Is Larry Holmes

Sanchez v Cowdell was a near one.

 

I remember when Sanchez died. Many fans thought Sanchez had a lot of "upside" to still prove. Most people remember Sanchez going "bad bass" and beating Wilfredo Gomez up, and knocking him out.

But in reality, Sanchez was a great boxer.....and if he encountered another great boxer type, then the result may have been some type of "decision".

 

Ocassio earned his shot. Norton wound up with the WBC belt beating Jimmy Young (who had just beat Foreman) so when Holmes won the belt from Norton he would have defended against Young but Young kept losing to Ocassio, he lost twice to him. He was a top contender out of that.

Frank drew against Snipes who was as good as any belt holder. Snipes beat Berbick and Coetzee. Coetzee beat Dokes and Berbick beat Thomas. Page lost to Bey and Berbick both times he got close to being an outstanding Contender to Holmes proving he was no better than anyone either.

Marvis? At least he beat Bonecrusher. And bones was good enough to beat Weaver and Witherspoon in one round each.

 

What you're doing is giving an accurate assessment of Holmes very under rated opposition ..

 

Frank was a club fighter who caught the inconsistent Snipe on one of his bad days.

Frazier's best win was a decision against fellow prospect James Broad. Frazier got the shot at Holmes because he was Joe's son and Larry knew he could make good money for next to no risk

Holmes only took the Witherspoon fight because 'Spoon had looked mediocre against Snipes and was largely unproven

He also fought Lucien Rodriguez early in '83 after fighting the mediocre Tex Cobb late in '82.

After beating ****ey (who was mostly hype), Holmes was clearly milking the title for all it was worth.

 

Cobb beat bernardo Mercado to get that shot at Holmes. Tex beat shavers and took Dokes and Norton to split decisions. It's not like Cobb was nobody. That's a better resume than Tony Tubbs and Tony Tucker had going into title fights.

Rodriguez, Jones and Zannon were soft touches. But the other guys were as good as each other regardless of experience.

The biggest threat to the title actually was C00ney.

All those belt holders kept losing to each other by decision. They were no threat to Larry until he was old. Holmes beat half of them anyway. Smith, Berbick, weaver, Witherspoon...

A fight with Coetzee was almost made. Larry fought Bey because he beat Page. Page could not even beat Berbick after Holmes already annihilated Trevor.

Tubbs, Dokes, Tate were lousy. Neither had anymore credentials than Marvis Frazier before they won the only world level fight that gave them a belt before blowing the next fight.

It was a confusing time but Larry was a real champ.

 

Cobb's win over an ancient Shavers was over two years before his shot at Holmes. Mercado had already been knocked out by Leon Spinks of all people. Cobb LOST to Dokes and Norton so I don't know how that qualified him for anything. It's silly to pretend that Cobb was anything other than a complete soft touch. No one was calling for that fight. No one considered it a serious fight. A month after Holmes-Cobb took place, WBA champ Weaver was tackling #1 ranked Dokes!

It's funny you criticising Dokes and Page whilst talking up C**ney, a fighter who hadn't beaten one prime, legitimate contender. His standing owed much more to his status as a white hope than anything he'd actually done in the ring.

If a lot of evenly matched fighters face each other they're going to lose to each other. Holmes stayed out of that loop and opted to mostly face journeymen and inexperienced heavies (and still had to rely on generous officiating a few times), so it's no surprise he stayed unbeaten. Holmes never fought any of those guys when they were considered a legitimate threat. Weaver was a nobody at the time, Spoon a 15-0 rookie, Bonecrusher 14-1. Why didn't Holmes rematch them when they were more experienced and held titles?

Holmes ditched his belt rather than face his #1 contender Page. Page probably deserved the W over Bey but regardless, Page had just lost to Spoon. Strange that Holmes didn't rush to meet Spoon again after he beat Page, but quickly arranged a fight with 14-0 Bey.

Larry was never the real champ because he never proved it in the ring. He never held more than 50% of the title, never beat most of the top guys around, never rematched his controversial wins, ditched one of his belts to avoid his top challengers and ended up holding just 33% of the title, which he lost to another soft touch whom he had cherry picked to chase Rocky's record against.

 

Tyson vs Douglas wasn't a cherry pick.

Douglas was on a very good roll prior to the Tyson fight.

 

why was that fight any more silly than Tate losing to Weaver right after weaver lost to Larry? Weaver went from a nobody before he loses to Larry to a 50% champion after he fights Tate. Is it anymore Silly than Dokes getting a title fight out of beating John L Gardner?

