The heavyweight ever who isn't Muhammed Ali/Cassius Clay

[Brute]

Louis beat the best heavyweights of his era. He could not manufacture fighters. Not many of the men he fought backed up for seconds.

And he was undisputed champion. Not many of them on the ground now in any weight division.

[I Feel Fine]

While that may be true, it's an argument to me that doesn't hold much water.

Yes, arguments that are false seem to make much more sense to you.

Though I dont agree with that cock sucker Bert Sugar alot of the time, I do believe one thing he did say, and that there was NEVER a champion more beloved or reveered than Joe Louis was.

Some of you Louis fans need to get your story straight. Now he's the most popular again, while last week on another thread, when we needed to make excuses for the lack of scrutiny he gets, he was suddenly forgotten/unappreciated.

Might as well be, considering Ali's such a martyr
.................
Had he NOT been in WW2, imagine how many more defenses he may have had

Well, I know Ali didn't pretend to fight in WWII, but I never used the word martyr, I simply pointed out the spelling of his name. I say the same when I see some people talk about "Joe Fraiser." We understand your feelings about Arabic/Islamic names, but thats your problem, not mine.Still, I don't see why we should be dreaming about a hypothetical number of defenses Louis would have had during those years over inconsequential opposition, while we should roll our eyes at the much more meaningful title challengers a prime Ali would have been facing.

But, as for Holmes and Louis, I didn't claim that Holmes' reign was better than Louis'. I believe quite the opposite, though they did both benefit from weak eras where they could accumulate a lot of defenses.

And yes, too bad about those black title challengers Louis didn't fight. Good thing he wasn't Jack Johnson.

[I Feel Fine]

Louis beat the best heavyweights of his era. He could not manufacture fighters. Not many of the men he fought backed up for seconds.

And he was undisputed champion. Not many of them on the ground now in any weight division.

No one said Louis didn't beat the best of his era (though, again, maybe more than two black title challengers might have been preferable), what was said was that its wrong to try to make Louis' title challengers out to be something they weren't. With the excpetions of Schmeling and Walcott, none of them were great Heavyweights. And thats fine, but sometimes going 5-2 against great fighters is just as impressive as going 15-0 against weak ones. Frazier definitely got screwed being stuck in the era he did, he could have been near unstoppable if God had put him in a different time period in Heavyweight history.

Now we're giving Louis credit for being undisputed champion? That's amazing. Louis was indeed undisputed champion, but as opposed to what prominent Heavyweight champion prior to Holmes? Even most of the prominent ones since Holmes were at one time or another. Charles was the only Heavyweight champion prior to the 60s who had to gain universal recognition, seems kind of ridiculous to act as if Louis' holding of the undisputed title deserves some kind of distinction. That just sounds like another example of Louis being looked at through rose colored lenses.

[dempseyfire]

I don't take exception (not a lot, anyway) to the argument Louis #1 rankers lack objectivity, myself. I object to the subtext that most people who have Ali ranked #1 don't suffer from the same problem, if anything, more acutely.

After the thousandth viewing of Through The Eyes Of The World (Starry-eyed propaganda at it's worst), When We Were Kings (History? Or His-Story) or any of the other, almost literally countless books, films, docos & the like (Of which, Ali specials must outnumber their Louis counter-parts 100-1 or more), who is anyone to say most people who rank Louis #1 have zero objectivity, as so many people who have ranked Ali #1 have viewed so many excess pro-Ali works, their eyes are left spinning like pinwheels?

I didn't say that either.

I haven't seen any Ali documentaries that were any more or less biased than any documentaries I've ever seen about Louis.

And while its true that not everyone in the "bum of the month club" was a bum, its still not exactly murderers row. Even Schmeling and Walcott, who are great Heavyweight opponents, weren't exactly unbeatable. Forget Ali, who on Louis' list, title defenses or not, would you favor to beat Liston or Foreman? You're telling me Frazier or Holmes wouldn't have the consistency to possibly score 25 defenses in Louis' era? And are title defenses the only measure of who the better fighter is?

As for Marciano; shouldn't even be in the discussion.

By the way, samtheassassinatkins, its "Muhammad" not "Muhammed."

I believe Walcott could have beaten Foreman. The overweight inactive Liston in at least his mid 30s Ali beat? I think Walcott, Schmeling, and perhaps Conn could have beaten [/i]that Liston.

