliment him for getting up.

Getting stopped in the 1st round twice hurts Pattersons achievements just as Frazier getting blown out by Foreman hurts his. Getting knocked down that many times hurts your accomplishments and isn't something to be proud of.

[Muchmoore]

Louis had harder fights in exhibitions than most of the jokes Holmes defended his title against.

What are you on about? Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank were supposed to be the heir apparants :lol:

[Muchmoore]

Foreman tore Frazier apart in a manner which wasn't too different from how Liston did it to Floyd twice.

People don't tend to hold that against Frazier.

Not to mention, you know, Floyd wasn't a terribly big HW...

People hold it against Frazier, it's why he's usually about 7th on ATG lists instead of top 3.

[Duodenum]

Louis had harder fights in exhibitions than most of the jokes Holmes defended his title against.Regardless, the law of averages dictated that Larry should have been upset at some time during his streak, yet it didn't happen for many years. The statement that he never unified the title is a meaningless red herring. Holmes put the IBF on the map. Meanwhile, as Holmes was winning all his matches, the WBA championship was a hot potato being passed from mediocre contender to mediocre contender virtually every time it was put up for grabs. Between Ali's second title reign and Tyson's reunification of the HW Championship, Larry Holmes was the only steady constant the division had. There is an old saying that, "As goes the heavyweights, so goes boxing." During the glory days of the late 1970's to mid 1980's, Holmes was the heavyweight king, and it was a great time to be a titleholder in any weight division during that period in the sport's history.

[Muchmoore]

Regardless, the law of averages dictated that Larry should have been upset at some time during his streak, yet it didn't happen for many years. The statement that he never unified the title is a meaningless red herring. Holmes put the IBF on the map. Meanwhile, as Holmes was winning all his matches, the WBA championship was a hot potato being passed from mediocre contender to mediocre contender virtually every time it was put up for grabs. Between Ali's second title reign and Tyson's reunification of the HW Championship, Larry Holmes was the only steady constant the division had. There is an old saying that, "As goes the heavyweights, so goes boxing." During the glory days of the late 1970's to mid 1980's, Holmes was the heavyweight king, and it was a great time to be a titleholder in any weight division during that period in the sport's history.

The oppontants of Holmes during histitle reign were worse than most other ATGs. The only fighters he fought that were certainly deserving of the world title were Cooney, Witherspoon, Shavers. Carl Williams wasn't bad but Holmes nearly lost to him, and Mike Weaver was regarded as a journeymen prior to the fight and nearly dropped Holmes in a tough fight. The rest of the fighters such as Ledoux, Frank, Bey, etc were not fit to challenge for the world title.

Holmes gets credit of course for being the 2nd longest reigning HWT. champ ever, but there were a lot of fighters that were much more deserving than uch of the crew Larry fought. Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coatzee, and Greg Page were all better than most of the fighters who challenged Holmes, but didn't get title shots.

Holmes not unifying also hurts when you compare him to Lewis, and Tyson among others.

[Duodenum]

The oppontants of Holmes during histitle reign were worse than most other ATGs. The only fighters he fought that were certainly deserving of the world title were Cooney, Witherspoon, Shavers. Carl Williams wasn't bad but Holmes nearly lost to him, and Mike Weaver was regarded as a journeymen prior to the fight and nearly dropped Holmes in a tough fight. The rest of the fighters such as Ledoux, Frank, Bey, etc were not fit to challenge for the world title.

Holmes gets credit of course for being the 2nd longest reigning HWT. champ ever, but there were a lot of fighters that were much more deserving than uch of the crew Larry fought. Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coatzee, and Greg Page were all better than most of the fighters who challenged Holmes, but didn't get title shots.

Holmes not unifying also hurts when you compare him to Lewis, and Tyson among others.And how many title defenses did Thomas, Dokes, Tubbs, Coetzee and Page win? The truth is that during Larry's title run, he defeated eight other claimants to a world title (Norton, Ocasio, Weaver, Ali, Berbick, Leon Spinks, Witherspoon, Smith). David Bey secured his title shot against Larry by winning a 12 round UD over Greg Page for the USBA HW Title. Larry was the only boxer to ever post a victory over Frank (who defeated two former challengers for the HW Title, and drew with a third). In one of the worst performances of his title run, Holmes had a far easier time with Weaver than Dokes had in his rematch with Hercules, or that either Coetzee, Tate, or Williams had with Weaver. Three of the non world HW champions Holmes defended his title successfully against also received title shots against other champions (Evangelista, Shavers and Williams).

Mike Dokes managed to eke out a controversial split decision win over Tex Cobb, before Larry shut out Tex over 15 rounds (in Cobb's native Texas). Holmes not unifying the WBA Title only hurt supporters of South Africa's aparthied government of the 1980's. If the WBA had withdrawn support of SA's racist regime, Larry would have had no reservations about unifying the title. (His stated reasons for not doing so were far more honorable that Bowe's reasons for dumping a title belt in a garbage can, rather than face Lennox Lewis.) The bottom line is that nobody cared who held another version of the HW Championship as long as Larry remained undefeated. And during the same time span that Larry defended the World Heavyweight Championship successfully 20 times, Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, and Tubbs won a grand total of two WBA Title defenses between them. (Weaver KO 13 Coetzee & Weaver UD 15 Tillis.)

