Is Larry Holmes

Exactly.

The WBA backed the wrong horse though. Their decision not to rate Holmes either #1 or even #2 in their own rankings was ludicrous in 1979.

Their selection of Tate and Coetzee to fight for their belt means they rated both of them over Holmes. It was illogical that either of them were worthy of being above Holmes in 1979.

 

Alphabet organizations have never rated fighters who were current holders of other alphabet titles. By 1979, Holmes was the WBC champion, so naturally he wouldn't have appeared in the WBA's rating system.. Its just always been that way. Now, why those two organizations wouldn't work together for a unification is another matter entirely. As mentioned, Don King and Bob Arum were fighting over control of the heavyweight division and neither one of them wanted the best horses in their stables to lose.

 

The moment in 1979 when the WBA chose not to see Larry as a the logical world #1, or at least allow Holmes contest for their vacant title against the next best guy was the moment they created a bogus championship.

Larry wasn't just the "a current holder of another alphabet title" he was the guy their champion retired from boxing in order to avoid a unification with.

Spinks, Norton,shavers, ali, and young had been the top five guys. Holmes beats three of the five, the fourth one retires and the last one loses his spot to Ocassio who Larry obliterated. If that's not the best heavyweight of 1979 I will eat Don Kings hair!

They just wanted two championships.

I think the WBA wanted their guys to lose because if they could ever win a mandatory they might want to challenge Larry!

The two organisations did not want to work together because they enjoyed keeping exclusive fees on major promotions to themselves without splitting it with the other.

Truth is, the WBA enjoyed keeping the entire sanctioning fee from the New Orleans Ali v Spinks outdoor rematch far too much and also each time somebody beat Coetzee in south African soccer stadiums.

In turn, the WBC also loved the fees they got when Holmes fought ****ey and Ali far too much to ever want to share them with The WBA also.

 

He had done at least as much as Jimmy Ellis had before he was invited to take part in the WBA elimination series but beating Shavers was enough anyway. Shavers had gave Ali life and death, Larry schooled him in 1978.

Marvis would be 50-50 against Tubbs, Berbick or Dokes. Why not?? He beat Tubbs and Spoon as an amateur anyway way. He beat James Broad and Bugner. Later he beat Tillis and Bonecrusher too.

one of times Cobb fought Dokes fights was after facing Holmes. The one before facing Holmes Cobb made Dokes look completely fragile and underpowered. a close fight with not much in it. Cobb beat Mercado and Shavers that's a better resume than Tubbs had challenging Page isn't it? Page was 0-2 in his last 2 when he challenged Coetzee. Thomas challenged Witherspoon coming off a draw with Coetzee. Scott Frank drew with Snipes and Snipes was the big Page stand out win that was supposed to make fat Greg such an outstanding contender!

The WBA guys were exactly the guys C00ney was steered away from? Rubbish! Weaver took Tillis over C00ney! Dokes was Rated behind C00ney.

it suited Holmes that the guys he beat wound up winning the WBA title? The WBA title was won from Spinks by Ali who retired rather than fight Holmes in a unification then to prevent a unification again the WBA don't rate Holmes as either #1 or #2 (even though Ring Magazine does) then next guy Holmes beats knocks out the new paper champion that the WBA installed!

But Ali retired to avoid Holmes making Larry the only champion. He beat all the best guys, was clearly the top man whilst Ali was not defending at all. Choosing two other men to fight for the title Ali gave up was rediculous. It created a rediculous championship of men who could not beat Larry.

If Tate beat Weaver it would not make Tate better than Larry would it? Larry still beats Norton, Shavers and Ali by the time Weaver loses to Dokes. What progress was made when Dokes lost to the first guy both Weaver and Tate beat?

because for an absurd reason the WBA belt holder is automatic #1. Weaver who was not #1 losing to Holmes beats Tate. Is weaver better losing to Holmes than he was beating Tate? The chain is made up of guys no better than Tate because Coetzee beats Dokes even though he could not beat Tate or Weaver.

the division is diluted with twin championships. Theoretically twenty men or thirty men are in a top ten. Blame the sanctioning bodies fir not working together.

Count how many times the #1 guy had his own mandatory defence or was tied to a rematch.

That's easy to say when there was no rival champion. If Braddock had of been stripped (and he would have absolutely been stripped in any other era) Schmeling would have fought Farr and the winner would defend against a mandatory challenger ect, ect, and Louis would be in the dark waiting for a challenge.