Frazier or Holmes having 25 defenses in Louis's era?? No way.

[pundit]

Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Foreman or Liston is how I would have structured the poll. It's obvusly neither Tyson nor Marciano (notwithstanding the couple of wacko-votes they received)

[I Feel Fine]

I believe Walcott could have beaten Foreman. The overweight inactive Liston in at least his mid 30s Ali beat? I think Walcott, Schmeling, and perhaps Conn could have beaten [/i]that Liston.

Frazier or Holmes having 25 defenses in Louis's era?? No way.

Walcott didn't have the punch resistance to beat George. I wasn't thinking of any particular version of Liston. Your portrayal of that version of Liston is a bit self serving, however. Liston was hardly some blown up and incapable old man. Schmeling would take six tough rounds with that Liston? Very likely not. Walcott might have a chance, but I wouldn't favor him.

Which one of Louis' title challengers would be favored to beat Frazier or Holmes? None. You're seriously suggesting that Holmes couldn't do it? That's ridiculous. Holmes had enough left by age 34, and would have the consitency and longevity to get 25. As for Frazier, he's more of a question mark for a couple of reasons, but he would likely have less wear and tear by 34 than he did in the 70s. Frazier would have to be more active, but he would be fighting easier opposition if he fought in Louis' era, so he could afford to be. At worst Joe comes a couple short, but he could certainly score 20 or more.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The thing is, IFF, you often make the point that there is more to a career than the sheer number of title defenses or utterly wiping out a division, as Louis did --- & you make the point that, going beyond the numbers, level of competition counts for a lot --- which it does, but it never seems to work both ways, with you. Just as Ali's opposition means a lot, so, too, does Louis causing an extinction of contenders in his time against lesser opposition.

Now, to be fair, I think competition counts for more, which is why I rank Ali ahead of Louis in accomplishment. However, it has to work both ways --- if less dominance against superior competition counts in your favour, so too does substantially greater dominance against lesser opponents.

[I Feel Fine]

I never suggested that Frazier or Holmes were as good/better than Louis. I just said they could very possibly have tied, or at least in Frazier's case could have come close to tying Louis' record. Its a great record, but its not something that others couldn't have done.

Substantially greater dominance over lesser opposition means something, but Ali did that in the 60s. For all practical purposes he cleaned out the division twice. And he has more Heavyweight title defenses than any other Heavyweight, next to Holmes and Louis, who didn't fight the opponents he did. He also had a more impressive resume in non-title bouts. He beat as many Hall of Fame Heavyweight champions as Louis did. Not dominant enough? Even their difference in losses isn't that big a deal, at 34 their losses were close 2-1 in Louis' favor, though he also had his first fight with Walcott. By the end of their careers Ali had two more losses officially at 5-3, but that's not really something to write home about, unless we want to bring Marciano into the conversation.

(Marciano is another one, by the way, who I might have some things to say about, but who I still rank as a top five all time Heavyweight... in the last week some of you have tried to suggest that I'm defaming these fighters simply because of a few criticisms, meanwhile I have them all ranked so highly... I have Louis top 10 P4P, while goodnight doesn't.)

Their level of dominance isn't that different; the real difference is Ali did it against much better opposition. You can talk about Liston being a little old and a little inactive; he wasn't as far gone as Sharkey, he wasn't as inactive as Braddock, he still had the title, and he was officially the same age as Walcott. Not sure why Louis fans don't downgrade those Louis wins, then, while talking about Liston. And, more importantly, Liston was still more dangerous, frankly, than any of the hall of famers Louis beat, and Louis fans can dispute that until the cows come home; its futile to argue.

[dempseyfire]

I never suggested that Frazier or Holmes were as good/better than Louis. I just said they could very possibly have tied, or at least in Frazier's case could have come close to tying Louis' record. Its a great record, but its not something that others couldn't have done.

Substantially greater dominance over lesser opposition means something, but Ali did that in the 60s. For all practical purposes he cleaned out the division twice. And he has more Heavyweight title defenses than any other Heavyweight, next to Holmes and Louis, who didn't fight the opponents he did. He also had a more impressive resume in non-title bouts. He beat as many Hall of Fame Heavyweight champions as Louis did. Not dominant enough? Even their difference in losses isn't that big a deal, at 34 their losses were close 2-1 in Louis' favor, though he also had his first fight with Walcott. By the end of their careers Ali had two more losses officially at 5-3, but that's not really something to write home about, unless we want to bring Marciano into the conversation.