Larry abandoned the WBC for the IBF at just the right time, exactly when the WBC rendered their championship worthless by reducing the length of their title bouts from 15 to 12 rounds. While Larry was being man enough to join an organization which still respected the sanctity of the true 15 round championship distance (agreeing to join the IBF in part because that organization also did not recognize SA's criminal regime), Witherspoon won the diminished and vacant WBC paper title against the hapless Page, then promptly dropped it himself to Thomas at the very first opportunity to lose it. (Thomas actually made a successful defense against former and future Holmes victim Weaver, before dropping it to former Holmes 15 round shutout victim Berbick.)

Holmes was the first boxer to defeat nine of his title challengers: Ocasio, Jones, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frank, Marvis Frazier, Bey and Williams. The facts are that Larry provided the HW division with a stablizing presence at a crucial time in boxing history, when absolutely nobody else was even remotely qualified for the task, and at his peak, no one truly belonged in the same ring with him, as he demonstrated with the shutout over Cobb.

[Street Lethal]

Duodenum's post defending Larry Holmes is awesome, especially the part about (un)success all those contenders people say Holmes ducked.

Truth is that Holmes' title fight competition was better than that of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, and Sonny Liston. Before Larry Holmes the only heavyweight who beat a better string of contenders was Muhammad Ali. Frazier's only really good opponent was Ali. Who after Holmes had a streak against that level of opposition? Tyson? Holyfield? Lewis? I don't think so.

[torchkit]

It's a good list, but I want to take issue with one thing. Holyfield was not four-time world champion. He was two-time world champion. He won belts, but he did not hold the world championship more than two times, and I think you should recognize that. Muhammad Ali is the only three-time world heavyweight champion, and his record should stand until it really is broken.

This isn't a big deal, but you might also want to note that Ali defended his title 19 times, which is second only to Joe Louis, and Ali's title defenses were against much better opposition.If Ali was a 3 time champion, then Holyfield was a 4 time champion. When Ali beat Foreman, he only won ONE belt. When he beat Spinks in the rematch, he only won ONE belt-the other had been given to Norton.

[torchkit]

Ali-Beat a deeper body of ace opposition than anybody else. No he didn't. The opponents he met in the 60's were mostly overhyped or over the hill. The 70's heavyweights are over rated. The early 90's featured the best heavyweights of the 20th century.

[Muchmoore]

And how many title defenses did Thomas, Dokes, Tubbs, Coetzee and Page win? The truth is that during Larry's title run, he defeated eight other claimants to a world title (Norton, Ocasio, Weaver, Ali, Berbick, Leon Spinks, Witherspoon, Smith). David Bey secured his title shot against Larry by winning a 12 round UD over Greg Page for the USBA HW Title. Larry was the only boxer to ever post a victory over Frank (who defeated two former challengers for the HW Title, and drew with a third). In one of the worst performances of his title run, Holmes had a far easier time with Weaver than Dokes had in his rematch with Hercules, or that either Coetzee, Tate, or Williams had with Weaver. Three of the non world HW champions Holmes defended his title successfully against also received title shots against other champions (Evangelista, Shavers and Williams).

Mike Dokes managed to eke out a controversial split decision win over Tex Cobb, before Larry shut out Tex over 15 rounds (in Cobb's native Texas). Holmes not unifying the WBA Title only hurt supporters of South Africa's aparthied government of the 1980's. If the WBA had withdrawn support of SA's racist regime, Larry would have had no reservations about unifying the title. (His stated reasons for not doing so were far more honorable that Bowe's reasons for dumping a title belt in a garbage can, rather than face Lennox Lewis.) The bottom line is that nobody cared who held another version of the HW Championship as long as Larry remained undefeated. And during the same time span that Larry defended the World Heavyweight Championship successfully 20 times, Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, and Tubbs won a grand total of six WBA Title defenses between them.

Larry abandoned the WBC for the IBF at just the right time, exactly when the WBC rendered their championship worthless by reducing the length of their title bouts from 15 to 12 rounds. While Larry was being man enough to join an organization which still respected the sanctity of the true 15 round championship distance, Witherspoon won the diminished and vacant WBC paper title against the hapless Page, then promptly dropped it himself to Thomas at the very first opportunity to lose it. (Thomas actually made a successful defense against former and future Holmes victim Weaver, before dropping it to former Holmes 15 round shutout victim Berbick.)

Holmes was the first boxer to defeat nine of his title challengers: Ocasio, Jones, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frank, Marvis Frazier, Bey and Williams. The facts are that Larry provided the HW division with a stablizing presence at a crucial time in boxing history, when absolutely nobody else was even remotely qualified for the task, and at his peak, no one truly belonged in the same ring with him, as he demonstrated with the shutout over Cobb.

While it is true that the names I listed did not have title defenses, they were clearly better than most of the names on Holmes record. You mention Ali as a former champion but he was suffering from Parkinsons and was no where near even a 76 Ali. The fight doesn't add to Holmes legacy. He won the title from Norton so obviously that wasn't a title defense. Ocasio barely had a dozen fights when Holmes fought him and the title he won that you mention was at Crusierweight against 13-5 Robbie Williams.

Page had been defeated by Bey and Bey got a shot, but Page should of gotten a title shot prior to that. He proves he is better than many of Holmes oppontants because he beat 3 of them before the loss to Bey! You can't say that the men that lost to Page were better.

Scott Frank wasn't an elite fighter, and the reason Holmes is the only guy that beat him is because he fought literally no other contenders. The title challengers you mentioned Frank fought are among the worst in history, Ron Stander and Chuck Wepner. The best name on his resume is Renaldo Snipes, who he didn't beat in a draw. Frank was not more deserving than Thomas, Tubbs, etc.