There was both hype and substance behind C00ney in equal measure. Norton was coming off a win over the guy who knocked out Shavers, who was the guy who took Kens #1 rating. Jimmy Young was in shape for C00ney he was not for Tony Tubbs. Nobody hounds Tubbs credentials. Gerry stopped Young. Nobody else did. Of course he was hyped but nobody was knocking guys out. He eclipsed Page at that time who was losing to Berbick.

not if you check the time lines. 1979 Holmes was the only guy defending a title because with Gerrie Coetzee making he biggest impact with his win over Spinks the WBA incorrectly decided to include Tate rather than ask Larry to face Coetzee for their recognition. That left Larry facing the next best possible contenders Shavers and Occasio who beat Young and Norton. Who did Tate beat?? Everything after that point can be blamed more on the sanctioning bodies not Holmes.

Again check the time lines. Ali and C00ney represented logical superfights so that put paid to Dokes and a weaver rematch. I dare say had Dokes kept his title long enough the demand would have matched the magnitude of a superfight, but they could not manage it. He drew with Weaver! These guys would lose to Holmes then beat the inferior champion on the rebound. Weaver, Witherspoon, Berbick certainly did. Losing to Holmes did not make them legitimate threats.

what made Page a threat to Holmes?? Losing to Berbick or outpointing Snipes?

He did. The WBC took a belt from spinks for not fighting Norton who had just beat Young. Holmes beat Norton. Occasio beat Young. Shavers beat Norton. Holmes then beat Occasio, Shavers, Ali and Spinks. He stopped all of them! He also stopped the guy who beat the alternative chamoion So yes Holmes proved it by 1979. In 1978 Ali Holmes and Spinks were the champions. By 1981 Holmes had stopped both of them.

The other 50% was bogus. It stems from choosing Tate over HOlmes to fight Coetzee for the WBA recognition. Holmes and Coetzee were the best two heavyweights out there and they still brought Tate into it just to make two champions that's all it was.

what made Tate a top guy? Beating Tate made the others top guys or was it losing to Larry that made them more legitimate?

when Page was not creating anymore demand than Marvis Frazier what difference did it make if Larry fought Marvis first? Page was off a loss to Berbick. Page Outpointing the second last guy Holmes knocked out did not set the world alight. Maybe if Page knocked out say ****ey or Cobb it might gave aroused an interest but as it was Frazier beat Witherspoon and Tubbs as an amateur and was sparking interest, more interest as the son of a champion than Greg Page was as an overweight USBA champion.

and at the same time Pinklon Thomas lost his title to Trevor "I already lost to Holmes" Berbick. And Tubbs lost to Tim "I already lost to Holmes" Witherspoon.

 

Ranked #7 in the world and on a good run including victories over a former world champ and a future one, doesnt exactly look like a cherry pick.

Now Tyson Holyfield was a cherry pick gone wrong.

 

Can you defend the Cobb fight on its merits? No, it's indefensible. Bringing up other fights doesn't excuse Holmes giving a title shot to an undeserving and completely overmatched opponent. Just like he did with Weaver. Let's not pretend that anyone thought Weaver would be as tough as he turned out to be, or that he would become a top contender. If Holmes is going to be held up as the Man and the Real champion, then he's going to be held to a higher standard.

Norton was also 37 years old. Norton had two losses and a draw from his last five bouts, including a brutal KO by Shavers, and had just barely s****ed a split against a mediocrity like Cobb. Eking out a win against a journeyman who beat an ancient Shavers (who had a habit of losing to journeymen even in his prime) doesn't suddenly make Norton a great win for C**ney. Norton was finished, which is exactly why he was chosen for C**ney. Using the logic that he beat x who beat y who did something else is always a flimsy basis for building up a fighter's credibility.

You say C**ney eclipsed Page, yet did he fight Page, or Berbick, or Weaver, or Dokes? So he beat Jimmy Young (and stopped him on a cut, BTW). So did Dokes, Page, Tucker and Tubbs. His entire rep was built on beating faded remnants of the 70s. That, and being a white hope.

I said Holmes mostly chose to face journeymen and inexperienced heavies instead of legit prime contenders and that's exactly what he did. The biggest fight for Holmes in 1978-79 was the Norton rematch. He didn't make it, though he did squeeze in defences against Evangelista and Ocasio. So it's the WBA's fault that Holmes didn't face two of the best contenders in 1979? Let's not pretend that little 14-0 cruiser Ocasio was a serious threat, or that beating a guy who beat a fat, disinterested Young somehow legitimized Holmes. Shavers was never unbeatable at any point, especially at age 35, and Holmes had already handled him easily once.