(Marciano is another one, by the way, who I might have some things to say about, but who I still rank as a top five all time Heavyweight... in the last week some of you have tried to suggest that I'm defaming these fighters simply because of a few criticisms, meanwhile I have them all ranked so highly... I have Louis top 10 P4P, while goodnight doesn't.)

Their level of dominance isn't that different; the real difference is Ali did it against much better opposition. You can talk about Liston being a little old and a little inactive; he wasn't as far gone as Sharkey, he wasn't as inactive as Braddock, he still had the title, and he was officially the same age as Walcott. Not sure why Louis fans don't downgrade those Louis wins, then, while talking about Liston. And, more importantly, Liston was still more dangerous, frankly, than any of the hall of famers Louis beat, and Louis fans can dispute that until the cows come home; its futile to argue.

I would make Frazier a favorite over any of Louis's opponents best for best, but Frazier's style would never ensure the longetivity of getting to 25 defenses. He'd have eventually gotten upset by a Buddy Baer or Lou Nova-level fighter.

Holmes could get mighty close, but his lack of power would ensure a few upsets as well. I rank Louis's crop overall much higher than the opponents Holmes faced.

Overall, Ali's best wins are better than Louis's best wins. But it comes down to what you'd rank more, consistency or overall high points. Both had pivotal first losses (Louis to Schmeling and Ali to Frazier) but aftwerwards Louis cleaned house until getting a gift vs Walcott in the first fight. The rematch erases all doubts as he knocks him out.
Ali loses to Norton, scrapes by Ken in the rematch in a fight which could be scored for either man, and then gets beaten again by Norton later but gets the decision. Also gets a very questionable call vs Jimmy Young. You add in those two as losses, and Ali's consistency certainly comes into question. And sure, Ali was far past his best for Spinks. But Louis was far past his best for Charles too, and Charles was 10 times the calibre fighter of Leon.

Overall, I think Louis's greater consistency and lack of questionable decisions save one which he avenged by knockout, give him the bump neccesary for that number 1 spot. If someone wants to edge Ali b/c of the wins over Frazier, Foreman, and Liston, I can see that perspective too. But the former is complety within sound reason.

[Ezzard]

I myself pick Ali but there's plenty of fighters in with a shot. Louis could be the number 1. I certainly would not argue with someone who thought so.

IMO it's more about who should be in the discussion rather than who is the actual number 1. I think you can be fairly sure of the best group of fighters but not necessarily who is the out and out best.

[Ambling Alp]

For the heavyweights #1 and #2 isn't that difficult to determine. Sorting out #3 to about #14 is where it's gets difficult.

You have to consider the following:

Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Marciano
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Holyfield
Lewis
Tyson

[Syntax Error]

I've voted for Joe Louis, although sometimes I'm adamant that Jack Johnson would have had his number.

Johnson knew Louis' weaknesses & laid down the blueprint for Schmeling to defeat the great Brown Bomber.

[I Feel Fine]

Louis had better oppposition than Holmes as champion, and Holmes was not Louis, but I believe that he showed the kind of consistency and ability to do what Louis did in his time. I'm not sure that lack of power would hurt him against many of Louis' opponents. I think he could out box a Schmeling or a Conn. Frazier would be fine up to age 32, in my view. The lack of wear and tear that would result in fighting Louis' opponents rather than the fighters he faced in the 60's and 70's might help him at 33 and 34, though that's something that we can only assume. But all he ever lost to were two top 5 all time Heavyweights, he was never upset by a Lou Nova type fighter until his ill conceived comeback where he got a questionable draw fighting a nobody. I would say that he could be capable of scoring 20 defenses. I guess 25 would be difficult, but I've heard crazier things.

As for your reasonings about Ali and Louis, basically, you're just going back to what I said or implied earlier; putting more stock in a fighter who had greater consistency in a weaker era. I won't compare it to the logic that says that "Floyd Mayweather is the greatest fighter who ever lived", but I'm tempted to.

