Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Sep 2026, 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: ↑01 Sep 2026, 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: ↑01 Sep 2026, 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.
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.
That is true. Tyson had all the paper titles before that, but Spinks was the lineal champion.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Sep 2026, 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.
Holmes earlier title defenses have no bearing on the end of his reign when he was blatantly ducking top contenders and holding the title hostage.
If you refuse to fight the best you lose your claim as champ.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Sep 2026, 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.
Holmes earlier title defenses have no bearing on the end of his reign when he was blatantly ducking top contenders and holding the title hostage.
If you refuse to fight the best you lose your claim as champ.
Just wanted to be clear about something. You think that Thomas was better than Holmes in 1984-1985 and would have had a good chance at beating Holmes during that time? I would agree with that.
However, judging their careers overall, you do think Holmes was clearly better, right?
For a while, Thomas was really good, though obviously not at the level of a prime Holmes.
He took a lot of punishment against Tyson. He started to slip after that. Against a prime Holyfield, he also took a lot of punishment. He was never the same. Took a lot of punishment against Bowe as well.
Basically we've went for pages and pages just because the idea of the Lineal Championship. The man who beat the man was somehow unclear. It's one of the more clear cut ideas in Boxing.
It's a hell of a lot easier to explain the Lineal Championship and how it works to somebody who knows nothing of Boxing than it is to explain to them that there are 4 different Champions with 4 different Title belts.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Sep 2026, 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.
Holmes was doing better in 1992 than Carl Williams too, who was losing to Jerry Jones at the time. Didn't help Holmes much in 1985 when Larry was lucky to get a decision over him.
I wish a mod would step in and wave this thread off because your arguments are getting pummeled on all sides.
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.
Holmes was doing better in 1992 than Carl Williams too, who was losing to Jerry Jones at the time. Didn't help Holmes much in 1985 when Larry was lucky to get a decision over him.
I wish a mod would step in and wave this thread off because your arguments are getting pummeled on all sides.
By who?
Larry Holmes beat Tim Witherspoon.
Larry Holmes beat Carl Williams.
Close fights he won is the best you guys can come up with to try to cut him down.
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.
Holmes was doing better in 1992 than Carl Williams too, who was losing to Jerry Jones at the time. Didn't help Holmes much in 1985 when Larry was lucky to get a decision over him.
I wish a mod would step in and wave this thread off because your arguments are getting pummeled on all sides.
By who?
Larry Holmes beat Tim Witherspoon.
Larry Holmes beat Carl Williams.
Close fights he won is the best you guys can come up with to try to cut him down.
Oh well that's that then, nothing to see here.
Your arguments have no head movement and box with their left hand dangling by the hip.
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.
Holmes was doing better in 1992 than Carl Williams too, who was losing to Jerry Jones at the time. Didn't help Holmes much in 1985 when Larry was lucky to get a decision over him.
I wish a mod would step in and wave this thread off because your arguments are getting pummeled on all sides.
By who?
Larry Holmes beat Tim Witherspoon.
Larry Holmes beat Carl Williams.
Close fights he won is the best you guys can come up with to try to cut him down.
Most people had him losing to Williams. The blatant ducking is also a big problem
Holmes was doing better in 1992 than Carl Williams too, who was losing to Jerry Jones at the time. Didn't help Holmes much in 1985 when Larry was lucky to get a decision over him.
I wish a mod would step in and wave this thread off because your arguments are getting pummeled on all sides.
By who?
Larry Holmes beat Tim Witherspoon.
Larry Holmes beat Carl Williams.
Close fights he won is the best you guys can come up with to try to cut him down.
Most people had him losing to Williams. The blatant ducking is also a big problem
Larry Holmes beat Tim Witherspoon.
Larry Holmes beat Carl Williams.
Close fights he won is the best you guys can come up with to try to cut him down.
Most people had him losing to Williams. The blatant ducking is also a big problem
The judges didn't have him losing to Williams
If I could be bothered to trawl through your millions of posts, I know for a fact I would discover numerous examples of you complaining about judges, fighters being robbed, controversial decisions and the like. Like any boxing fan.
Now all of a sudden your argument is "The judges didn't have him losing to Williams".
