Is Larry Holmes

The alphabet's in that era were at their all time most crooked. James Broad was a very highly touted up and coming fighter. Absolutely no way to deny that .. Joe Bugner, much older than Tillis, Bey or Page, was having a very nice comeback and went on to prove he was far from washed up .. as far as no other way of looking at Holmes selections you clearly do not have a clue of what you are saying and talking in half truths .. Holmes wanted away from King who robbed him his whole career and post ****ey he had the political capital to do so .. as far as Page , please. He was thrashed by Berbick who Holmes soundly defeated. He was defeated by Bey who Holmes then fought and knocked out. He lost to Witherspoon who Holmes decisioned. There were no strong top contenders that generated serious public demand to pay Holmes big money s he did what any smart fighter does who can and that is measure risk reward.

 

So... Holmes did not fight Ali then. Ali retired because he was old.

So... Holmes did not beat Young. He beat a guy who beat a fat Young and who turned out to be nothing special anyway.

So... Holmes did not beat Spinks in 78-79. You can come up with reasons why he didn't fight this or that guy, but the fact remains didn't beat several of the heavyweights considered the best in that timeframe so touting him as the Man is wide of the mark.

A year after Holmes' first fight with Norton. In the mean time he'd squeezed in two title fights against much less distinguished opposition.

The WBA didn't "create" anything. The WBA belt was 50% of the heavyweight title (and was the version mostly recently held by Ali) and had no less credibility than the WBC version. Your complaint seems to be that they didn't just hand Holmes their belt when they had no reason to do so seeing as he hadn't beaten most of the top men around in 78-79.

I agree Shavers beating Norton was a good win. That doesn't get around the fact that Earnie was always limited and Holmes had already handled him once.

That year Holmes' title defences included Scott LeDoux, Lorenzo Zanon and Leroy Jones. You're telling me Coetzee was less deserving than those guys?

Actually Ali also considered challenging Weaver and Tate around that time. I don't think he made much distinction between the two belts. It's just the Holmes fight was the one that materialised.

Dokes was rated #1 when he challenged Weaver. If you want to prop up C**ney for being highly ranked despite never having beaten a live contender, you can't dismiss the same ratings which had Dokes highly ranked.

Thing is, Weaver was even less deserving of a title shot when Holmes fought him. Holmes fought a 19-8 journeyman who no one had even heard of. Tate took on a recent title challenger who had just given Holmes an almighty scare.

A unification with Weaver was a natural once Weaver won the title and seeing as the first fight was a classic, yet it never happened. Why? Look at the fights Holmes had in 80-81. Zanon, Jones, LeDoux, Ali, Berbick, Spinks, Snipes. Other than Ali, was any bigger or more challenging than a Weaver rematch? Were any of the above a bigger threat than Dokes or Coetzee?

The title changed hands because they were fighting better opposition. Dokes, Page, Spoon and Coetzee were much better than the soft touches Holmes defended against.

Weaver was told to defend against his mandatory Tillis. At least Tillis turned out to be a solid contender whereas Jones.. wasn't. He was also in negotiations to face C**ney, even though, according to you, no one took the WBA belt seriously.

You keep comparing these guys to C**ney, as if he was the gold standard of contenders. What had C**ney done? His win over an old Young that you're touting him for was two years before he fought Holmes. In the mean time he knocked out a 39 year old Lyle and a 37 year old Norton, and that's it. If Dokes beat a 39 year old Lyle, would you be impressed?

You're actually damning Holmes with this line of argument, since you're basically saying he was no better than the supposedly inferior WBA crew when it came to meeting top contenders! Dokes was the WBA's #1 when Weaver fought him. How many #1s did Holmes fight in seven years, be they Ring, WBA or WBC? How many in the top three? You won't need two hands to count them. At the same time Weaver tackled Dokes, Holmes was fighting Tex Cobb, who was never close to being ranked #1 by anyone. Of course, Holmes also dumped his belt (you know, the much more legitimate WBC belt) to take up a bogus alternative "championship" because he preferred to face two set-ups ahead of the "real" championship's #1 contender Greg Page, leaving Page to tackle a guy who had just given Holmes hell (and actually beat Holmes to many minds)!

