When did you recognise Larry Holmes as the TRUE world heavyweight champion ?

To be fair, he should be recognized as Champ when Ali retired: on September, 1979.

Considering Holmes as the Champ since the Norton fight, in 1978, is unfair with Muhammad Ali, who was the real Champ until September 1979.

Considering Holmes as the Champ since his fight with shot Ali, in 1980, is unfair with Holmes.

I prefer the middle point: to count Holmes' reign since the retirement of Ali. So, since September 1979 until he was defeated by Michael Spinks in 1985.

 

By 78 ali was just a paper champ

 

He was a weak champion by then. Ali and spinks were not the best two heavyweights that is for sure. By the time Ali retired in september 79' Holmes had already beat shavers twice, Norton, evangelista, occasio (who beat young) and Mike weaver. I think Holmes desereved to be called a champion by then- just about cleaning house, nobody was coming close to that kind of form. Coetzee knocking out spinks in one round was a good win that year however and it is a pitty he could not have chalenged Holmes just then, it would have saved the whole WBA cycle of b list champions confusing people.

 

He should be declared undisputed champ after he beat Norton. Screw the actual result, Norton beat Ali in 1976. Norton should of been champ

 

At any given point in his era, larry did just enough to maintain status as the best hw in the world.

Still, his legacy would have improved had he rematched weaver for the wba belt and fought page instead of frazier for the wbc belt.

The champ should always do two things imo, fight the best available challengers. and unify the title claims.

Over time larry racked up a hell of a resume and doing a top ten 76-85 will see larry fought and beat most of the guys on the list.

Still, he had the names and opportunity to do better than he did. Same with johnson and dempsey, had they not drawn the colour line they could be remembered even greater today.

Larry was the top hw in the world from the norton fight up until tyson destroyed berbick. I know he only had the wbc for part of the reign, ibf for part, ring and lineal for part and wba for none, but he was always top dog imo (well he lost to spinks but proved he was better in the rematch)

 

AGREED.:good

I think there was no real need for a weaver rematch had holmes-coetzee been made in 1979. Holmes was the man that year so that was the hotteset fight that could have been made and was not. Had that happened Tate would not have lost the WBA title he won in a vacant fight with coetzee. Tate would also have had to have chalenged Holmes. The WBAs decision to branch away is not Holmes's fault, he was the man winning and the man to beat. Between the Holmes era and Tyson the chain of alternate champions to Holmes (that beat an actual title holder) started with a man Holmes beat and ended with a man Holmes beat.

The WBA Tate v coetzee fight was one of the stupid things that most devalued boxing.

 

I agree, he certainly established his greatness; he beat most of the title holders at some point like you say.

Unifying would have elevated him that bit higher tho. I have him 5th anyways but I think he'd have moved up to 3rd or 4th with that extra legacy boost.

 

Young v Pryor is a completely different kettle of fish. It was fought in a completely different weight class.

Holmes was ARGUABLY the best heavy in the world once he beat Norton, but the fact Ali still had his title until he "retired" mid/late 79 and came back AGAIN, as most expected, less than a year later to face Holmes meant Larry while considered the reigning champ didnt get universal acceptance until he beat Ali

 

If we are "screwing actual results", then I think I am going to make a claim. I always fancied being Heavyweight Champion of the World, rather than some alphabet Cruiserweight belt holder.

 

I never understood putting huge stock in official results, especially when the fight is there to see and the scoring criteria is made clear.

 

Touche, I have for years said Frank Bruno was the best Heavyweight ever. And finally someone is on my page; someone who does not put huge stock in official results.

Sure we saw The Bomber get flattened twice by Iron Mike as well as by The Lion, Terrible Tim and Bonecrusher; but why let official results get in the way? As lufcrazy implies, they are silly technicalities, I am with him:

Frank Bruno is the finest Heavyweight ever!

With your logic my friend, we can win this argument.

 

No he never was. .

 

You are missing the point; free your mind of the technicalities of the actual ring results, and he clearly was, ask lufcrazy...

 

Frank is my favourite fighter but the logic here doesn't transfer as you imply.

Clear criteria combined with full fight footage means we are able to view and judge fights ourselves.

Ali-norton 3
Larry-spinks 2
Lara-williams
Holy-lewis 1
Fury-mcdermott 1
Chavez-pea

And many more fights were the wrong man won.

 

Actually the paper champ was in fact Norton, who was awarded a title retrospectively, he didnt even fight for a vacant title but was declared champion based on a previous fight. A paper title he would lose to Holmes
The way Norton became a belt holder was as ludicrous as Jeffries deciding who should fight for his vacated title