Is Larry Holmes

I feel like the only real difference between the legacy of Holmes and Wlad is that Ali came out of retirement to face Holmes and Lewis never did.

H2H Holmes is one of the best ever, so many dimensions. Strangely enough though his warrior instinct hinders him in the ring but never fuelled him to chase the best fights. He was very much a money over legacy guy which I fair enough.

As a teacher would I rather get a pay rise or secure every kids target grade? I'd honestly say the former.

 

This.

He was able to get away with it until late '83 but King and the WBC finally gave him no choice but to fight #1 or be stripped. He chose to give it up because he knew the IBF needed a figurehead at heavywieighgt to legitimize it and he knew he could milk it a few years.

But even years before he was stripped, he was very smart about taking low risk fights for the most money

He knew Ali was done, but could still command respect based soley on his name, so that fight was a natural. Can't blame him for taking advantage of that situation

Then, Spinks staged a modest comeback after the Coetzee debacle, and could still command attention based on his name because of his win over Ali. Holmes knew Spinks wasn't much of a threat, and could provide a very good payday. That was a smart fight to take.

Then, ****ey was hyped to high heavens because of being a white hope. Holmes knew ****ey hadn't beaten any live contenders, so he smartly took that fight for the huge payday

Cobb? Another white hope. There wasn't huge demand for that fight, but it was a chance for a pretty good payday while providing almost zero risk. Smart to take that fight

Witherspoon didn't look too dangerous on paper, Holmes barely escaped that one.

With the Frazier fight, Holmes was just repeating what he had done serveral times. Fight a guy who offered good money but not much risk.

But, this time he couldn't get away with keeping the title.

But he had a fall back option and used it to make more money

He was pretty shrewd.

 

Shavers was more of a threat than Weaver and Dokes in 1979.

Holmes fights Witherspoon in 1983 why has he got to fight him again within 10 months? 82' he beats Snipes and C00ney.

on paper Bey and Thomas beat champions.

that's a lot of losing accidents Larry never had versus Shavers, Snipes, Berbick and Bey.

no Dokes was fighting a former journey man made good who had been A champion not the champion.

yes Page was fighting for a title after two defeats.

Difference was, difficulties or not Larry could have an accident with high profile or worthy contenders and still win. Not so with the bit part players passing around other belts.

By comparison, what was Larry offered to fight Marvis? Larry got $3.1 million to fight Marvis.

Do You think any champion would turn down $3.1 to accept $2.5? Apparently Larry wanted $5million to fight Page. That's half what C00ney got to fight Larry!

yes the sum total of Page prime years is a loss to Berbick with win a over Tillis and Snipes before losing to a who's who of 1980s heavyweights.

Berbick beat "hell on wheels" Tate. Frank drew with Snipes. If Thomas can get a shot at Witherspoon on the back of a draw and Coetzee can get a shot at the other title with the same draw why not Frank after his draw with Snipes?

but no harder than Snipes, Witherspoon and Berbick.

He could do that but Larry already did that against Snipes, Berbick and Witherspoon who each had the same level of threat as Page when Larry fought them and proberbly did not make him anymore money than Marvis did. Larry felt that a Witherspoon calibre fighter (like Page) was worth more money than Marvis could fetch so he may as well fight Marvis. Until he could agree terms why not?

Going into his fight with Larry all Tim had done was beat Snipes. He gave Larry a tough fight too. Likewise all Trevor had done was beat Tate but he gave Larry 15 rounds. Now here's page, all he's done is lose to Berbick and beat Snipes. Larry is entitled to ask for more money or negotiate what he thinks a fight is worth.