While Coetzee was fighting Page, Holmes was defending against another novice heavyweight in Bonecrusher. Remind me where Bonecrusher was ranked at the time. Higher than Page?

When Page fought Tubbs Holmes was preparing to fight yet another novice level heavyweight in Williams (had been knocked down twice in his last fight against Quick Tillis), and followed up by chasing Rocky's record against a career 175lber without a single heavyweight fight to his name.

And Holmes got to #1 by beating... paper champion Norton! He got his shot at paper champion Norton by beating Shavers, who was coming off a loss to Ali, a title shot Shavers got despite not being ranked in the top ten at the time.

Of course it did. Tyson cleaned up a division in the space of a year when Holmes couldn't muster one unification fight in seven years, and worse still actually helped another ABC establish itself. If you want to blame King and/or the ABCs then fine, but you should therefore also credit them for helping Holmes steer clear of many of the most dangerous and highest ranked men in the division.

 

He grant, I know exactly what I am talking about. I am focused on what happened in 1983, not before or after. Any way you spin it, Marvis Frazier beat a prospect and a former contender pre Holmes. In 1983, Broad was a far from a top 10 guy when Frazier beat him. Like Frazier, he had about 10 fights against rather non-descript opposition. He was a prospect, nothing more. Bugner, for his part, had started a comeback in 1982 after laying off for a few years and had lost to a shot Shavers in late '82, and beaten some non-descript opposition. He was a name, but no longer a contender. Quite simply, Holmes fought Frazier for an easy large payday then ditched the WBC title in favor of the newly created IBF title, which was handed to him because the IBF needed big names to legitimize itself with the public. Even as a 14 yr old casual boxing fan, I knew what Holmes was doing. Before the Frazier fight, the announcers were questioning Frazier's credentials and saying him being the son of Joe Frazier got him the fight. They felt he was too green - and they prooved to be correct. Greg Page, who was vastly more qualified than Marvis Frazier, was denied a shot at Holmes. Sure, Page had lost to Berbick, but Berbick was better than anyone Frazier had fought. He then ko'd a still dangerous Tillis, and decisioned Snipes. After being stripped of the WBC title, Holmes then was able to hand pick his opposition as IBF champion - the new organization bent over backwards for him. He was able to rid himself of the pressures of Don King and the WBC. King controlled most of the top 10 and Holmes knew he would have to fight King's guys like Page, Witherspoon in a rematch, Thomas, Tubbs, etc. He wanted no part of that. You can spin it any way you'd like, but what I am describing is historically accurate. King's fighters, who were relatively evenly matched, fought each other and played hot potato with the WBA title until Bonecrusher got lucky against a disinterested Witherspoon, and then Tyson cleaned house for all the titles.

 

Nice post

Holmes was a good champion, but these guys denying he avoided many dangerous contenders cannot objectively argue that point.

 

Holmes beat Norton by a point. Norton was the previous champion. The first fight was a classic. Why did Norton have to fight an eliminator against someone Holmes had already beaten easily to get a rematch? What eliminator did Evangelista win?

Weaver was a nobody when he fought Holmes. It's not like Holmes had a crystal ball and knew Weaver would go on to win a title and start beating contenders. He was taking what he (and everyone else) believed to be a soft touch defence.

Berbick was 18-1 when he fought Holmes. He'd never been more than ten rounds before. He'd also been KO'd in one round by Bernado Mercado (a Weaver and Tate KO victim) not long before that. A while later Berbick fought Ali, who described him as a "prospect".

