Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑Yesterday, 15:41
When Thomas was at his best Holmes was past his prime and blatantly ducking the top fighters in search of easier opponents.
So yes it's perfectly reasonable to put him ahead of that version of Holmes
Based on having beaten guys that already lost to Holmes first. Gotcha.
Not to mention the Dozen+ other title defenses Holmes had including one over the man that took Pinklon's title.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑Yesterday, 15:41
When Thomas was at his best Holmes was past his prime and blatantly ducking the top fighters in search of easier opponents.
So yes it's perfectly reasonable to put him ahead of that version of Holmes
Good point. Thomas had defeated Weaver and Witherspoon easier than Holmes did. Holmes was outboxed badly by Carl Williams and was lucky the judges saved him. Holmes was clearly declining. This was not the Holmes of 1978-1982.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑Yesterday, 15:41
When Thomas was at his best Holmes was past his prime and blatantly ducking the top fighters in search of easier opponents.
So yes it's perfectly reasonable to put him ahead of that version of Holmes
Good point. Thomas had defeated Weaver and Witherspoon easier than Holmes did. Holmes was outboxed badly by Carl Williams and was lucky the judges saved him. Holmes was clearly declining. This was not the Holmes of 1978-1982.
Since Pinklon Thomas had youth on his side and wasn't in decline there's no way in hell that Holmes would still be getting big wins in 1992 over Ray Mercer while Tommy Morrison was busy blitzing Pinklon Thomas in 1 round right in 1991 right?
There's no way he would've went the distance with World Heavyweight Champion Holyfield while Pinklon got KO'd by Developing Heavyweight Holyfield.
I mean Holmes was old and washed up. Not half the fighter Pinklon was, and he certainly wouldn't go on to be better for the remainder of both of their careers from 1985 onward would he?
But yeah Pinklon was THOUGHT to MAYBE be better than him in 1984 so that's all we need right? F*ck all the evidence they provided us in the ring.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑28 Aug 2026, 19:12
Generally speaking Lewis would've been considered and was considered the #1 Heavyweight with or without Briggs yes, but Briggs would've legitimately had claim of the Lineal Championship, though admittedly a devalued version of it as it had already become in the hands of George Foreman due to the way he chose to defend it after 1995.
Likewise in Usyk's final bout though he will still be defending the Lineal Title, it will now be a devalued version of it since he has given up all the titles, and is choosing to avoid all of the best possible opposition from the looks of it. Which is his right at this stage of his career.
That being said if he loses. Guess what the man that beat him is?
Mike Tyson is another example. He gained widespread recognition as champ without lineage and was overwhelmingly recognized as the man prior to beating Spinks. If Spinks had ducked him for another two years nobody would claim Tyson wasn't the real champ.
I recognize him as the legitimate champ from Berbick onwards and most people do from Tucker onwards if not earlier
He wasn't the undisputed champion until he beat Spinks.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑28 Aug 2026, 19:12
Generally speaking Lewis would've been considered and was considered the #1 Heavyweight with or without Briggs yes, but Briggs would've legitimately had claim of the Lineal Championship, though admittedly a devalued version of it as it had already become in the hands of George Foreman due to the way he chose to defend it after 1995.
Likewise in Usyk's final bout though he will still be defending the Lineal Title, it will now be a devalued version of it since he has given up all the titles, and is choosing to avoid all of the best possible opposition from the looks of it. Which is his right at this stage of his career.
That being said if he loses. Guess what the man that beat him is?
Mike Tyson is another example. He gained widespread recognition as champ without lineage and was overwhelmingly recognized as the man prior to beating Spinks. If Spinks had ducked him for another two years nobody would claim Tyson wasn't the real champ.
I recognize him as the legitimate champ from Berbick onwards and most people do from Tucker onwards if not earlier
He wasn't the undisputed champion until he beat Spinks.