So you agree Thomas matches Holmes in 85? He's no better than Larry even that year. The sum total of the pinklon Thomas record is that he drew with Coetzee, beat Witherspoon and Weaver but lost to Berbick.It's not much.

no Dokes was behind C00ney as a contender.

with Ring Magazine?

no the WBA champion was the #1 contender to Homes. according to Ring Magazine. The reality is Spoon was simply facing another prospect who has lost to Berbick and like Tim, had just beat Tillis and Snipes. Thomas was not #1 contender in Ring Magazine when he challenged Witherspoon. Again the champion was Holmes and the belt holders were installed at #1 and #2. In reality the best Thomas could hope for was #3 or #4.

no Tate was a 19-0 prospect. Not a top guy. Weaver a journeyman made good. Not a top guy. Dokes was 25-0-1 close to the top but without a signature win. coetzee was already a two time loser at world level, drew his last fight. Not really a top fighter since 1978. 23-3 Page was on a losing streak. Not a top fighter unless Bey is. Tubbs was just a 20-0 kid without a signature win. Not a top fighter.

 

I never said Weaver and Dokes were a threat in 79 (even though Holmes still fought Weaver that year). Were Ocasio and Evangelista tougher than a Norton rematch? Who was a bigger threat from 80-83, Weaver/Dokes or Jones/LeDoux/Berbick/Spinks/Cobb/Rodriguez?

Because the fight was very close and the decision controversial? Because Holmes' next two opponents were nowhere near as good as Spoon? It's pretty clear he wasn't going near Spoon again.

Snipes was back in 81. He was knocked down twice and got a gift decision against Coetzee in his previous fight. Clearly not the best fighter out there for Holmes. C**ney was back in mid 82 and hadn't fought a single prime contender. Clearly not the best fighter out there. In any event, we're talking late 83, when Spoon and Page were clearly a much bigger threat than Frazier and Frank, which is exactly why Holmes fought the latter two.

Thomas was better than Bey on paper and in the ring.

Holmes was badly hurt against Shavers, Weaver and Snipes. He barely squeaked past novices Spoon and Williams with the benefit of every doubt from the officials. A rookie Bonecrusher gave him hell. They were pretty close to accidents.

Weaver was a world champion when Dokes fought him. He was a journeyman when Holmes fought him and gave him hell. Weaver held 50% of the title, just like Holmes did. Holmes was never the champion, only a champion.

Holmes gave title shots to less qualified opponents.

Larry had plenty of accidents against the set-ups and novice heavies he was facing. Badly hurt in fights, barely winning others. A point swing and he loses to Norton and draws with Spoon. A lot of refs would have stopped the Snipes fight. Weaver was stopped when Holmes was hurt just as bad and allowed to continue. Many had him losing to Williams. He just got all the breaks with the officials. Spinks was an accident. No one thought Larry was going to lose that one, least of all Larry himself.

Larry wasn't getting $2.5million for fighting Zanon and the gang! He made less than that against Frank. Strange he demanded what would have been his second highest payday as champion for fighting Page, when you reckon Page wasn't that threatening anyway.

So he took an easier fight for more money. But he did take the easier fight. He could have beaten Page, collected his $2.5million, kept his title and then beaten up Marvis, unless he only wanted the easier fight, which he did.

Funny, because that record still puts Page above at least 15 of Holmes' challengers. What was the sum total of Lorenzo Zanon's prime years? How about all the other no hopers Holmes fought?

Did Frank or Frazier beat Tate, or Berbick, or Page? Did they draw with Coetzee or Thomas? Coetzee was better than Snipes. Page and Spoon were better than Snipes. Frank wasn't. Thomas was better than Frank. It's ridiculous that anyone would try to justify Holmes taking two of the softest title defences imaginable back to back.

So you agree that Holmes chose a much easier fight when Page was the mandatory? Berbick and Snipes happened two years earlier. In late 83 Page was Holmes' mandatory, not them. Holmes took two easier fights instead and vacated his belt. It's clear as day. Holmes ducked Page and he ducked the Spoon rematch. Why would Holmes demand his second highest payday to fight Page if, according to you, Page wasn't going to be that hard anyway?

Larry got $1.1million apiece for fighting Berbick and Snipes, and $2.5 million for Spoon, but wanted $5million for Page? Seems he thought Page was five times the threat of the first two and double the threat of the other!

Larry only received more than $5million for one fight as champion: C**ney. I ask again, why is he demanding his second highest payday to face someone who you say wasn't that qualified or dangerous anyway? We can only infer he was expecting Page to be tough, unlike Spoon or Berbick whom no one thought would be hard for Holmes. Berbick was a 50-1 underdog! Otherwise he was just pricing himself out by demanding a sum no one would pay.