Holmes beat Weaver easier than Dokes, but Dokes still held a win over Weaver who gave Holmes hell. Dokes beat numerous others including Cobb who you mention. Holmes beat Cobb far easier but it nonetheless proves Dokes was more deserving of a shot than Cobb.

Holmes not unifying hurts his reign a little. He didn't hold all of the belts at once like Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield and that puts him down a little bit. Thomas, Tubbs, Tate etc didnt have a lot of defenses because they were all even fighters. Evenly matched fighters, but still good fighters. Better than most of the guys challenging Holmes

Holmes was the top guy of that era I agree, but he did not fight many of the best fighters during his reign, electing to fight green versions of Smith, Frazier, Ocasio etc. etc. Apart from a handful of good fighters, Holmes oppontants were poor.

[torchkit]

The statement that (Holmes) never unified the title is a meaningless red herring.Not at all. It's a legitimate critique that he never even tried to unify the title. Plus, he gave away the WBC belt rather than face their mandatory challenger.

[torchkit]

Holmes was the first boxer to defeat nine of his title challengers: Ocasio, Jones, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frank, Marvis Frazier, Bey and Williams.The Marvis Frazier fight was a non-title bout.

[torchkit]

Who after Holmes had a streak against that level of opposition? Tyson? Holyfield? Lewis? Actually, all of the above.

[OLD FOGEY]

And how many title defenses did Thomas, Dokes, Tubbs, Coetzee and Page win? The truth is that during Larry's title run, he defeated eight other claimants to a world title (Norton, Ocasio, Weaver, Ali, Berbick, Leon Spinks, Witherspoon, Smith). David Bey secured his title shot against Larry by winning a 12 round UD over Greg Page for the USBA HW Title. Larry was the only boxer to ever post a victory over Frank (who defeated two former challengers for the HW Title, and drew with a third). In one of the worst performances of his title run, Holmes had a far easier time with Weaver than Dokes had in his rematch with Hercules, or that either Coetzee, Tate, or Williams had with Weaver. Three of the non world HW champions Holmes defended his title successfully against also received title shots against other champions (Evangelista, Shavers and Williams).

Mike Dokes managed to eke out a controversial split decision win over Tex Cobb, before Larry shut out Tex over 15 rounds (in Cobb's native Texas). Holmes not unifying the WBA Title only hurt supporters of South Africa's aparthied government of the 1980's. If the WBA had withdrawn support of SA's racist regime, Larry would have had no reservations about unifying the title. (His stated reasons for not doing so were far more honorable that Bowe's reasons for dumping a title belt in a garbage can, rather than face Lennox Lewis.) The bottom line is that nobody cared who held another version of the HW Championship as long as Larry remained undefeated. And during the same time span that Larry defended the World Heavyweight Championship successfully 20 times, Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, and Tubbs won a grand total of two WBA Title defenses between them. (Weaver KO 13 Coetzee & Weaver UD 15 Tillis.)

Larry abandoned the WBC for the IBF at just the right time, exactly when the WBC rendered their championship worthless by reducing the length of their title bouts from 15 to 12 rounds. While Larry was being man enough to join an organization which still respected the sanctity of the true 15 round championship distance (agreeing to join the IBF in part because that organization also did not recognize SA's criminal regime), Witherspoon won the diminished and vacant WBC paper title against the hapless Page, then promptly dropped it himself to Thomas at the very first opportunity to lose it. (Thomas actually made a successful defense against former and future Holmes victim Weaver, before dropping it to former Holmes 15 round shutout victim Berbick.)

Holmes was the first boxer to defeat nine of his title challengers: Ocasio, Jones, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frank, Marvis Frazier, Bey and Williams. The facts are that Larry provided the HW division with a stablizing presence at a crucial time in boxing history, when absolutely nobody else was even remotely qualified for the task, and at his peak, no one truly belonged in the same ring with him, as he demonstrated with the shutout over Cobb.

Sorry-mistake

[Street Lethal]

Will somebody teach torchkit the difference between world champion and merely holding an alphabelt? I have to go to bed. I got work tomorrow. It will have to suffice to say that Ali was three-time world heavyweight champion. Holyfield was two-time world champion. Ali won the championship from Liston, Foreman, and Spinks. Holyfield won the championship from Douglas and Bowe.

If Marvis Frazier had (and the universe would have to be different for this to have happened) defeated Larry Holmes, then Frazier would have been the world heavyweight champion. Unless it is an exhibition, whenever the heavyweight champion fights, his championship is on the line, no exceptions.

[torchkit]

Will somebody teach torchkit the difference between world champion and merely holding an alphabelt? I have to go to bed. I got work tomorrow. It will have to suffice to say that Ali was three-time world heavyweight champion. Holyfield was two-time world champion. Ali won the championship from Liston, Foreman, and Spinks. Holyfield won the championship from Douglas and Bowe.

If Marvis Frazier had (and the universe would have to be different for this to have happened) defeated Larry Holmes, then Frazier would have been the world heavyweight champion. Unless it is an exhibition, whenever the heavyweight champion fights, his championship is on the line, no exceptions.You're obviously one of those "linear champion" afficianados. There's no other way you can credit Ali with 3 championship reigns while denying Holyfield his 4. Also, since Holmes/Frazier was not sanctioned by the IBF and was only scheduled for 10 rounds, the only "championship" that could have changed hands was the ethereal and spurious "linear" version.

[OLD FOGEY]

Duodenum's post defending Larry Holmes is awesome, especially the part about (un)success all those contenders people say Holmes ducked.