Did Jones, LeDoux, Zanon, Cobb, Berbick and Snipes represent logical superfights too? Holmes fought all the above from 80-82.

Weaver and Spoon gave Holmes hell when no one expected them to. Holmes wanted no part of those guys when they were more experienced and a more obvious danger to him. It's like Ali completely schooling a 10-0 Holmes in 1974, and then claiming that the 1978 Holmes was no threat because he'd already beaten him years earlier.

What made Frazier, Frank, LeDoux, Evangelista, Cobb, Snipes, baby Spoon, Zanon, Leon, unknown Weaver etc a threat to Holmes? You talk about being a "threat" as if that was the criteria for getting a fight with Holmes. Dokes and Page were both well regarded contenders, both had long spells in the top ten, both held a piece of the title, and both had the style and attributes to give Holmes fits. Certainly moreso than many of the men he actually defended against. Page was enough of a threat that Holmes chose to throw away his belt and fight two set-ups instead.

Where your picking apart of Dokes, Page and co falls down is when you apply the same standards to the guys who DID get a shot at Holmes. They didn't have to jump through hoops, be a threat, be deserving, be well thought of, be this or that, and still walked into title bouts.

I remember in one of the old boxing mags someone wrote in and asked Holmes was he was basically chasing Rocky's record by fighting a bunch of bums. Holmes responded that boxing was a business, and that if he could make millions fighting whoever he wanted, then that's exactly what he was going to do. And that's exactly what he did. He came along when ABC were willing to pay good money for him to fight anybody, so he fought anybody. It's ridiculous to try and justify some of these fights, or pretend that these guys were somehow more deserving than the legit, prime champs around at the same time.

And Holmes won Norton's paper belt. Holmes beating a guy who beat someone else who beat someone else doesn't prove anything. He never beat Young, he never beat a healthy Ali, he never beat Tate or Coetzee (both in the Ring's top 3 in 1979), he beat Norton by one point (some would say he didn't). Ali and Spinks were not even close to being the best in the division in 1980-81. Ocasio was never among the best in the division at any time. Shavers was losing to the likes of Ron Stander and Bob Stallings years before Holmes got to him.

If the WBA belt was bogus then Holmes' belt was equally bogus. He didn't win it from a man who won it in the ring. He didn't defend it against the two obvious prime contenders around in Tate and Coetzee.

He beat Coetzee, who according to you was the best heavyweight out there alongside Holmes in 1979. And he held 50% of the title, just like Holmes did.

Why was Larry fighting Marvis at all? Another completely indefensible cherry pick. Absolutely no one was calling for that fight. Even the WBC wouldn't sanction it. C**ney wasn't never going to be let near someone like Page and since when did beating the mediocre Cobb warrant anything? Though I expect if Page had somehow lost to Cobb Tex would have got his longed-for rematch with Larry!

Funny thing is, Holmes wouldn't have gone near any of those guys in 85/86. Sure he beat a rookie 18-1 Berbick years earlier when Berbick had one meaningful win on his record and had been KO'd by Mercado not long before, and 15 fight novice Spoon who to many minds Holmes didn't really beat anyway.

 

Not really.

Page was only a viable #1 guy for maybe 1-2 years.

As an older fighter, Holmes fought quality opposition every year.

1983 Witherspoon
1984 Smith
1985 Spinks ( Age 35 )

A match with Dokes was tough due to Alphabet Politics.

You could argue Page, but Page lost to Bey, whom Holmes gave a title shot to. in 1984 Thomas and Coetzee were makeable fights, but were they much better than Witherspoon? I think not.

Holmes was very much about the money. As for tying Marciano' record, Holmes could have picked a much easier opponent than Spinks An older fighter who is slowing down is often a tough match up for a much younger faster fighter with skills.

Holmes top 5 wins in my opinion:

Witherspoon
Norton
Shavers
****ey
Mercer

Of Course, Holmes won the 2nd Spinks fight. Foreman would not face Holmes in the 70's or 90's and it's not Holmes fault he was Ali was shot when they fought.

 

Neither Witherspoon nor Spinks were considered quality opponents. Tim only had 15 fights at the time, he was just a prospect.

Spinks had done nothing at heavyweight. Times were when the light heavy champ were considered a natural contender for the heavyweight crown, but those days were long since passed when they fought.

 

Louis,

That was perhaps Witherpsoon's best performance...ever. Witherpsoon was schooled in the Philly gyms, and had far more significant experience than his record suggests.

Spinks at the time was a contender and at the peak of his career.