Thomas bettered Holmes in 84 and 85. He beat Weaver, which was better than beating Bey and Williams (assuming you even gave Larry that one) and losing to Spinks. Thomas beat Weaver and Spoon easier than Holmes did, and he fought them when they were a recognisable threat, not obscure journeymen or 15-0 greenhorns. Holmes wasn't interested in Weaver or Spoon when they actually were top fighters.

Not based on what they'd done in the ring.

Yes the Ring's #3.

If the best Thomas could hope for was #4, that's still higher than 17 of Holmes' challengers when they fought him. Page was the WBC's #1 and so was Thomas. This is the one which you claim was the legitimate title. Neither Holmes nor the WBA champs fought guys based on their Ring ranking. Regardless, no matter whose rankings you use, Holmes was fighting mostly lower end guys who weren't considered the best in the division.

And all of the above were better, more experienced, higher ranked, had better records and were considered tougher opponents than most of Holmes' challengers. If they weren't top fighters, what were Rodriguez and co?

 

Exactly this. The funny thing is at the time Holmes was quite open about the fact that if he could make millions fighting stiffs with little risk, that's exactly what he'd do (and exactly what he did). Before the Witherspoon fight, Spoon predicted he would win by KO. Holmes replied if he thought Witherspoon would KO him, he wouldn't be fighting him. It's only more recently that Holmes gets all misty eyed about how great his era was and how he took on all comers.

 

young beats George Foreman then Norton and Young fought an eliminator. Norton won by S.D. and is given 50% of the title based on that. So young remains a high ranking contender.

Next, On the same evening, young and Norton then fight Larry and Occasio and both get beat. This makes Holmes and Occasio champion and #1 contender in the eyes if the WBC. This had also been the first fight back for both Norton and Young since their S.D eliminator. So you can see how high Occasio is now.

Nobody wanted Holmes v Occasio because it was believed that Young had not been in shape. Holmes fought Evangelista and Occasio and Young fought a rematch. Occasio won again! So based on that, if he wants to keep his WBC belt, Holmes must fight Occasio. Ossie has twice beat their next best guy.

Norton got himself Knocked out by Shavers the night Larry beats the pants off Occasio. This was on the same show as a kind of elimination for a future challenge.

As a warm up for a shavers show down Larry takes on Mike Weaver. He still has to fight Shavers. And he does fight Shavers because he beat Norton.

So was Occasio tougher than a Norton rematch?

Shavers made it irrelevant.

Gerry C00ney.

You keep leaving C00ney out of this 1980-83 title threat. His profile was so high it leclipsed everybody.

Larry came right after Ali who once he had established himself was able to command certain things as champion.

The George Foreman rematch was passed over quite a bit and Jimmy Young beating George created the need for the Norton Young elimination to present Ali with a logical contender.

Ali had beat Young, Norton and Foreman already so he took fights, easier fights, whilst this sorted itself out.

Was Larry Holmes in such a different situation after he beat Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, C00ney, Witherspoon when he was signing to meet Coetzee at Caesars palace and the WBC are on about this Page kid who still can't beat Berbick but can beat Snipes?

Holmes was after a unification, he saw that fall through and he has three fights left on the table. Frazier for 3.1, Frank for 1.1 and Greg Page for 2.1. He says he wants 5 million for Page or he's taking the other two fights.

both Bey and Thomas beat one world champion each the same year they were champion. On paper they were equal.

And when Dokes fought Weaver mike had limited experience, no signature win and no more qualified to win than David Bey, Truth Williams, Berbick WiTherspoon had all been were when they challenged Larry.

Holmes was the real champion not only because Larry was the linear champion by then but because he had also rounded up and beat the previous cast of top players in Spinks, Norton and Shavers. Larry had also seen off the only major threat to any title for some time with the much hyped (but legitimate nonetheless) Gerrie C00ney. He had secured his legacy doing this. It was a bonus that so many Guys that gave Larry a good fight won belts on the rebound from losing to him.