Truth is that Holmes' title fight competition was better than that of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, and Sonny Liston. Before Larry Holmes the only heavyweight who beat a better string of contenders was Muhammad Ali. Frazier's only really good opponent was Ali. Who after Holmes had a streak against that level of opposition? Tyson? Holyfield? Lewis? I don't think so.

You fellows know a lot more about Holmes' competition than I do, but I did look up the Ring Magazine ratings from 1979 to 1985. Seven men were rated #1 or #2 contenders. Of these, Holmes fought two--Weaver and Cooney--and did not fight five--Tate, Coetzee, Dokes, Page, and Thomas. Not that good, I think. Nor were all of them that inconsistent. Thomas did not lose at all while Holmes was champion. Dokes lost only the one fight to Coetzee between 1976 and 1989, a thirteen year run.

In contrast, 14 men were rated #1 or #2 contenders between 1938 and 1948. Of these, Joe Louis defended against 9 and did not fight five while champion. Of these five, he fought two, Charles and Bivins, in his comeback. He did not fight Lem Franklin, Melio Bettina, or Elmer Ray.

[NickHudson]

Nice analysis, Old Fogey,

but I think you'll find most on the forum have Louis ahead of Holmes, either at #1 or #2. I dont think there is any need to debate Louis legacy versus Holmes, as you did. Louis is better and thats pretty much the end of it.

We should focus the Holmes era debate against the other 7 potential top10ers (i.e excepting Ali, Louis and Holmes).

Against these 'also-ran' guys, I suspect Holmes overall record stands scrutiny pretty well, in terms of a combo formula of # defences, qualiy of opposition, ranking of opposition at time of fight etc...

Also, earlier in this thread I noticed a lot of talk about Pattersons blow outs against Liston. They were big dramatic losses and rightly count against him. That is why most on the forum have him outside the top10 (although I have him scraped in at 10 for the moment).

But, it is interesting to me that Lennox Lewis has two blow outs equally as awful, yet he routinely gets ranked as high as #3 all time. On top of this, his blow outs were not against a prime Liston, one of the hardest hitters of all time and a consensus ATG, but Rahman and McCall. To me it is an interesting comparison...How do we compare Lewis's and Pattersons blow outs? Whose were worse? How does it effect their standinfg relative to each other??

You fellows know a lot more about Holmes' competition than I do, but I did look up the Ring Magazine ratings from 1979 to 1985. Seven men were rated #1 or #2 contenders. Of these, Holmes fought two--Weaver and Cooney--and did not fight five--Tate, Coetzee, Dokes, Page, and Thomas. Not that good, I think. Nor were all of them that inconsistent. Thomas did not lose at all while Holmes was champion. Dokes lost only the one fight to Coetzee between 1976 and 1989, a thirteen year run.

In contrast, 14 men were rated #1 or #2 contenders between 1938 and 1948. Of these, Joe Louis defended against 9 and did not fight five while champion. Of these five, he fought two, Charles and Bivins, in his comeback. He did not fight Lem Franklin, Melio Bettina, or Elmer Ray.

[OLD FOGEY]

Nice analysis, Old Fogey,

but I think you'll find most on the forum have Louis ahead of Holmes, either at #1 or #2. I dont think there is any need to debate Louis legacy versus Holmes, as you did. Louis is better and thats pretty much the end of it.

We should focus the Holmes era debate against the other 7 potential top10ers (i.e excepting Ali, Louis and Holmes).

Against these 'also-ran' guys, I suspect Holmes overall record stands scrutiny pretty well, in terms of a combo formula of # defences, qualiy of opposition, ranking of opposition at time of fight etc...

Also, earlier in this thread I noticed a lot of talk about Pattersons blow outs against Liston. They were big dramatic losses and rightly count against him. That is why most on the forum have him outside the top10 (although I have him scraped in at 10 for the moment).

But, it is interesting to me that Lennox Lewis has two blow outs equally as awful, yet he routinely gets ranked as high as #3 all time. On top of this, his blow outs were not against a prime Liston, one of the hardest hitters of all time and a consensus ATG, but Rahman and McCall. To me it is an interesting comparison...How do we compare Lewis's and Pattersons blow outs? Whose were worse? How does it effect their standinfg relative to each other??

The post I answered claimed Holmes as fighting tougher competition than Louis.
Of the other champions, I can analyze Marciano. Eight men were ranked either #1 or #2 contenders between the time Marciano won the title and the end of 1955. Marciano did not fight two of them--Valdes and Baker. He fought five--Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore--in title defenses. The eighth, Layne, he had knocked out in 1951 and Layne lost to LaStarza and Charles in 1953 and thus lost his high ranking.
On Patterson--After all, the blowouts by Liston are not his only defeats. He was also blown out by Johansson in their first fight and beaten badly by Ali. He was also edged by Maxim, Quarry, and Ellis. It was not like he was totally dominant other than for Liston.
Lewis was dominant other than his two defeats.

[NickHudson]

Fair enough,

I concede that Lewis has a MUCH more solid record on paper than little Floyd. But the story doesnt quite end there. After all there are lies, damn lies etc...

I think a closer analysis of their two careers brings them somewhat closer together than others on the forum would have it. I am writing this because LL is considered top5 or even 3, whereas Patterson struggles to make top20. I dont think this is reasonable.

I wanted to align Pattersons 2 most notable losses with Lewis's two losses as a stand alone comparison. I think that Pattersons are MUCH more excusable given the opposition. There is no comparison between 1962/63 Liston and McCall and Rahman.

Also, Johansson was a known banger and that particular loss was avenged twice. The first vengeance including the supreme left hook of twitching foot fame. Surely one of the greatest return match comebacks ever?