Spoon was 15-0 (and before that just a handful of amateur bouts)... another neophyte who unexpectedly gave Holmes a tough fight. What were Spoon's biggest wins going into the Holmes fight? Spoon got 40 of his 55 career wins and won two world titles AFTER fighting Holmes. I thought Spoon deserved a draw at worst and many thought he won. And why no rematch?

Marvis was 10-0... yet another novice. Even the WBC wouldn't sanction that one. So what he beat an ancient Bugner? Bugner and Broad were not serious contenders at the time and Broad never achieved much as a pro anyway.

Bonecrusher was 14-1... yet another greenhorn! Bonecrusher got 30 of his 44 career wins, beat Spoon, Weaver et al and won a title AFTER facing Holmes. His win over Bruno was nice but Bruno himself was just an untested prospect at the time.

They were novices. They'd all had 20 or fewer pro bouts. All their big career accomplishments came after facing Holmes. You can't give Holmes retrospective credit for what they achieved years after he fought them. It's where they were at the time that matters. At the time, none of them were considered among the best in the division. They were considered soft touches.

As someone else noted in this threat, it was quite lucky for Holmes' legacy that people like Spoon and Weaver went on to have fine careers and become "world champions" on Holmes' resume. They might just as easily have fizzled out into nothing.

 

Your just regurgitating the same stuff over and over .. it's incomplete thought, highly opinionated and bloated.

 

You disagree? Fine, let's pretend that all these big underdogs with limited pro experience were terrors of the division when they fought Holmes...

 

:good

 

Heres what you revisionists leave out ..

Trevor Berbick, the novice who was KO'ed in one round by Mercado and lost to Holmes at 18 - 1 humiliated Page three fights and fourteen months post Holmes .. the fights were against Nelson and Raceme, two complete non entities and a pathetic Ali .. that being said he completely embarrassed the highly touted undefeated Page in front of a huge pre-Holmes/****ey closed circuit audience. Page was disgraced as an over hyped bust after that fight. Did Berbick go from a novice to a world beater on that time and Page over hyped **** ? Between that thrashing and his loss to Witherspoon twenty months later Page did nothing to build himself into any draw to fight Holmes. Then he fights Witherspoon, entering the ring fat and pathetic and puts the crowd to sleep and loses. The networks and the papers ripped the fighters and the fight .. Page was absolutely no draw. Page then loses to Bey in a nationally televised bout , disqualifying himself again and Holmes fights the victor, Bey and destroys him. He then goes to South Africa and fights Coetzee, a man beaten by Tate and Weaver in a fight no one even knew was taking place there was so little interest and wins the title .. so what happens ? He loses three of his next four fights and starts a journey into palookaville .. that's why I say you don;t know what your talking about.

 

Berbick was the fight where Holmes could have beaten Tommy Burns' heavyweight KO record and he chose an inexperienced fringe contender who had been KO'd by Mercado in one round. No cherry pick there...

Berbick humiliated Page? He won a decision against a Page who also had limited experience at the time. Page then KO'd Tillis and won an eliminator against Snipes. You know the guy who poleaxed Holmes when Snipes was coming off an all-time gift decision against Coetzee, who had knocked him down twice. Page was the #1 contender in 1983. What happened before or after is irrelevant. Holmes preferred to face two non-entities ahead of his #1 ranked contender and gave up his title to do so. That's the bottom line. Why did Page have to be a draw? Was Scott Frank a draw? Was Lucien Rodriguez? Bonecrusher?

Holmes wasn't to know Page would lose the next year to a guy who had beaten Holmes to many minds. Did Holmes rush to face Spoon again after he beat Page? Not a chance but he jumped at the opportunity to fight Bey. Funny that.

 

Holmes did not fight Page, Coetzee, Tate or Dokes BECAUSE there were two championships AND the governing bodies AND the promoter wanted it that way. It was not like HBO got the governing bodies to wave mandatory demands and allow unification fights. The ABC guys loved it that way.