Some of the time yes.

not on paper. It is negligible. Snipes beat Berbick. Coetzee beat Dokes. In fact, Snipes beat Coetzee.

it's negligible. Snipes could beat Berbick and Page could not beat Berbick. Witherspoon vs Snipes was as close as Coetzee vs Thomas.

Frank wasn't as good as Snipes? They drew.

Holmes did not chose an easier fight for the sake of it. circumstances were that Holmes was offered a better deal.

yes and once he is offered 3.1 million for somebody like Frazier he is going to want a better deal on all future fights.

That's still $400,000 more than Larry was ever offered to fight Page. Its just logical that if a #10 guy is worth $3.1 million to the champion he will expect more for a #1 guy.

Is a champion expected to take a challenger at any cost?

A governing body should only be able to make a time limit ultimatum to the champion. but they can't dictate a champion take the worst possible financial deal on the table in order to do so. This is professional boxing after all. How can that be acceptable?

But Holmes beat Smith better than Witherspoon did. Larry ultimately did better against Berbick than Thomas did.. It works both ways. What else did Thomas do?

Weaver was less of a threat at the time he fought Thomas. It's silly to say that about Weavers current Profile when he challenged Thomas. Tony Anthony knocked weaver out on the Holmes vs Smith Undercard after the bell. The commentary for that fight said Weaver would be promised a shot at one of the champions "if he looks good tonight". Weaver was knocked across the ring and almost through the ropes after the bell. It went down as a Disqualification win because Weaver was too dazed to continue. Hardly looking good was it?

 

The post is ok if you don't know the facts ..

Ali made Holmes fight him because he needed the money and called him out in public time and again. Holmes did not want the fight till he could not avoid it and then took it for the money. You cannot blame him. Believe it or nit it was a megafight at the time.

L. Spinks had the biggest post Ali win of his career blasting out highly regarded Bernardo Mercado in a very impressive showing on the Holmes Ali undercard and that generated big demand for the fight. Many were actually picking Leon to upset Larry.

****ey thrashed a still young and decent Young , crushed Lyle and of course a Norton , a Norton who had just looked revived beating a then undefeated Tex Cobb better than Dokes would a year later. Again Holmes did not even want the fight, disturbed by ****ey's easy path but the demand was tremendous and of course he took it for the money ..

The key to all of the nonsense regarding Dokes, Page, Coetzee and Thomas is that they all were very weak performers and had zero box office draw .. Does was off to a decent start but the Weaver fights showed him to be a King puppet, a premature stoppage and a gift in the rematch .. then drugs and he was done ..

Page was thrashed by Berick, decisioned Snipes as a decent win and then lost to Witherspoon in a terribly nationally televised fight that got horrendous press for boredom and the pathetic condition of the contestants .. endless bra commercial jokes filled the papers for weeks .. then he lost soon to Bey and was done ..

Thomas was a decent but unhanded , limited guy who did look decent against Witherspoon but then lost to Berbick and never bounced back ..

Coetzee had two career wins , Spinks and then over a drugged out Dokes .. in between he lost to Tate, Weaver, Page, ect . he was never looked at as anything other than a one handed fighter and with brittle hands to boot ..

There is no doubt that Holmes was the best heavyweight in the world from 78 to 83 .. after that he did pick and choose but he still fought tough guys as well .. Bonecrusher had just KO'ed Bruno. Bey had just beaten Page. Carl Williams was a 6' 5" highly regarded young contender with excellent skills .. there is just a lot more to the story than these revisionists like to try and spell out ..

Larry Holmes feared no one and was out for the money .. today at 67 he'd fight Tyson Fury is he could get a couple of million .. he was absolutely never afraid of any of these fighters .. he just called his shots and was smart about it when he had the leverage which is why he is still a rich man today.

 

Ocasio was never the WBC or anyone else's #1 contender. That was Norton until he lost to Shavers. How could Ocasio be when he beat a guy who had just lost to Norton, and who wasn't #1 when Norton beat him either. Norton was certainly a bigger, tougher fight for Holmes than Evangelista and Ocasio. Ocasio-Holmes was on the same card as Norton-Shavers. Why was Holmes taking on a lesser fighter (probably for less money than he could have made against Norton), while Norton the #1 had to face someone whom Holmes had already beaten?

