The "second best heavyweight in the world" belt

Is this how will history remember the second tier champions to Holmes?

Often on threads I see these belt holders during the Holmes period talked of as "actual champions" in their own right. As talented as they were and as monopolized as the title and promotional scene was, were they in truth just contenders who at one time or other beat THE SECOND BEST heavyweight in the world?

Even if you follow the chain of alternative champions it kind if starts and ends with guys who either lost to or could not decisively beat Larry. Each held the "SECOND BEST" title because they maintained this "second best" standard out of beating and losing to each other. I think only James Tillis was the only guy not to wind up a champion who fought for THE SECOND BEST HEAVYWEIGHT championship.

Ok, this is just a theory, an idea but hear me out. I think Renaldo Snipes was a benchmark for the level of 99% of the top heavyweights back in the early to mid 1980s. I'm talking belt holders. Not Holmes and not Tyson.

I have watched all Snipes fights (at the time and since) and unlike a lot of 1980s guys Snipes was always in shape and never really looked any better or worse against any one guy during that period.

Regardless of scores, if you score the fights yourself most will find Snipes either beat or drew with Witherspoon and Berbick or lost or drew with Page, Coetzee and Frank.

Thomas drew with a guy (Coetzee) who either beat or drew with (Snipes) the guy who lost or drew with Scott Frank. Again its just an idea but how far can Thomas be from Frank?

It's not just Thomas. Tyson wins a WBC title off Berbick the man who lost to Snipes who either lost or drew with Frank. How far was Berbick from Frank?

Now maybe Witherspoon improved after his close fight with Snipes but his condition and desire was always erratic after that point. How far was he ever really from Snipes and therefore Frank?

The 1980s were very strange.

 

I found this from another thread posted by sweet science.


Regarding the ranking of Holmes' title opponents, here's something I posted in 2008:

Here's a look at Larry Holmes' opponents' Ring's Ratings from the "period ending" issue immediately before his defenses:

Evangelista (6)
Ocasio (5)
Weaver (eight)
Shavers (3)
Zanon (7)
Jones (6)

For these six fights Holmes was listed as Number 1 contender, first under Ali, then under "Title Vacant". After Weaver beat Tate, Holmes was given status as Champion as he'd already beaten new WBA champ Weaver.

LeDoux (10)
Ali (5)
Berbick (7)
Spinks (3)
Snipes (10)
****ey (3)
Cobb (9)
Rodriguez (unranked)
Witherspoon (10)
Frank (unranked)
Frazier (10)
Smith (9)
Bey (3)
Williams (12)
Spinks (Lt. Heavy champ)

 

No, not really, There are a lot of complex factors involved I'm sure. I was just pointing out in a "whole scheme of the things" kind of way that a limited guy like Scott Frank was either just as talented as anyone else or that the era actually produced capable guys right the way through.

I think the notion that these alphabet guys were talented enough is extremely valid. I also think because the title structure was stacked against them that they ultimately achieved no more than they did.

Holmes was able to stand alone what ever way we look a it.

The only way to understand it is that the alternative belts were just a trophy to determine who it was who in another era would have been no more than #1 contender.

Like any other era, apart from an eventual champion, the majority of #1 contenders is a rolling game of pass the parcel. Nobody is usually good enough to mind the spot without losing it to another contender. That's just what the WBA championship was too. A rolling seat.

I dont think Tony Tubbs was anymore a champion than say Lee Savold was in another generation.

 

But at least they got a belt out of it. As it was, were Tubbs and co anymore deserving than say an Eddie Machen who hung around the top 4 for about ten years in an undiluted division?

In previous eras a guy who proved he was the next best heavyweight to the champion (for one fight) by beating the world #2 got nothing to show for it if he lost that position in his next fight. Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Tubbs Tate, Smith, Tucker, Berbick did no more than that but got a belt out of it. Is that really fair?

.................'..............................................................................

Blame the system.

Larry was the real champion by 1979 even by Ring Magazine estimation. If he had of had all the belts, and I think he should have because the WBA had no reason not to include Holmes in a pairing for their recognition after Ali retired, the rest of the top ten would have fought each other as contenders rather than as "belt holders".

In an earlier time, To challenge Holmes Tate would have fought Weaver in an eliminator. C00ney would have fought Weaver in an eliminator. Dokes would have had to fight either Weaver or c00ney before challenging Holmes. Page would have fought Witherspoon in order to challenge Holmes.

In other words most of them had to take fights they lost or would/could have lost just to fight Holmes. The reality was during the 1980s most fighters not called Tyson or Holmes were no better than Renaldo Snipes.

Now that's not to say Larry was not naughty for shouting his mouth off and taking weak fights among his challengers. He did.

Joe Louis and Joe Frazier took simular fights.

I dont know what Page did to be a more of pressing challenger than Tim Witherspoon, Berbick or David Bey to become a real #1 contender in actual undisputed terms. People have tried to explain this too me but I have never been convinced. Coetzee was the better fight at that time because he beat Dokes.

 

Dear old bones Smith..