First you imply that Louis rebounded better off his loss to Schmeling than Ali did off his loss to Frazier. Louis, after that, was "cleaning house" as you say. Well, Ali cleaned a much bigger and more expensive house after his loss to Frazier than Louis did after his loss to Schmeling. The fighters he beat after the loss to Frazier were more impressive than the fighters Louis did after his loss to Schmeling. Its also quite odd how you put it in those terms, considering that when you put it that way you basically leave out Ali's title reign in the 60's and the fact that he had been Heavyweight champion and that half of his career was behind him when his first loss came, while Louis lost his first fight at the same age Ali won the Heavyweight championship and that therefore Louis had his whole career, including his prime, in front of him, while Ali was getting older and had his biggest tests ahead of him. Not really fair. But, one of those tests Ali had to face was his loss to Norton, which he avenged. I think every fighter is entitled to one guy who gives him trouble, Louis had it with a man who fought more than a whole weight class below him, and Ali-Norton II was no closer than Holmes' win over Norton, a win that people take for granted.

Liston vs. Baer, Patterson vs. Sharkey, Frazier vs. Schmeling, Norton vs. Braddock, Foreman vs. Walcott, Quarry vs. Carnera, Shavers vs. Galento, Foster vs. Conn, Terrell vs. Nova, Chuvalo vs. Godoy. All that really matters in boxing is who you fight and who you beat. You can have window dressing like who fought in more title fights, who had less losses on their record, etc. but that's really much less important. Louis' fans might like the sound of twenty five title defenses, or might enjoy the idea that he had less losses, but realistically the quality of the opponent you're fighting means more than artificial titles and what a tally of wins and losses says. The fact that he was a "title challenger" when he fought Louis does not make Johnny Paycheck a more impressive opponent than, say, Jimmy Ellis was when he fought Ali in a non-title bout. And one of the few understated things about Ali's career is that he did indeed accumulate a lot of title defenses, and he comes in third all time among Heavyweights in most successful title defenses. It's just the difference of six less Abe Simon's that Ali didn't fight.

But then there's consistency. On their 34th birthdays, when their best days were behind them and when the vast majority of their careers were over, Ali had lost to Frazier and Norton and Louis had lost to Schmeling and a year earlier should have lost to Walcott. Their level in consistency was therefore basically the same. The notion that Louis had some greater over all consistency is a myth, at least before they got old. After that age, however, things became different. The highlights of Louis' career after that 34th birthday were that he scored a win over Walcott in the rematch, which was probably his second biggest win, then retired, came back and lost to Ezzard Charles, beat Savold, and lost to Marciano. If Ali were never brought into the conversation, most Louis fans would simply say that by that age of 33/34 Louis was basically finished, and that besides Walcott nothing much after that really matters. Louis lose to Ezzard Charles? Charles was a great fighter, but that would have never happened at Louis' best. His loss to Marciano means just as little, a Louis fan would say, its tragic that he was even in the ring. Louis just becomes one of these many fighters who needed cash, fought on for too long, and ended up with some losses that do not display in any way what a great fighter he was. The same thing happened to plenty of great fighters like Ray Robinson or Ezzard Charles himself.

Bring Ali into the conversation, however, and suddenly those years matter a lot to Louis' fans. Ali, on his road to Parkinsons disease, had a lot more bumps on his way down than Louis did. Rather than look past that and chalk it up to old age, as they normally would, suddenly they use it as a way of attacking Ali's consistency. I won't call it disgraceful, but its a twisted tactic that they would never do if the situation was reversed. It jumps past the relevant question of what they did at their best, and nitpicks about what Ali did when he was past it. When the simple difference was that Ali was still Heavyweight champion for most of those years, and so he took on a whole heap of really good fighters, from Young to Norton to Shavers, and then on his comeback fought Holmes and Berbick. Louis defeated Walcott, but the other comparable opposition were Charles and Marciano, who dominated him, and the rest were lower level fighters, though Savold was somewhat respected. Its really just another case of difference in opposition; Ali was still fighting better fighters, but now they were both old and so Ali was losing more. Young vs. Charles, Norton vs. Bivins, Shavers vs. Savold, Spinks vs. Brion, Holmes vs. Marciano. And so Ali at the end of his career, because he fought on for too long but also because he was still fighting better opponents, had more losses. He had five over all, and a couple of gifts, while Louis had three losses and the one gift. Not really a dramatic difference, even then. To me its clear that the notion that Louis had some far greater consistency is basically a myth. At their best they were about evenly consistent, but Ali was doing it against much better fighters. Then they got old and Louis had a couple of less bad performances, while still facing less impressive opponents.