Two other losses came to '65 and '72 Ali who beats everyone else in the top10 save arguably Frazier and Louis? I mean, what would have happened if LL had faced both '65 and '72 Ali, seven years apart in his career (say '92 and '99)?

As for the Maxim loss, it was highly debatable. ALL ELEVEN newspaper correpondents scored the fight for 19 year old Patterson. Interesting to compare this to Lewis's fight with Mercer, which could easily have been scored in Mercers favour although I know that it wasnt...

Of course Patterson has two more less excusable (points) losses to Quarry and Ellis. But then again, LL never faced the 3 top guys in his era when it mattered, the early 90s. I would bet he would rake up at least 1 more loss against those 3, and if he faced each twice. hmmmm - maybe a couple more losses.

Come on fellas, give little Floyd some more respect.

Four of his fights were '62 Liston, '63 Liston, '65 Ali and '72 Ali. How many other TOP20 HWs would score 0-4 against that lineup? A lot!

The post I answered claimed Holmes as fighting tougher competition than Louis.
Of the other champions, I can analyze Marciano. Eight men were ranked either #1 or #2 contenders between the time Marciano won the title and the end of 1955. Marciano did not fight two of them--Valdes and Baker. He fought five--Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore--in title defenses. The eight, Layne, he had knocked out in 1951 and Layne lost to LaStarza and Charles in 1953 and thus lost his high ranking.
On Patterson--After all, the blowouts by Liston are not his only defeats. He was also blown out by Johansson in their first fight and beaten badly by Ali. He was also edged by Maxim, Quarry, and Ellis. It was not like he was totally dominant other than for Liston.
Lewis was dominant other than his two defeats.

[enquirer]

Lennox lewis avenged both of his defeats in emphatic form,and defeated every man he faced...He also was bigger,more powerful,beat very good opposition in his title runs,was dominant and got knocked down a lot less than patterson.....Really there is no comparison with LL and patterson,maybe p4p but not head to head or at heavy....Patterson should have been a cruiser...
Could anyone ever see patterson avenging liston (:yikes :patsch .) or some of his other heavyweight defeats?????

[ChrisPontius]

Regardless, the law of averages dictated that Larry should have been upset at some time during his streak, yet it didn't happen for many years.


Holmes gets credit for his consistency, albeit against rather weak opposition.


The statement that he never unified the title is a meaningless red herring. Holmes put the IBF on the map.


That's a nice way to say it.

Another way to say it, would be: "Holmes dropped his WBC belt and was gifted the IBF belt".

Yet another way to say it would be "Holmes didn't want to fight his mandatory, Greg Page, and would rather be stripped and beltless in a time when the IBF belt meant just as much as the IBO belt does today - nothing".


Meanwhile, as Holmes was winning all his matches, the WBA championship was a hot potato being passed from mediocre contender to mediocre contender virtually every time it was put up for grabs. Between Ali's second title reign and Tyson's reunification of the HW Championship, Larry Holmes was the only steady constant the division had. There is an old saying that, "As goes the heavyweights, so goes boxing." During the glory days of the late 1970's to mid 1980's, Holmes was the heavyweight king, and it was a great time to be a titleholder in any weight division during that period in the sport's history.

No one denies that Holmes was more consistent than his other potential opponents, with the exception of Thomas and perhaps Dokes.
But him not fighting 4 very deserving challengers (Thomas, Page, Dokes, Coetzee), dropping the at time ONLY recognised belt to avoid one plus ducking the rematch every single close fight he had (Norton, Weaver, Witherspoon and Williams) is a bit too much.

Whether or not the challengers he ducked could remain consistent after they missed their title shot is completely irrelevant. You think Holmes was going around saying "well, Page is the most deserving challenger now, but i'm going to fight Marvis Frazier next... what? No, not Joe, Marvis. He's undefeated in all of his ten fights! ...I'm not going to Page because he's about to lose to Witherspoon.... yes, the guy who i'm not going to give a well-earnt rematch".
At least that would be classier than "I aint fighting no coke addicts" (referring to Thomas).

All champions had some cannon fodder, but Holmes was drowning in it.

You can go on lengths on how they were undefeated, but in reality, all that meant is that they didn't fight anyone with a pulse and were very inexperienced. Holmes was more consistent than anyone around, but how much does that mean if he's not fighting the toughest challengers around while they are fighting each other and as a result of that, losing some?
I think Holmes could've beaten most of them, but he never proved it in the ring and that bothers me.

[OLD FOGEY]

Fair enough,

I concede that Lewis has a MUCH more solid record on paper than little Floyd. But the story doesnt quite end there. After all there are lies, damn lies etc...

I think a closer analysis of their two careers brings them somewhat closer together than others on the forum would have it. I am writing this because LL is considered top5 or even 3, whereas Patterson struggles to make top20. I dont think this is reasonable.

I wanted to align Pattersons 2 most notable losses with Lewis's two losses as a stand alone comparison. I think that Pattersons are MUCH more excusable given the opposition. There is no comparison between 1962/63 Liston and McCall and Rahman.

Also, Johansson was a known banger and that particular loss was avenged twice. The first vengeance including the supreme left hook of twitching foot fame. Surely one of the greatest return match comebacks ever?

Two other losses came to '65 and '72 Ali who beats everyone else in the top10 save arguably Frazier and Louis? I mean, what would have happened if LL had faced both '65 and '72 Ali, seven years apart in his career (say '92 and '99)?