To be fair, Smith at least paid his dues in the ratings a lot more than other "SECOND BEST HEAVYWEIGHT" claimants did in tough points fights with a lot of contenders. Apart from a split decision win over Jose Ribalta in the middle of a losing streak Smith was beaten in back to back fights with Larry (who stopped him) Tubbs, Marvis Frazier and Tim Witherspoon when he turned things around with a knockout over Weaver. Suddenly on the strength of this surprise KO, Smith began to get the nod in close fights (that he was not getting before) against Ferguson and David Bey.

But like everything else with these guys who for one fight only "beat the man who beat the man who was second best to Larry Holmes", Smith beating Witherspoon in a rematch asks the question of "how good was Marvis Frazier if he beat the guy who beat Witherspoon in one round" after losing himself in one round to Larry Holmes?

So many if these guys results really did not prove themselves to better than the other, and that's why they really were only contenders.

Dokes beat weaver but lost to Coetzee. Coetzee had already lost to Weaver. Thomas drew with Coetzee who had already lost to Weaver and Tate. Page beat Coetzee but lost to Witherspoon. Thomas had beat Witherspoon but drew with Coetzee.

Berbick beat Thomas after losing to Snipes. Snipes, Berbick and Weaver had already lost to Larry Holmes. Smith beat Weaver and Witherspoon but Larry beat Smith, Witherspoon and Weaver too.

Page lost to Berbick and Witherspoon after both lost to Larry Holmes.

Tubbs beat Page and Smith but lost to Witherspoon. Witherspoon and Smith had already lost to Larry Holmes.

The only guy who was better than any one guy was Larry Holmes. It seemed like all the others were completely the same level. And that includes Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank and Renaldo Snipes too.

 

I agree that the only way to prove it is indeed in the actual ring. You are correct, there's no getting around that. I would have loved Coetzee face Holmes right after his one round win over Leon Spinks. I dont see why the WBA chose to put him with Tate for their vacant title after Alis retirement. They should have recognised a Coetzee-Holmes winner for their half of the title, why they brought Tate into it made no sense.

But since that did not happen and Holmes did continue to beat world class fighters (when nobody else could) is surely the next best thing.

Can anybody dispute the notion that Holmes was the only heavyweight in the world who could string consistent wins together at world level?

The other guys just did what all contenders have always done. They get to the top and lose to the next rated guy if tgey dont get a shot at the champ. The only difference is they got a belt to show for it.

 

Well he beat Norton, Shavers, weaver, Berbick, Ali, Leon, C00ney, Snipes, Witherspoon, Frazier, Smith and Bey who if not belt holders themselves certainly beat belt holders themselves so they at least qualify as world class opponents.

Where was the consistency of Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Tubbs at world level? As world level themselves let's look at their form.

This is how we know they really were only regular contenders because just like regular contenders they were lucky if they went 50-50 against half decent guys with a rating.

Taking those easy wins away we are still left with Leon Spinks who was coming off the Mercado win. We are left with Shavers who won an eliminator with Norton. We are left with Ocassio who beat Young in an eliminator. We are left with C0oney who was the "New big thing" at the time. We are left with Bey the NABF champ who beat Page. We are left with Bonecrusher who beat Bruno. Berbick was coming off a win over Tate.

Dokes beat who before he fought Weaver? What made Dokes so special, Holmes already beat Weaver.

No champion gets to face all his number ones, but I can't for the life of me think what made Tubbs number one. Or what made Tate anybody.

Page on the other hand was a good USBA champ he should have got a shot around the time the Ali and C00ney challenges eclipsed a page challenge by some distance.. but with those superfights out of the way Page lost to Berbick and never proved to be better than anyone else after that point. He even blew the vacant WBC chance he got to enforce a future unification showdown against a former Holmes challenger.

Thomas looked a real threat but only after he beat Witherspoon. Nothing before that fight made Thomas a leading or outstanding contender to Holmes. Thomas was inactive because of an eye injury. Holmes beat Smith and Bey in the meantime, then both Holmes and Thomas lost at around the same time to micheal Spinks and Trevor Berbick respectively.

But it was more legitimate because after he beat the guy champion Leon Spinks refused to beat he then beat Ali and Spinks himself. The other half of the title was taken away from spinks and given to the winner of a fight between Coetzee and Tate who ultimately both lost to a guy Holmes beat. Coetzee at least beat Spinks though. Tate was gifted an opportunity above his station because he was no more an outstanding contender than say the likes if Ossie Ocassio who beat Jimmy Young right after Young lost to Norton -the fight that gave Norton status enough for the WBC to strip Spinks in the first place.

But apart from perhaps Coetzee (before he won a belt) none of them were a top contender to Holmes. Dokes wasn't before he beat weaver, not by a long way. Perhaps Weaver was worth a rematch but this was all during the Ali and C0oney superfights. As champion Coetzee beating Dokes made him "kind of a challenger" to Holmes and that fight was almost made.

Yes it did but the window for each "alternate champion" to challenge Holmes proved in reality to be far too small because they could not win fights. Dokes even drew with Weaver then could not get past the guy the previous two so called alpha champs beat. What did Tubbs do?