If there had of been one title Larry would have been forced to fight those guys. That's all there is to it.

Page, Coetzee, Dokes, Tubbs and Thomas were certainly no better than Snipes, Berbick, Witherspoon, Weaver, Smith, Shavers, Norton, Williams, Bey anyway and proberbly ****ey, Cobb and Frazier could have beat them too.

It is a pity Holmes did not fight coetzee, Page Tate and Tubbs but did he really avoid them?

That Larry did fight easier guys between 10 or so guys at least as good or better than Coetzee, Tate, Dokes, Page and Tubbs should not prove he ducked the alternative champions. How can it?

The point of Page is an absolute fact. Holmes did ditch or was stripped of his belt rather than fight Page. But Larry was an active champion and the case of a Greg Page title shot was in no way any stronger than any number of guys around at that time. It certainly did not represent any bigger fight than the one he took. Page was neither outstanding or colourful. It's not like Page was Sonny Liston tearing through the ranks.

If Larry then avoided the guy who beat Page you could say he was running scared. But the fact that Page could just up and lose to just about anybody kind of says something anyway.

 

That was the division then. What kind of experience did Tate have when he was gifted a vacant title chance? Dokes! What on earth had he done to be any kind of #1??? Being #1 to the ludicrous half of the title is irrelevant. Tubbs!! What was his record? What was his landmark coming of age win before he challenged Page?? These guys Dokes, Tubbs and Tate were kids too. You can harp on about Smith, Snipes, Williams and Frazier it's no different.

The opportunity of fighting for the title meant something to all of them. Those that challenged Larry, those that challenged the bogus champ, they all went into camps and they all gave it their best shot on a career defining night. Where they were at the time was the biggest opportunity of their career. They all did their best. Witherspoon was never better.

Likewise how would C00ney have turned out had he NOT fought Holmes? How might Bey have turned out without losing to Larry? What about poor Leroy Jones? He had been a good Amateur star with some pedigree. Marvis? How would Marvis have developed without that beating? Williams might have been champion. It works both ways.

 

The Ring - July 1982. Ratings compiled pre- Holmes-C00ney fight and card.

World Champion:
Larry Holmes
1. Mike Weaver
2. Michael Dokes
3. Gerry ****ey
4. Greg Page
5. Gerrie Coetzee
6. Trevor Berbick
7. James ‘Quick’ Tillis
8. Randall ‘Tex’ Cobb
9. Tim Witherspoon
10. Renaldo Snipes

 

So Berbick , who had knocked out former champion John Tate prior to losing to Holmes, the same Tate that had cleanly defeat Coetzee, was a novice and Page was a novice too .. honestly, you really are interesting. So novice Berbick beats novice Page .. at what point did Page become the dominant force that Holmes ducked since the fact that following the Berbick thrashing Page, in addition to becoming a fat slob, never again had a twenty four month period in his career without a loss ? Your argument is completely full of holes under scrutiny and based on reality. Every one of these guys had their title shots in their twenty something bout in that era .. Dokes, Coetzee, ect ..

Of course Holmes choose to pick and choose post Witherspoon .. he was champ already over five years, paid his dues and was finally trying to revolt from the thieves that rans the promotions and the alphabets .. however at no point did Page , Dokes or Coetzee ever establish a run that established them as any form of dominant challenge .. they were all inconsistent and somewhat limited.

 

Larry Holmes
1. Mike Weaver
2. Michael Dokes
3. Gerry ****ey
4. Greg Page
5. Gerrie Coetzee
6. Trevor Berbick
7. James ‘Quick’ Tillis
8. Randall ‘Tex’ Cobb
9. Tim Witherspoon
10. Renaldo Snipes

There can't be many champions who beat beat the #1, the #3, the #6, the #8, the #9 and the #10 of the top ten and gets accused of hand picking his challengers!

Every one of those guys from #1 to #10 fought for a title. There can't be many top tens where that was the case.