Basically, you can't compare their accomplishments, you acknkowledge that Ali had better wins, so you rely on the fact that Louis' decline was less ugly than Ali's. Who would have thought after his landslide loss to Ezzard Charles and his KO loss to Marciano that Louis' declining years would be the basis for him being the greatest Heavyweight? But, apparently they were, according to Louis' fans. Before Ali, those declining years for Louis were years that Louis fans looked over and considered meaningless; until they saw just how bad Ali's declining years were. Now a fighter's declining years suddenly matter to Louis fans, and so Ali's career is reduced to 76-81, and the fact that the first 15 years of his career were better than Louis' doesn't matter. Nonsense.

[Ezzard]

For the heavyweights #1 and #2 isn't that difficult to determine. Sorting out #3 to about #14 is where it's gets difficult.

You have to consider the following:

Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Marciano
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Holyfield
Lewis
Tyson

All the major suspects are here. I don't think you can really put Tyson in with a shout at #3 though. I also think that Johnson might just be number 2 (IMO he has a place in that debate).

I would also take out Foreman but there's enough people on this forum who would give him a chance that I'd probably take that on board and have him in the conversation.

Just nit-picking I know...

[Ambling Alp]

I wouldn't put Tyson at #3 either, but he is probably much closer to having as good of a career as the #3 guy than say the #17 guy is to having as good of a career as Tyson. There are a dozen guys that are relatively close.

If Johnson had successfully defended the title against McVey or Jeannette or Langford he would be solid #3. In my opinion, he is a major victory short.
Had he successfully defended the title against all 3, he probably would deserve to be #2. Since he didn't, he in the mix with several other guys.

As Foreman, I not only believe he should be considered #3, he is the guy I have at #3. Certainly a shaky pick, but to me he has as good of an argument as anyone else.




[/i]

[Ambling Alp]

As for I Feel Fine's last post, it seems to have a lot of logic. It also did a lot of comparing "apples to apples".
For whatever reason, doing things like comparing the two at the same stage in their career is seldom done.

Compare Louis to any other heavyweight whoever fought in a fair and relevant way, and he usually comes out favorably. This is the one guy that he doesn't.

[Ezzard]

I wouldn't put Tyson at #3 either, but he is probably much closer to having as good of a career as the #3 guy than say the #17 guy is to having as good of a career as Tyson. There are a dozen guys that are relatively close.

If Johnson had successfully defended the title against McVey or Jeannette or Langford he would be solid #3. In my opinion, he is a major victory short.
Had he successfully defended the title against all 3, he probably would deserve to be #2. Since he didn't, he in the mix with several other guys.

As Foreman, I not only believe he should be considered #3, he is the guy I have at #3. Certainly a shaky pick, but to me he has as good of an argument as anyone else.




[/i]

I agree with all your points.

If Johnson had beat those 3 again he'd be in with a shout at the top spot.

One question: was Foreman your number 3 before the comeback?

[Ambling Alp]

To me, the comeback isn't that important in judging Foreman's career. You can't really hold any defeats against him since he was so old and had been off for so long.
That he did as well as he did in some of his fights (Holyfield,Moorer,Cooney etc.) is pretty impressive. But of course he wasn't the #3 heavyweight of all time during this period.

His first career was pretty impressive, and that is what I base his ranking on. Yes, he did lose twice. However, he had some very impressive wins. The destruction of Frazier in their first fight was simply awesome. Never in the history of the heavyweight division has a heavyweight of Frazier's caliber been crushed like that.

He doesn't get near the credit for the Norton that he should. Norton was never even knocked down by anyone else in his prime. Foreman blew him away.
The fights with Peralta showed that while he had a lot of trouble with a great boxer like a prime Jimmy Young, he could handle good boxers.

[Ezzard]

To me, the comeback isn't that important in judging Foreman's career. You can't really hold any defeats against him since he was so old and had been off for so long.
That he did as well as he did in some of his fights (Holyfield,Moorer,Cooney etc.) is pretty impressive. But of course he wasn't the #3 heavyweight of all time during this period.