 

No Page got his vacant fight with Witherspoon. He lost that. He then fights bey. He lost that. Then with two back to back defeats notched up he challenged Coetzee without a win since before losing to Witherspoon.

Because the winner of Coetzee vs Tate was for the second best spot. That title was created to decide second best.

Holmes was already first best. He beat Norton and Shavers.

Ali ducked Norton, Spinks ducked Norton, Ali ducked Holmes then retired.

Holmes did beat them anyway. He beat Weaver. He beat Smith. He beat Berbick and they won "second best" on the rebound just to prove it.

Dokes hardly got past Cobb. Dokes was always behind C00ney in the ratings anyway.

 

By beating who, Roy Williams? A fringe contender at best who lost all his big fights and some not so big. Shavers gave an ancient Ali life and death. Earnie got out-pointed by Bob Stallings four years before he faced Holmes. Did Stallings deserve a title shot?

On what basis would Marvis be 50-50 with them? He couldn't last a round with the same Holmes who couldn't put a dent in the KO prone Lucien Rodriguez, but he's going to beat Spoon, Thomas, Page? Beating them as an amateur doesn't prove anything. Buster Mathis beat Joe Frazier as an amateur.

Cobb beat an old, used up Shavers (and again, it never took a great fighter to beat Earnie even in his prime). Not long after, someone called Walter Santemore beat Shavers too. Mercado was never that great and had already been KO'd by a novice Weaver and Tate years earlier, not to mention being one of the few people to get knocked out by Leon Spinks! I'm surprised Holmes didn't fight Mercado too. Cobb beating him was nothing spectacular.

So getting a draw with Snipes was enough for Frank to deserve a shot at Holmes but Page actually beating him wasn't? What was Frank's best win? LeDoux was 1-2-1 in his last four bouts prior to challenging Holmes. Cobb was 3-2. Leon was 3-1-2. Lucien Rodriguez had already been knocked out four times (and beaten by Dokes). Let's not pretend that you had to have a spotless record to get a fight with Holmes.

They were prime dangerous contenders, you know the type of fighter that C**ney never actually faced prior to him facing Holmes. C**ney wasn't being let near anyone who might actually beat him. Do you think it was a coincidence that his biggest three wins were an old, shot Norton, an old, shot Lyle and an old, shot Young?

It suited Holmes that men who went life and death with him were distracted by another title when they might otherwise have been much harder to ignore. It's not so easy to keep fighting the #9 and #10 contenders when the #1 and #2 guys don't have another title to chase.

Holmes didn't beat all the best guys. He didn't beat Ali. He didn't beat Young. He didn't beat Spinks (if you count him as a top guy) until several years later. He beat Norton by a point and didn't seem to fancy a rematch. The only way to prove he was better than Tate/Coetzee in 78-79 was to beat them in the ring and he didn't do that. Beating the always beatable Shavers didn't make him clearly the best man.

Beating Weaver would have meant Tate matched one of Holmes' toughest wins, and made it even more urgent that they fight.

Weaver lost to Dokes in 82. What relevance did Holmes' win over a sick, old Ali two years earlier and a narrow split over Norton four years earlier have at that point? He couldn't live off old wins forever. The bottom line is while Holmes was fighting the legendary Tex Cobb in late 82, Weaver a guy he went life and death with (and showed no interest in fighting again) was tackling Dokes the Ring's #1 rated contender whom Holmes showed no interest in facing.

Dokes losing to Coetzee? A guy Holmes never fought lost to a guy Holmes never fought who lost to a guy who went life and death with Holmes as a then unheralded journeyman. We're none the wiser as to whether Holmes was better than them.

It's funny you dismissing Dokes, Coetzee, Tate and Weaver when the only one of that quartet that Holmes actually fought gave him hell. The WBA champion was #1 because he was generally considered the best guy in the division alongside Holmes. The WBA chain was made up of men Holmes either avoided or had almighty struggles with they were unheralded or inexperienced fighters. How many times did Holmes face what was considered the best fighter in the division?

Because the #1 guy was usually facing the #2 or #3 guy for the WBA belt while Holmes tackled the #10 guy.

Of course in another era, Braddock could also have said 'I don't fancy fighting my #1 contender', vacated his belt and taken up with a more accommodating new sanctioning body who were trying to establish themselves.