C**ney's high profile was down to hype, not what he'd actually accomplished, which wasn't more than what the other contenders around were doing. C**ney's biggest asset was he could have been the first white American champion since Marciano. Holmes couldn't not fight C**ney given the money involved, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious. And what about all the other fights Holmes had from 80-83?

What does any of this have to do with Holmes not giving Spoon a rematch or fighting Page and tackling two much lesser fighters instead?

Coetzee beat Dokes two weeks after Holmes fought Frank, so Holmes can't have been in negotiations before then. Holmes' second biggest purse after C**ney was the $3.5million he made against Michael Spinks. So to fight Page he was demanding a sum he never came close to making for any title defence except C**ney. Either he was expecting Page to be tough, hence demanding a mega payday, or he was just pricing himself out by demanding a sum no one would pay.

No they weren't. Thomas was higher ranked, higher regarded, more experienced and had a better record. He was a world champion and beat a reigning world champion. Bey wasn't and didn't. Bey (barely) beat the guy whom Spoon had just beaten, and Thomas beat Spoon.

Dokes was 25-0-1, which made him more experienced than at least a dozen Holmes challengers. He was ranked #1 by the WBA, the WBC and the Ring, which made him higher ranked than almost every Holmes challenger. He KO'd Ocasio, who was deemed a worthy challenger for Holmes. He beat Young, a win that got C**ney and Ocasio a shot at Holmes. And then he beat Weaver, a better win than most Holmes challengers had mustered, and did it easier than Holmes. Around the time Dokes was fighting Weaver, two fringe journeymen whom Dokes had already beaten as a young prospect were given title shots by Holmes!

So Holmes was the "real" champ because an old, sick Ali needed the money and challenged him two years after his last fight? It could just as easily have been Weaver or Tate who fought Ali instead.

Holmes wasn't the real champ because he didn't unify the title or beat all the top challengers. He beat Norton the paper champ by a point and the guy who beat Norton, who Holmes had already beaten anyway, and that's it. He didn't beat Ali when that win would have meant something. He didn't beat Tate or Coetzee. By the time he beat Spinks Leon had already been obliterated in a round by Coetzee.

Most of the time.

Snipes got a hometown decision against a South African at the height of anti-apartheid. He only won because the judges decided not to invoke New York's supplementary scoring for knockdowns. Had they done so, Coetzee would have won. The decision was universally derided. The commentators and press at ringside thought Coetzee won. Holmes then fought Snipes, who was not better than Coetzee when they met in the ring.

And Snipes could not beat Spoon or Page.

Frank wasn't better than Snipes and he doesn't have a win against Berbick or anyone else decent to fall back on.

So he took an easier fight. Two easier fights, in fact. After demanding more money than he was ever likely to get for the tougher fight.

Holmes was offered $2.55 million to face Page. And I thought Page was unqualified, inexperienced, undeserving, lost to Berbick etc anyway? So why should Holmes suddenly want a purse he never came close to earning for any of his subsequent title fights?

As I said before, he could have made an easy $2.5million for beating Page (after all, the fight would surely have been a formality since he beat Berbick who later beat Page, right?), kept his title, and then collected his millions against Marvis. Given he followed up Marvis with 14-1 Bonecrusher, 14-0 Bey and unranked 16-0 Williams, it seems to me Homes was just looking for as many soft touches as he could find. And he didn't make $2.5million for any of them. Even against Spinks, an unbeaten champ and legend in his own right, he still didn't receive close to $5million.

Holmes' last mandatory defence was C**ney over a year earlier. In the mean time he fought fringe guys Cobb and Rodriguez (both for far less than $2.5m) and then a neophyte Witherspoon (also for less than $2.5m). It's reasonable for them to expect him to meet a top challenger now and again, no? His other options have been discussed above.