As for the Maxim loss, it was highly debatable. ALL ELEVEN newspaper correpondents scored the fight for 19 year old Patterson. Interesting to compare this to Lewis's fight with Mercer, which could easily have been scored in Mercers favour although I know that it wasnt...

Of course Patterson has two more less excusable (points) losses to Quarry and Ellis. But then again, LL never faced the 3 top guys in his era when it mattered, the early 90s. I would bet he would rake up at least 1 more loss against those 3, and if he faced each twice. hmmmm - maybe a couple more losses.

Come on fellas, give little Floyd some more respect.

Four of his fights were '62 Liston, '63 Liston, '65 Ali and '72 Ali. How many other TOP20 HWs would score 0-4 against that lineup? A lot!

I have seen the entire film of the Maxim fight and I disagree. I bumped a thread in which John Garfield, who was at ringside, comments that he thought Maxim won.

By the way, I remember reading a biography of Patterson back in the early sixties and no claim was made that this was a terrible decision. Has anyone done any original reseach on what the ringside reporters thought? This unanimous opinion could be an urban legend. Tommy Loughran, the analyst on the TV tape which exists, did not question the decision at all.

[Bummy Davis]

Louis had harder fights in exhibitions than most of the jokes Holmes defended his title against.


Smart & Correct answer

[ironchamp]

People hold it against Frazier, it's why he's usually about 7th on ATG lists instead of top 3.


Top three is down right unreasonable.

There is nothing that can justify Joe Frazier ranking in the top 5 let alone top 3.

[mightyd40]

Ali......Most skilled and accomplisehd hw of all time in my opinon
Louis....unmatched title reign
Marciano.......Undefeated record and his will to keep fighting to maintain that record make him special
Johnson......Being skilled enough and determined enough to break the color barrier
Tyson...........Youngest HW champ, Biggest box office draw in boxing, turning a weak divison around and sparking excitment back into fight fans

[Street Lethal]

Tyson was not the youngest heavyweight champion. Floyd Patterson was.

[Street Lethal]

You're obviously one of those "linear champion" afficianados. There's no other way you can credit Ali with 3 championship reigns while denying Holyfield his 4. Also, since Holmes/Frazier was not sanctioned by the IBF and was only scheduled for 10 rounds, the only "championship" that could have changed hands was the ethereal and spurious "linear" version.

Gene Tunney won the heavyweight championship in a 10 round fight. The rematch with Dempsey, which was a title fight, was also scheduled for 10 rounds. Lots of championship fights were scheduled for 10 rounds. The number of rounds has nothing to do with it. With your argument anybody can be heavyweight champion if some acronym creates a belt for them.

Larry Holmes was the champion of the world. You can't take that away from the man by talking about belts he wore or didn't wear.

[Jack Dempsey]

Ali......Most skilled and accomplisehd hw of all time in my opinon
Louis....unmatched title reign
Marciano.......Undefeated record and his will to keep fighting to maintain that record make him special
Johnson......Being skilled enough and determined enough to break the color barrier
Tyson...........Youngest HW champ, Biggest box office draw in boxing, turning a weak divison around and sparking excitment back into fight fans

An argument could be made for Dempsey being the biggest draw in boxing history

[mightyd40]

An argument could be made for Dempsey being the biggest draw in boxing history
i was thinking that when i wrote it but im not sure.....dempsey brought in huge crowds but tyson definatly sold a lot of ppvs

[OLD FOGEY]

An argument could be made for Dempsey being the biggest draw in boxing history

Yes. And Ali also.

[Jack Dempsey]

i was thinking that when i wrote it but im not sure.....dempsey brought in huge crowds but tyson definatly sold a lot of ppvs

True, but PPV's weren't around in Dempseys time, I'm sure he'd sell a shitload today

[mightyd40]

True, but PPV's weren't around in Dempseys time, I'm sure he'd sell a shitload today
absolutely

[Duodenum]

It's truly remarkable to me than when so many other champions are derided for defending their titles against over the hill contenders, Holmes is actually excoriated for the youthfulness of his opposition. Larry defeated five future champions during his reign (Ocasio, Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon and Smith). He shut out Berbick (who knocked Larry's former WBA counterpart Tate cold) over 15 rounds, before Trevor went on to handily drop Greg Page from the unbeaten ranks, and would eventually dethrone Needles Thomas for his paper WBC Title.

Holmes defeated three challengers who would eventually beat Page, handing two of them their first career loss. Pinko may not have been defeated during Holmes's reign, but he didn't exactly set the world on fire with his ten round draw against Coetzee either.

One reason I think Larry ditched the WBC was because the shortened 12 round distance nearly enabled the inferior Withspoon to upset Holmes. Luckily for Timmy, that wasn't a 15 rounder. Carl Williams probably would have upset Holmes over the pansy arsed 12 round distance. Larry's ninth round bodyshots made sure that didn't happen. When Holmes did lose the title, Mike Spinks had to go 15 rounds to take it. If Larry had lost it by 12 round decision, my interest in boxing would have been instantly terminated permanently. (As it essentially was by SRL/Hagler. But hell, current boxing is much better off for my indifference to it.)

[Duodenum]

An argument could be made for Dempsey being the biggest draw in boxing historyThe results of Dempsey's fights from Willard on were trumpeted in large print headlines on the front page of the New York Times. His face graced the cover of Time Magazine. Today, it's amazing if a world title fight gets two sentences buried in the margins of page four of the sports section.