Only one guy was WBA champ at a time. It's not as if Holmes was prevented from fighting all the highest ranked men in the division. Tyson showed how easy it was to clean out a division of multiple champions if the will was there.

 

Page and Spoon were fighting for a title Holmes vacated because he preferred to face Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank ahead of his mandatories. Funny that Holmes was quick to fight Bey after he beat Page, but had no interest in facing his old friend Timmy Witherspoon, who had beaten Page first. I thought Page was jobbed against the Bey of Pigs anyway.

The title wasn't created for anything. It already existed and if anything had more popular legitimacy as it was the one regained by Ali. Tate and Coetzee met to decide who held the belt vacated by Ali, just like Holmes and Norton met to decide who held the belt stripped from Spinks and literally handed to Norton by a sanctioning body. To pretend that Holmes was anything other than an ABC champ in 1979 is nonsense. He didn't beat Ali, who was still the 'real' champ then. He didn't beat Spinks, the previous 'real' champ. He barely beat the paper champ Norton. Had Weaver not won the WBA belt Holmes wouldn't have even been awarded the Ring belt.

And then Holmes ducked Norton! And Page, Dokes, Thomas, Spoon et al.

A completely unknown Weaver in a fight everyone thought was a set-up. A novice 13-1 Bonecrusher, a novice 18-1 Berbick. Everything they achieved in their careers came after they fought Holmes. If you want to dismiss these guys for losing to the heavyweight champion when they were unheralded, inexperienced fighters, ask yourself how a 15-fight Holmes would have fared against Ali, Foreman and Frazier. Probably not very well, since he wasn't allowed near anyone remotely threatening at that point in his career.

Dokes clearly beat Cobb. If only Dokes had beat up an ancient Norton and Lyle, perhaps he'd have been rated higher than C**ney. Holmes barely got past Weaver, whom Dokes KO'd in one round.

 

Did they split the sanctioning fee?

 

Exactly. Once Holmes won the WBC title, the WBA would not rate him. That was standard practice at the time.

A good fight would have been Holmes v. Weaver in a rematch for a unified title, say in 1981 after Holmes took care of Ali and Weaver beat Coetzee. Instead, Holmes fought Berbick and Spinks, and Weaver laid off for a full year.

 

standard when there already is two champions. Two champions became one when Ali retired to avoid unification. Holmes already beat Norton who both Spinks and Ali Ducked. Are you telling me Tate was Ali's #1 contender rather than Holmes? That's not how Ring Magazine saw it. The WBA made itself rediculous right there.

This would have been perfect. I agree this would go some way toward making up for the outrageous decision to create Tate v Coetzee on Ali's retirement.

Weaver was more to blame then wasn't he?

 

Standard practice is something like 20% of a title fight goes to the sanctioning body. It's split between who ever sanctions it. If multi belts are owned by one champion not all defences are sanctioned by all bodies though, perhaps in the hope they can create a vacant title fight if the champ were to lose. When Tyson was unified champion some voluntary defences were sanctioned by one or two of the three bodies at a time because there was some conflict between the three bodies over some challengers ratings. So long as a multi champ can stick to the different mandatory demands in rotation it's quite difficult to keep them all happy.

 

Edit

 

Holmes did not fight Ali? Ali would not fight Larry. Ali retired so he did not have to fight Holmes. Larry wanted a unification.

Young lost to Norton in an eliminator to fight Spinks then lost to Ocassio the night Holmes beat Norton. Ocassio took Youngs place in the ratings. Holmes obliterated Occasio.. and don't go blaming Young, he got two chances at Occasio before Occasio fought Holmes.

Spinks already ducked Norton. What could Larry do about that? Beat Norton? He did that.

shavers knocked out Norton by then. So Holmes beat Shavers instead.

If the WBA had not created their second rate, bogus alternative "championship" there would have been more chance of a real champion defending against Tate or Coetzee.

well if Norton only lost "by one point" to Larry and Ken was previously high enough regarded as the best heavyweight in the world, even as an uncrowded champion after beating Young, then Shavers knocking him out in one round was quite something.

yes but was as likely to rematch Coetzee and lose. Why was Coetzee such an outstanding contender to Weaver having already blown the Tate fight? All Coetzee did was beat somebody called Mike Karanaki since Tate beat him. Holmes defended his title four times that year. C00ney was #2 that year not Coetzee. Why if the WBA title was so legitimate did Ali challenge Holmes?