Witherspoon fought a better and more experienced Smith than the one Holmes fought. Thomas fought a better and more experienced Berbick than the one Holmes fought. None of that is relevant to the timeframe 84-85 when Thomas was clearly a much more dangerous opponent for Holmes than any fight he took in that period, and he proved it by handling two of Holmes's toughest opponents easier than Holmes did. If Holmes was looking for mega paydays, then he would have had to fight the likes of Thomas.

Weaver was a still dangerous former world champion and #1 contender, not the unheralded 19-8 club fighter that Holmes fought. Anthony rabbit punched Weaver when he turned round to walk back to his corner at the bell, and then punched him again from behind. Hardly Weaver's fault the guy blatantly fouled him.

 

ask the WBC. Shavers had lobbied for a title fight because his fight with Ali had been controversial, he lost to Holmes in an eliminator but landed another eliminator after that.

the only thing that was obvious during that time was that the governing bodies prefered to be apart.

Larry was naming his price. If the most money was for Page he would take Page. He wasn't saying he wouldn't fight him. The most money was for Frazier. These extra belts gave champions too many options. Without belts page would of had to beat even more guys and Frazier would not have been in the equation.

.

Thomas beat Spoon and Holmes beat Spoon. Spoon beat Page and Bey beat Page. Holmes beat Bey and Spoon. All roads still lead to Holmes beating guys. Berbick beat Thomas and Berbick beat Page too.

In an era where 19-0 Tate can be awarded vacant title fights and Leon Spinks was champion there was a whole lot of fast tracking into the ratings going on. This in both sides of the title too.

it took Dokes two attempts to beat Occasio and that's his signature win??

but C00ney nearly tore Youngs face off! It was a shocking win. Young had Eddie Futch in his corner, he was fit and was in no mood to lose to C00ney. Young meant business in there.

And its telling that when Ali returned for money he went for the more credible title holder to create a maximum purse. Tate just wasn't going to cut it.

There was no top challenger in the true sense because once they started handing out the belts to mere prospects it confused the public. It diluted the time honoured contender process. It left belt holders in competition to establish themselves as a champion. There was no tournament. Norton blew his chance to Larry. Ali retired so it was left to Larry to establish himself in the absence of the other belt selecting credible contenders for their recognition and Larry did this by beating Shavers again. Each governing body refused to waive mandatory defences to allow unification fights, they deliberately would not rate the opposite champion so it became impossible to unify. But Larry still beat Weaver, Shavers, Berbick, Spinks, Ali, Snipes, C00ney, Witherspoon, Smith and Bey who all had equal legitimate reason to challenge Holmes as either of the the guys who wound up with a belt on the dark side. Remember Page challenged with back to back defeats, weaver challenged off a loss from Holmes. Coetzee challenged off a loss from Tate.

it was not for the want of trying. Ali retired to get away from Larry. It was Alis prerogative.

What chance did Larry have of facing Tate or Coetzee? They were rated behind him on the way up and Tate wanted a homecoming in Knoxville after winning the title but he blew it to a guy Larry just beat.

But what on earth was Weaver doing fighting Tony Anthony on a Larry Holmes undercard anyway if he was still such a threat to champions? Anthony was ham and eggs. Still, Dokes got a title fight out of beating John L Gardener, Page got a title fight out of losing twice in a row, Tubbs got a title fight out of beating Smith who lost his last fight and so it went.

 

Your "facts" lead you to your opinion that he didn't cherrypick. My facts lead me to the opinion that he did cherrypick. At the end of the day, both arguments can be made. Whether or not he cherrypicked is, in the final ****ysis, just an opinion.

I will say that the whole highlighted section is a good argument that he did cherrypick.

You're bascially saying despite fearing no potential opponent, he made decisions on who to fight based on leveraging his position as champion to get the most money.

I agree with that. It was part of his cherrypicking mindset.

 

Summarising the whole era and the records of all the bit part players, belt holders and politics your still left with Larry Holmes as the dominating force.

He didn't meet his #1 contenders because the #1 was not reallya #1 contender. The #1 was a belt holder who could not win a mandatory and the policy then was a governing body would never make a rival champion their mandatory.

If you measure Larry against a unified champion you could fault him somewhat, but you can't knock him at all if you consider the climate at the time.