His first career was pretty impressive, and that is what I base his ranking on. Yes, he did lose twice. However, he had some very impressive wins. The destruction of Frazier in their first fight was simply awesome. Never in the history of the heavyweight division has a heavyweight of Frazier's caliber been crushed like that.

He doesn't get near the credit for the Norton that he should. Norton was never even knocked down by anyone else in his prime. Foreman blew him away.
The fights with Peralta showed that while he had a lot of trouble with a great boxer like a prime Jimmy Young, he could handle good boxers.

I think the comeback really boosts George. It's a no lose situation. He was so old that even being competitive with the top fighters was impressive. He may have been carefully matched but he still beat some contenders and became champion.

He beat some quality opposition in his first career but the manner of his defeat to Ali is the big question mark. He just wilted and seemed to give up. Now on one hand Ali (great endurance, great chin, great stamina, excellent defence and super fast straight punches) might have been the perfect fighter to beat George but Foreman was so 1 dimensional in that fight and by about round 6 was looking for a way out. Whatever we might think of Marciano's chances with Ali he'd never have capitualted in that manner.

Foreman was not the same fighter after that defeat which makes me also question his mental strength. Liston and Tyson also suffered once their initimidating aura was popped. Then Foreman loses a second time and quits the sport. Whilst Foreman, to some extent, helped to erase these issues with the comeback showing strength in adversity the young Foreman seemed to have that nagging self doubt that I'd also attribute to Tyson.

It would always take something special to beat Foreman but I think he falls short of the number 3 spot.

I have read that Foreman's handlers believed that Ali's people did not want a rematch and warned George against blowing Young out early. Then by the time George tried to turn it on it was too late. I'm not sure if I believe it or not. I do think I'd make the 1977 Foreman a slight favourite over the 1977 version of Ali, if he got his game plan right.

[Ambling Alp]

I don't really hold it against foreman for the fight in Zaire. He actually performed pretty well. He threw an awful lot of of hard punches that would have gotten almost anyone out of there. He did begin to tire, but so would almost anyone who had thrown that many hard punches, especially considering the hot weather.

I don't think he quit at all or was "looking for a way out" He didn't quit on his stool (ie Liston), walk away (ie Duran) or just refuse to get up (ie Arguello in the 2nd Pryor fight).
He was throwing punches until the end, and he tried to get up after he was knocked down. He just didn't have anything left.

His effort shouldn't be criticized. Maybe he didn't have the best game plan, but hindsight is 20/20.

He still looked good in some fights after he lost the title. In the Lyle fight he was rusty, but still managed to knockout a very good fighter in 5 rounds. He showed he had heart in that fight. He also looked good in the 2nd Frazier fight and against some lesser fighters.

He did look bad in the Young fight (partially due to Young making him look bad) but that is one fight and against an especially difficult opponent.

[HomicideHenry]

Foreman, in my opinion isn't guilty of not getting a rematch with Ali, though I do say a loss is a loss when he did lose the decision to Young. The old George was only guilty of #1- Giving Tony Tucker a shot at the title, and #2- giving Axl Schulz a rematch.

Bad karma came around for George when he finally got robbed at the age of 49 (I believe) in 1997 against Shannon Briggs.

The comeback does in my mind boost Foreman's ATG ranking, but fact of the matter was, he already was a top 10-15 heavyweight in the first incarnation of himself in the 1970's against Frazier and Norton and others. The comeback boosted him to a top five status if anything, though one can seriously argue that the comeback wouldn't have mattered, as Foreman in his younger years could have defeated every single champion before him (with the exception of Muhammad Ali).

[VoiceOnTV]

Larry Holmes should at least be an option. Some people will question his opposition but forget the people he had to fight BEFORE he was champion. Louis did get my vote. Hard to argue with that kind of longevity. It is notable to remember that he began the "bum of the month" club.

[dempseyfire]

Larry Holmes should at least be an option. Some people will question his opposition but forget the people he had to fight BEFORE he was champion. Louis did get my vote. Hard to argue with that kind of longevity. It is notable to remember that he began the "bum of the month" club.

Hmm, I'm a believer in Holmes being a firm top 10 HW of all time (possibly top 5) but the people Holmes fought before becoming champion? Take away Shavers and Tiger Williams, and it wasn't a very impressive group.