Should Larry Holmes be given a pass for missing out on Page, Thomas, Dokes, Coetzee?

I thought Larry proved that quite nicely.

It is the guys he is being accused of ducking who didn't prove their ability to beat someone in the ring ... they kept losing every other fight.

 

Larry was great unlike those guys, but he still doesn’t get an assumptive win over them.

Great fighters can loose to good fighters, very unexpectedly.

 

Agree, but title fights don't happen just because 30 years later someone decides that's who you should have fought.

For instance, Holmes fought Bey when Bey beat Page ... now you look back and say, 'Larry didn't fight Page,' but at the time it's ludicrous to think he should have fought the loser rather than the winner. It's discounting (a) what really happened and (b) the fact that he fought the better guy (the one who won in the ring) at the time.

And it's just as true for Frazier, Tyson, Walcott and anyone else you want to compare Holmes with ... don't give them the 'pass' for who they didn't fight.

 

Page losing to Bey had nothing to do with his never getting a shot. He was already lined up as the #1 contender long before that fight ever happened.. Holmes ultimately chose to relinquish the WBC title in order to face opponents of lesser risk. Had Page beaten Bey I still don't think he'd be challenging Holmes.

 

Agreed. I think Joe Louis had a few of these scenarios.

 

These guys don't want to deal w fact .. Larry dominated Trevor Berbick and on a sick night KO'ed Mike Weaver, the two mean who crushed John Tate, a fighter Bummy and others say Holmes ducked. Holmes defeated the three men who beat Page between 6 - 82 and 3 - 84, Berbick, Witherspoon and Bey .. Page went on to stop Coetzee, another inconsistent, over rated fighter and then lost his next two fights .. there was never a window when Page was a dominant fighter with a huge public demand for Larry to fight him. It's simply a joke. Berbick soundly thrashed Page in front of the world in what was supposed to be Page's world debut on the Holmes - Cooney under card ..

Coetzee lost every big fight he was in .. diced up by Tate, KO'ed by Weaver, KO'ed by Page, KO'ed by Bruno ... his clim to fame was beating a Dokes who should never have been allowed in the ring ...

Thomas ? Seriously ? He won the title in 8-84 , Holmes only held the title for 13 months of an over lap and in that time he fought Smith who crushed Bruno, Bey who beat Page , an undefeated Carl Williams .. to say he ducked Thomas who quickly went on to lose to Berbick is a joke.

Dokes was another joke .. he won and lost a title in a year , KO'ed by drugs and Coetzee ..

The facts simply do not hold on any of this crap.

 

Funny how many of these Holmes apologists are probably the same who never shut up about Dempsey for missing Wills, Holmes missing four or five #1 contenders is cool though. Holmes missed more #1 contenders, unifications, and deserved rematches than any other ATG HW and it should be factored into his rating and legacy.

 

That's what you got ? A crooked manipulative body in bed w DK that robbed Larry for most of his career decides and that's that ... maybe you don't know this Liston's Jab but the slaves have been set free ...

 

That reasoning perfectly states your vision ... I really don't need to say any more ..

 

I think it somewhat of a blanket statement to characterize Larry Holmes' ENTIRE career as being selective, cherry picked or protected.. It was for the most part between 1983 - 1985 that his challengers were second rate. From 1978 - 1982 however he defeated Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, L. Spinks and Cooney.. For the record, THOSE were the best fighters in the heavyweight division during that period. I also can't fault him for not fighting men who were only in the spot light for a whole 20 minutes like John Tate. It is also regularly forgotten that Larry was an active champion who on occasion defended as often as four times annually. You're going to have some bum of the month contestants in a situation like that, but even so I'd rather see a champion go out and defend a title rather than to sit on it for a whole year or longer. There were definitely men that he damn well should have fought, but not ALL the usual suspects who some regularly list were practical fights to make as some of them were managed and promoted by the same people, were ranked only briefly or weren't big crowd draws. Greg Page, Pinklon Thomas and maybe a weaver or a witherspoon rematch are reasonable mentions.

 

It was a weak era and the split titles did not help but this gives me more reason to commend Vlad Klitschko for trying to unify and take control of all the titles and dominate. Vlad sought to do this and did at least fight Brewster in the rematch....there is still a big difference in the way guys like Marciano and Louis and Vlad fought their #1 contenders and rematched tough fights, Vlad less so but he did try to unify and his brother was exempt but also picked off a few but every era had there gatekeeper, Archie Moore picked off many on the way to Marciano like Vitali did for Vlad

I think Holmes pattern in rematches and fighting novice guys hurt him. He was still the best of his era IMO overall but stylistic navigation should be taken into account, also never unifying has to take away points in light of what Vlad Klitschko has done today with even more outside title organizations

 

Using the Klits as an example, even though when there was another champion in their division who happened to be bigger than them and he held a title for 4 years and was unbeaten for a long time too, didn't see that fight come off against Valuev, neither of the Klits mentioned his fooking name.

I'm using that as an example of how most fighters always have someone they don't end up fighting.