The top ten was diluted because fighters were fast tracked into the ratings with two options for titles. You beat the other guy or you lost to Larry Holmes. Nobody beat more than one rated fighter before challenging for ANY belt, Holmes's included. If you lost to Larry you could win any other belt on the rebound. The other belts were so easy to win only one guy failed to win one.

As for cherry picking, Larry was busier than anyone. He resorted to taking what was left between more serious defences and he was the only guy who secured any kind of legacy at that time. Everybody but Larry who held titles at the time he was a champion retired with a thread bare resume with perhaps one or two wins. It's regular contender stuff.

If you disregard belts Larry's reign played out just like any other champion and those in the ratings played out like a top ten always did amongst itself. Passing belts within the ranks confused too many people. They were just contenders.

 

These Holmes threads can go on for a while!

The bottom line is this. Homes did face good competition. Yes--he has some weak title defense, but show me one tenured champion with 10+ title defenses that did not.

From 1978-1985, Holmes beat the following name fighters:

Norton
Shavers
Weaver
Berbick
L Spinks
C00ney
Snipes
Witherspoon
Smith
and M Spinks.

Were Page, or Thomas clearly better than the above? No sir, they were not! Personally, I'd rate Norton and Witherspoon above them.

After he retired for two years ( Robbed in the Spinks rematch ) Holmes fought a prime Tyson, a prime Mercer, and a prime Holyfield. The one fight he could not get was Foreman, who blatantly ducked Holmes!

Holmes was very much about the money. He was an active champion and the fights that didn't happen were mostly due to politics and the lack of a big enough purse to make the politics go away.

 

Did the WBC force Holmes to tackle a lower ranked less distinguished opponent in a less lucrative fight? If so do we also credit them for keeping Holmes away from a rematch with a guy he'd barely beaten by a point and steering him towards a fight with Shavers who Holmes was already a shut out winner over?

Strange that this didn't stop Michael Spinks, Carlos Monzon, Sugar Ray Leonard, Don Curry or Roberto Duran unifying their divisions, it didn't stop Marvin Hagler being sole middleweight champ throughout the 80s, nor did it stop Mike Tyson unifying just after Holmes left the scene.

He wasn't saying he wouldn't fight him, he just demanded a sum he was never likely to get and didn't earn for fighting anyone except C**ney. Apparently he considered Page a much tougher fight than Frank, Frazier, Smith, Bey, Williams or Spinks, since he never demanded (or at any rate never got) $5m for fighting any of them. Strange Holmes would demand such a high purse for someone you reckon was never much of a threat to begin with.

And Holmes never beat Thomas or Page. When he had the opportunity to face them, he took easier, lower paying fights instead. He even gave up his title to avoid Page. Beating guys who beat them doesn't prove anything. Berbick's fights with Holmes and Thomas were five years apart. Holmes arguably never beat Spoon either. Larry certainly didn't want to find out whether he was better than Spoon in a rematch. Thomas beat a world champion Spoon. Holmes beat a rookie Spoon whom no one thought had a chance, including Holmes himself.

Using the argument that X was no threat to Holmes because at some point they lost to someone Holmes beat at some point is flawed logic. It implies that only unbeaten fighters are worthy of a title shot and doesn't take account of circumstances at the time or that fights are determined by styles and attributes. If Fighter A beats Fighter B, it doesn't automatically follow that A is superior to and would beat everyone B goes on to beat.

Ali, Tyson and Louis fought loads of men who had lost to men they already beat. Why? Because dominant champions clean out their division and take on all the top challengers. They don't rely on others to do it for them.

Just apply that logic to Marciano. He didn't need to face Charles because he already beat Walcott and Layne, who beat Charles. Charles also lost to Johnson and Valdes, both of whom lost to Moore, who Marciano later beat. And the following year Charles got KO'd by John Holman, which proves he was no threat anyway. Marciano could have fought someone like Karel Sys or Heinz Neuhaus instead and claimed Charles didn't deserve to face him. Heck, Marciano didn't need to face Moore because Moore went 0-3 against Charles, who Rocky beat. And besides the following year Moore got KO'd by Floyd Patterson, which proves he was undeserving anyway. Marciano could have faced a 10-0 Eddie Machen or a 12-0 Ingemar Johansson instead. And if he couldn't get them sanctioned, thrown a strop, found another boxing commission who would let him defend against whoever he liked and dragged out his reign a few more years.

