Who do you have as you No3 HW and why?

[fight_professor]

In overall achievement?

Larry Holmes.

For skill/h2h/, I say Tyson.

[StarshipTrooper]

I thought it was mostly because he ducked Sam Langford that everybody wants to ***** on him so much.

He fought and beat Langford before he won the title. The issue comes in because he wouldn't give him a shot AFTER he won the title.

Poet

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I have Foreman at 3rd, because his ability to decimate almost any fighter head-to-head, coupled with his unique & perennial career achievements, warrant it.

Holmes is at least debatable for 3rd, but personally I do not feel he gets nearly enough scrutiny for the level of competition (& it wasn't all about being in a weak era, either) during his title tenure. I think Foreman would've reigned for a hundred years fighting the guys Holmes was (especially at the stage of their careers several were), & even in his mid-30's would've done a number on Spinks.

Foreman at #3, for me.

[StarshipTrooper]

I think Foreman would've reigned for a hundred years fighting the guys Holmes was

Except that he would have dropped the title to Jimmy Young in '77 if that were the case.

Poet

[TBear]

Holmes: accomplished more than the rest but not as much as Louis and Ali.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Except that he would have dropped the title to Jimmy Young in '77 if that were the case.

Poet

In the first instance, I don't believe Foreman, at his best, doesn't beat Young (& their fight was a good deal closer than history often remembers), & had Foreman not lost in Zaire, I think he would've gotten to Young at some stage.

In the second instance, Holmes never met Young, in or out of his title reign.

[StarshipTrooper]

In the first instance, I don't believe Foreman, at his best, doesn't beat Young (& their fight was a good deal closer than history often remembers), & had Foreman not lost in Zaire, I think he would've gotten to Young at some stage.

In the second instance, Holmes never met Young, in or out of his title reign.

Except that Zaire happend and can't be made to disappear. Foreman wasn't going to beat Ali at any point prior to Ali really slipping badly, say circa the Spinks fights.

I would also point out that the Young fight was close on only 1 card: 115-114. The other two cards were 116-112 and 118-111 respectively.....that's a pretty clear loss.

Regardless, Foreman had two big weaknesses: He gassed after 6 rounds and he had difficulties with movers. If nothing else Young was a mover. It's not too difficult to imagine Young being a dicey opponent for any version of Foreman given his ability to move and keep away until Foreman runs out of steam.

Poet

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I do agree Young is a dangerous fight for Foreman at any time, but their actual fight was much, much closer than those cards suggest. Young landed absolutely nothing of note prior to the 8th stanza.

In any event, this is all a moot point --- I said Foreman would probably reign for a century over the men Holmes defended against, and Young wasnt one of them.

[StarshipTrooper]

I do agree Young is a dangerous fight for Foreman at any time, but their actual fight was much, much closer than those cards suggest. Young landed absolutely nothing of note prior to the 8th stanza.

Neither did Foreman.

In any event, this is all a moot point --- I said Foreman would probably reign for a century over the men Holmes defended against, and Young wasnt one of them.

Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Cooney.....I'd put those guys over Jimmy Young (Young lost to three of the four, two by KO). And I don't see Holmes having much issue with a mover like Young the way Foreman did. Holmes could be outworked, but he wasn't going to be outslicked.

PS. For the record, Young lost his shot at Holmes by losing twice to Ossie Ocasio who got the shot instead.

Poet

[Steak]

I dont think I would rate Shavers and Cooney above Young. Young lost to Cooney when he was pretty darn past prime, and although Shavers did blast out Young in their first fight most people thought Young deserved the win in their rematch. the fact that Young also beat Lyle twice and Foreman once suggests to me he overall had a better career than not only Shavers and Cooney, but arguably Weaver as well(but thats up for debate and I wont waste my time arguing against it).

Foreman under some context could be rated above Holmes. after all...

Norton>Norton(Foreman beat him younger and more dominantly)
Frazier>Weaver
Lyle>or=Cooney
Moorer>Shavers(considering his age)

however, I personally I have Holmes above Foreman. Despite Foreman's huge wins over Frazier, Norton, and Moorer, he actually didnt beat nearly as much high level competition as Holmes. You could add in Peralta, Chuvalo, Roman and Briggs, but thats about it.

Holmes apart from his best wins has a host of other notable secondary wins that are often forgotten, such as Evangilista, Ocasio, Zanon, Jones, Berbick, Spinks, Cobb, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith, David Bey, Carl Williams and Ray Mercer. Yes, a few of the listed wins are a bit...underwhelming. but they were still relevant fighters in the division, and certain fighters like Mercer and Witherspoon are very solid wins in my opinion.

overall I feel that Holmes beat more high level competition than Foreman and was a bit more consistant, and even partially mirrored Foreman's old man success when he schooled Mercer.

the big negative against Holmes was that he didnt fight the best the division had to offer all the time...Coetzee, Dokes, and a Weaver rematch would have really helped out his legacy.