[Minotauro]

No, Patterson would never ever beat Liston, just like Frazier never would Foreman. And yes i think Patterson could defeat Quarry and Ellis. He was already past it when he faced both, 32 and 33. The bouts with Quarry were still both very close and prime Floyd would have won both for sure. The Ellis bout wasn´t that close but Floyd always had some confidence problems and coming of a draw and a loss had´tn helped him for sure. Again i would favour a prime Floyd over Ellis.
Yesterday i watched Ali-Patterson I again. Patterson lost because he couldn´t cut off the ring against Ali. Ali had the much faster better legs, Patterson didn´t get near him but when he did he hit him. He also made Ali miss very often. Sure he lost but without his problems and better skills in cutting off the ring he would have been able to make it much closer or even beat him.

Purely on achievement i think Floyd deserves a Top5 spot. beeing the youngest hw champion ever and the first to regain his tittle is both huge. The other four for me would be Louis, Ali, Holmes and Johnson.

great post.

[Jack Dempsey]

The results of Dempsey's fights from Willard on were trumpeted in large print headlines on the front page of the New York Times. His face graced the cover of Time Magazine. Today, it's amazing if a world title fight gets two sentences buried in the margins of page four of the sports section.

True, you want to live in England, if its not about Hatton or Calzaghe you'd be hard pressed to find boxing in any newspaper

[Duodenum]

True, you want to live in England, if its not about Hatton or Calzaghe you'd be hard pressed to find boxing in any newspaperThis is especially disturbing in the colorful and storied light of British boxing history. Characters like Owen Moran, Bombardier Billy Wells, Kid Lewis, Nel Tarleton, Len Harvey, and even glass groined "Fainting Phil" Scott are names which might be completely lost to the shrouds of the past, if the modern version of their sport can't be restored to former prominence. (All the BBB of C would have to do is be the first sanctioning body with the guts to restore the 15 round limit. The U.K. would once again become the boxing mecca of a bygone era. Unfortunately, the current governors of boxing are all crooks and cowards.)

[torchkit]

With your argument anybody can be heavyweight champion if some acronym creates a belt for them. Uh, YEAH...that's how it works.

[Bummy Davis]

Holmes gets credit for his consistency, albeit against rather weak opposition.



That's a nice way to say it.

Another way to say it, would be: "Holmes dropped his WBC belt and was gifted the IBF belt".

Yet another way to say it would be "Holmes didn't want to fight his mandatory, Greg Page, and would rather be stripped and beltless in a time when the IBF belt meant just as much as the IBO belt does today - nothing".



No one denies that Holmes was more consistent than his other potential opponents, with the exception of Thomas and perhaps Dokes.
But him not fighting 4 very deserving challengers (Thomas, Page, Dokes, Coetzee), dropping the at time ONLY recognised belt to avoid one plus ducking the rematch every single close fight he had (Norton, Weaver, Witherspoon and Williams) is a bit too much.

Whether or not the challengers he ducked could remain consistent after they missed their title shot is completely irrelevant. You think Holmes was going around saying "well, Page is the most deserving challenger now, but i'm going to fight Marvis Frazier next... what? No, not Joe, Marvis. He's undefeated in all of his ten fights! ...I'm not going to Page because he's about to lose to Witherspoon.... yes, the guy who i'm not going to give a well-earnt rematch".
At least that would be classier than "I aint fighting no coke addicts" (referring to Thomas).

All champions had some cannon fodder, but Holmes was drowning in it.

You can go on lengths on how they were undefeated, but in reality, all that meant is that they didn't fight anyone with a pulse and were very inexperienced. Holmes was more consistent than anyone around, but how much does that mean if he's not fighting the toughest challengers around while they are fighting each other and as a result of that, losing some?
I think Holmes could've beaten most of them, but he never proved it in the ring and that bothers me.


:good :good :good Good Post, I agree 100%

[Street Lethal]

Uh, YEAH...that's how it works.

Yep, that's how it works. The IBF creates a belt and there's a new champion. The WBO creates a belt and there's a new champion. The IBO creates a belt.... and on we go. I have been following boxing a long time. I remember when there was one champion in every division. Here and there, there was a dispute, but the WBA and WBC unified and on we went. Then we started seeing two "champions" permanently as this group stripped this fighter and so on. They were stripping boxers at the drop of a hat. Then there were three "champions." Then there were four. And on it goes, with "champions" multiplying like rabbits.

You think that's good for boxing? Do you really want to be the sheep who leaps through the high grass whenever some promoter creates a sanctioning body to sell you a "championship fight"? Are you that gullible?

[torchkit]

Yep, that's how it works. The IBF creates a belt and there's a new champion. The WBO creates a belt and there's a new champion. The IBO creates a belt.... and on we go. I have been following boxing a long time. I remember when there was one champion in every division. Here and there, there was a dispute, but the WBA and WBC unified and on we went. Then we started seeing two "champions" permanently as this group stripped this fighter and so on. They were stripping boxers at the drop of a hat. Then there were three "champions." Then there were four. And on it goes, with "champions" multiplying like rabbits.

You think that's good for boxing? Do you really want to be the sheep who leaps through the high grass whenever some promoter creates a sanctioning body to sell you a "championship fight"? Are you that gullible?Damn, you're annoying. Speaking of "gullible," do you really believe your BS or are you just pretending to be a dick? The world has moved on...boxing has moved on. Deal with it.

But back to the original argument - You recognize Ali as being "champion" after he beat Spinks in the rematch...even though he only won ONE belt. You refuse to recognize Holyfield as champion when he did the exact same thing. Which is it? Are ALL belts needed to be called a champion, or just one? Or just a particular belt?