It has to be said Holmes took this to a whole new level. Seriously, six title defences against men with 16 or fewer pro fights?

I never said it was his signature win. I said he knocked out a guy who had recently been deemed a worthy title opponent for Holmes. Dokes was 21 and 17-0 fighting in Ocasio's home country. Did Holmes ever do that? What was Holmes doing at 21 and in his 18th pro bout? Why was Dokes an unworthy challenger to Holmes but it was okay for Holmes to fight two journeymen Dokes had already beaten as a prospect, Cobb and Rodriguez?

There's always an element of chance to a cut though, and it's not a knockout. Besides, this was still a faded Young who had already lost to Dokes.

Ali was also in talks to face both Tate and Weaver. In fact he considered them before Holmes. It just so happened the Holmes fight was the one that came about.

The public knew who the best fighters around were, and so did the mags (and with some exceptions, so did the ABCs). In seven years Holmes fought six men who were ranked in the top 5 by the Ring at the time of the fight. SIX! You can't blame the ABCs because there was only one other champ until 1983. The best fighters, by ranking, by record, by public perception, however you want to do it, were the other champs and the men they were defending against. Page/Dokes/Thomas/Coetzee were easily superior to at least a dozen of Holmes' defences if not more, and they were fighting each other (along with Weaver and Spoon), while Holmes was usually tackling some lesser light, so it's no wonder their records have more blemishes. People knew that Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier were not better than Greg Page. No one believed Scott LeDoux, Lorenzo Zanon, Lucien Rodriguez, Tex Cobb and all the rest were worthy challengers. No one was yelling for Holmes to face unranked 16-0 Carl Williams and then a light-heavyweight when talented unbeaten titlists like Pinklon Thomas and Tony Tubbs were looming.

Listing a bunch of names that Holmes beat is meaningless without context. How much credit can you really give him for beating that Ali? Leon, the most fragile and beatable heavyweight champ in history? Ali and Spinks were just names, not any kind of threat. C**ney, whose position owed a lot more to his status as a great white hope than his ring record? Beating unheralded, inexperienced fighters like Smith, Berbick and Spoon, and Weaver when no one even knew who he was, and so on and so forth. As was stated above, the fact that Weaver, Spoon, Smith and Berbick went on to have good careers and win a piece of the title helped Holmes' legacy considerably, because none of them were considered anything special at the time.

Why couldn't Larry face them? Funny that they were unworthy of fighting Holmes, but beating them was enough for Berbick and Snipes to get a title shot at him, even though Weaver had already beaten Tate first in a more important fight (and also KO'd Mercado who KO'd Berbick), and even though Snipes didn't really beat Coetzee anyway, and besides Weaver had already KO'd Coetzee more impressively in a title fight. After Weaver won the title, Holmes should have been unifying with Weaver, not fighting men who beat men that Weaver had already beaten.

A ten round stay busy fight in between title shots. At least Weaver didn't give Anthony a title shot like Holmes would have (or tried to). I suppose we should be grateful we got Spinks in Holmes' 49th fight and not Kip Kane!

You keep going on about Page challenging and Coetzee getting title shots after losses and Dokes beating Gardener (which was actually 18 months before he fought Weaver). Now apply those arguments to men Holmes did give title shots to and see how they stand up. What was LeDoux's record like going into the Holmes fight? What was Zanon's signature win? How about Cobb, Frank, Rodriguez and all the gang?

 

Foreman never ducked Holmes. They were supposed to meet in the mid-70s, and it was Holmes' people who pulled the plug. They were also due to face off in the late 90s but the money fell through.

 

Not so. Foreman had his chances to fight Holmes in the 1900's. He never did.

I've said it before, if a young Holmes fought and beat Foreman instead of Jimmy Young, you can make a good case for Holmes being #1 overall.