Dokes was not #1 until he beat Weaver.beating John L Gardener did not make Dokes #1!!! and Weaver himself was only #1 out of having a belt. weaver sure wasn't #1 after losing to Holmes. Beating Tate gave him the belt and Tate never should have been selected over Holmes to get that vacant title fight with Coetzee.

we are wiser for knowing that the WBA champion (who did not deserve a vacant title bout anyway) could lose to an unfancied Holmes victim. Holmes was better than Weaver. I saw it with my own eyes when they fought. What was Tate doing fighting Weaver anyway? Weaver could not have been rated by the WBA. What was Coetzees credentials when he challenged Weaver?? Weaver selected both Tillis and Dokes over the higher rated Gerry C00ney. No wonder Ali challenged Holmes. Nobody of take that championship seriously, and that was the belt that allowed Spinks ignore Norton!

weaver had no better credentials challenging Tate than he did facing Holmes. Coetzee was worse because he's done nothing since lose to Tate. Tillis was no better than Leroy Jones or any number of poor Holmes challengers. Dokes was behind C00ney, drew with Ocassio looked awful against cobb. Etc. Yes Holmes fought some lousy voluntary challengers but so did the WBA guys. Difference was Holmes beat decent challengers too. the title changed hands when the WBA guys fought them!

but weaver was not a #1 guy when Tate lost to him. Coetzee was not a#1 guy when weaver beat him. Nor was Tillis. Dokes certainty was not Ring Magazine #1 when Weaver lost to him. And Coetzee was still a WBA mandatory for Dokes even after a draw with Thomas who was then ranked #7 by both organisation's. So what #1 did these champions defend against? They got #1 out of beating the paper champion but the paper champion was not losing to #1 contenders. Coetzee lost to Page who lost what ever ranking he had losing to Bey. Page was a two time loser when Coezee lost to him. what was Page WBA ranking going into that? Then there's Tubbs. He gets a shot at Page because he's in the same stable. Presumably a win over Bonecrusher Smith fresh off a loss to Larry was enough to get Tubbs a shot!! Again, Tubbs was not a #1 either was he? Not by The Ring, not by the WBA, WBC or the IBF was he?

twin titles would have proberbly made Schmeling and Louis rival champions with two sets of mandatory challengers to get through.

no Tyson did not show how easy it was! Tyson showed that with the clout of HBO millions the sanctioning bodies were finally prepared to work together. That's all "Tyson" showed. The governing bodies were prepared to wave the stumbling block mandatories in order to allow unification fights for a limited period. A one time deal For the serries ...and the money HBO pumped in to broadcast it.

That's never how it was before. Earlier Coetzee and Holmes almost happened but the truth is the promoter and sanctioning bodies decided it was not "good business" to unify and blamed the "politics".

One champ meant half the amount of title fights.

 

Your take on Holmes reign is a bit off reality man ..

Norton was forced to fight an eliminator w Shavers and was iced so Holmes fought Shavers again.

Weaver was a vastly underated fighter who had no breaks till he fought Holmes and lost in a career defining fight .. within the next fourteen months with proper training and focus he knocked out Tate and Coetzee.

Berbick was far from unknown. He had recently knocked out John Tate infront of a huge closed circuit audience. He was in his physical prime.

Witherspoon was in his physical prime vs an already slipping Holmes and also fought the fight of his life, losing a close but fair decision ..

Marvis Frazier had beaten James Broad and come backing Joe Bugner, both contenders prior to fighting Larry. Bugner would then go on to beat Tillis, Bey and Page ..

Bonecrusher Smith was coming off a nationally televised KO win of highly touted and underrated Bruno.

Your claims of these men being novices and having no previous victories is simply revisionist history.

 

Broad and Bugner were not top 10 condenders in 1983. Broad, like Frazier, was a prospect. Bugner had come back after a long layoff and was trying to reestablish himself. There is no way to look at Holmes getting stripped in late '83 other than he wanted no part of facing the number one contender, Greg Page. He also wanted done with Don King, and had the deal lined up to take over the vacant and newly created IBF title. He knew he could pick and choose as IBF Champion and King would be off his back.

What Bugner did in '86 and '87 against trial horse Tillis, faded Page and faded Bey has no bearing on his status when he fought Marvis Frazier.