[Quick Cash]

Damn, you're annoying. Speaking of "gullible," do you really believe your BS or are you just pretending to be a dick? The world has moved on...boxing has moved on. Deal with it.

But back to the original argument - You recognize Ali as being "champion" after he beat Spinks in the rematch...even though he only won ONE belt. You refuse to recognize Holyfield as champion when he did the exact same thing. Which is it? Are ALL belts needed to be called a champion, or just one? Or just a particular belt?

He's only counting lineal exchanges. I think you know that already. Honestly, I don't care either way. The fictional lineal belt has it's functions especially with all the sanctioning bodies floating around with their paper champions, but undisputed, or even unified, title reigns have their merits as well.
Holyfield, however, does not surpass Ali in both criteria. Ali was lineally recognized thrice, while Evander only two times; Ali was undisputed twice (now excluding the Spinks win you so avidly lobby against), Evander ties him with two as well

[Street Lethal]

You recognize Ali as being "champion" after he beat Spinks in the rematch...even though he only won ONE belt. You refuse to recognize Holyfield as champion when he did the exact same thing. Which is it? Are ALL belts needed to be called a champion, or just one? Or just a particular belt?

You're quick with the insults. I could insult you here, but I won't. Calling people "dick" and whatnot just shows the weakness of your position. People who are insecure insult other people.

So I will just kindly point out that your question shows us that you don't understand the point of world championship. Ali would have needed to hold no belt to be the world champion. He was the world champion at the time because he beat the reigning world champion (George Foreman). The fact that the WBA sanctioned the bout with Spinks is meaningless for the world championship.

Muhammad Ali defeating Leon Spinks is completely different from Holyfield defeating Tyson or Moorer for the WBA belt. In the Ali's case, Leon Spinks was the world champion. In Holyfield's case, neither Tyson nor Moorer were the world champion.

I can help you understand this is you still don't get it. I'm a helpful person. But if you are going to insult me then we can't have a rational discussion and you can't learn anything. Is that cool?

[torchkit]

You're quick with the insults. I could insult you here, but I won't. Calling people "dick" and whatnot just shows the weakness of your position. People who are insecure insult other people.

So I will just kindly point out that your question shows us that you don't understand the point of world championship. Ali would have needed to hold no belt to be the world champion. He was the world champion at the time because he beat the reigning world champion (George Foreman). The fact that the WBA sanctioned the bout with Spinks is meaningless for the world championship.

Muhammad Ali defeating Leon Spinks is completely different from Holyfield defeating Tyson or Moorer for the WBA belt. In the Ali's case, Leon Spinks was the world champion. In Holyfield's case, neither Tyson nor Moorer were the world champion.

I can help you understand this is you still don't get it. I'm a helpful person. But if you are going to insult me then we can't have a rational discussion and you can't learn anything. Is that cool? - Yawn - Recognize whichever "champion" you wish, or none at all.

May I infer then, that the last HW champion you recognize was Lewis? And that it will likely be 20 years before there is another "true" champ? Or do you recognize the linear holder (who is that anyway-I lost track) as being "the" current champ?

BTW - You insulted first, I merely responded in kind. And your attempt at humor via your condescending tone is neither witty nor necessary. No hard feelings though.

[Street Lethal]

I didn't insult you. You came on like a hard charger from the get go. I asked you if you intended to accept whatever champion some group of men after sanctioning fees threw at you. I used the sheep metaphor. Maybe you thought that was mean. If so, I apologize. But you are still ducking the question. I going to assume the answer is yes.

To answer your question, yes, Lewis was the last heavyweight champion. I grew up with the WBA and WBC, as did most people here (and a few even remember the NBA and the NYSAC, which spawned the WBA and the WBC), so if they unify those titles, I will accept whomever wins that fight as the champion. I would hope The Ring would as well. They could help a lot to make order out of madness.

But I am guessing that if the Ring were to say this, then the IBF, WBO, and every other mickey mouse alphabelt would sue the magazine, as the Ring endorsement of the long standing historical tradition would hurt their ability to market their product. Restraint of trade or some other such bullshit would be the reasoning.

Honestly, I rather there be no champion than multiple titlists.

[torchkit]

Honestly, I rather there be no champion than multiple titlists.I could probably live with that. Actually, back in the 80's I recall Howartd Cosell (after he decided to hate boxing) goofing on there being 16 sanctioning bodies recognizing champions.
Since then I've often expected (dreaded) that the different sanctioning bodies might follow in the mold of professional wrestling, which eclipsed boxing in popularity in the 80's. Something like the WWF having it's own stable of wrestlers, who only wrestle in WWF, with Hulk Hogan as champion; and WCW doing the same with Rick Flair as their champion.

It never went quite that far, but... as boxing champions go, there are many champions but rarely is anyone THE champion. I think those days are over. Nowadays, the alphabet title holder who has the best PR machine behind him is generally recognized as champion.

[Dempsey1238]

As of now, Tyson have never drew in the large crowd that Dempsey drew in, His fights with Carp, Firpo and Tunney are still in the top ten all time largest attended of ALL time. The only fight that "Beat" the first tunney fight was Chavez's free amission fight. Tyson never capture a crowd like that. Yes a million bucks may be small change today compare to sports, but at the time of the Dempsey era, it was BIG. Dempsey made more money in one fight, than the Babe made in a whole season of baseball. The only reason Tyson makes the 8 or 9 million today in fights is because our money vaule went up compare to the 1920's.

Over all Dempsey is the biggest draw in boxing. And that includes Ali. I belive the only time Ali drew in a crowd like that was Ali Fraizer 1 and 3 perhaps. Maybe Foreman.