Is Larry Holmes

And Foreman agreed to it and it only didn't happen because the money fell through. Foreman wasn't going to fight for nothing, and nor was Holmes for that matter.

Young Holmes had a chance to fight Foreman, and Giachetti vetoed it, obviously not fancying Larry's chances.

 

I don't think the 90's fight would've been that instructive as to who would have prevailed in the 70's.

 

Exactly.

Holmes paid his dues against a lot more relevent fighters than the others, even if this is as well as having soft touches.
Larry also won his belt from a Ken Norton not a John Tate type.

The point is John Tate was behind Shavers. and Weaver and Shavers were beaten by Holmes. Yet weaver beat Tate. so the alternative title stemmed from that. The reality is these belt holders were simply contenders.

The WBC broke away from Holmes and even a guy who already lost to Larry ten months ago could win it. This was not an improvement, it did not create a credible champion since Larry had beat him and by then was the linear champion anyway.

 

Holmes never won a belt from someone who won it in the ring, and tossed away that belt so he could milk the title without facing serious competition, so all this talk of the other champs being "paper" champs or mere contenders is nonsense.

The WBC broke away from Holmes (or rather Holmes broke from them) because he didn't want to face their #1 contender Greg Page and they wouldn't sanction his fight against the unranked and completely overmatched ten fight rookie Marvis Frazier.

The bottom line is, there were about half a dozen prime, talented champs out there during his reign that he never faced. He ignored them, leaving them to face each other while he fought lower ranked journeyman types or novice level heavies (and was quite open about this). He never unified the title or rematched anyone who gave him a hard fight. It isn't revisionism to point this out. All this was not lost on people who were following boxing at the time.

 

Holmes would have beaten the Foreman who lost to Young in the 1970's

In the 1990's Holmes would have won a decision. Foreman opted out of the fight.

Greg Page was only a top contender for a short 1.5-2 year window of time and he lost to a guy Holmes gave a title shot to ( Bey ) and easily defeated.

But where does Page rate in the 1980's? Not in the top 5 for sure as that is Tyson, Holmes, Witherspoon, Thomas, and Holyfield.


Maybe not even top 8. So Holmes didn't fight the 8-10th best fighter in the decade and politics had a say as to why. Not much to see here.


A link to the heavyweight action site, top 10 in the 1980's for what it's worth. I disagree with #3 and #7 the most but think Page's spot is about right.


[url]http://heavyweightaction.com/Decade%201980s.html[/url]

 

Foreman and Holmes are the same age. Where was Holmes when Foreman was taking on Ali, Frazier, Norton, Young and Lyle? Fighting the likes of Tom Prater and Rodney Bobick and not going near anyone remotely dangerous. Foreman would have KO'd Holmes in the 70s, which is why when George was fighting the best of the golden 70s, Holmes was Ali's sparring partner and on the Foreman-Young undercard fighting someone called Horace Robinson, and why, when the fight was proposed, Holmes' people wouldn't allow him to face Foreman.

 

neither did Floyd Patterson or for that matter John Tate and Tim Witherspoon.

Norton beat Young. The winner of that fight was supposed to challenge for the undisputed title. It did not happen so The WBC decided that having beat Young that Norton was now the best Heavyweight in the world. Since Ali was clearly in decline and Spinks terribly inexperienced it looked like the winner of Norton v Young would decide the best heavyweight in the world.

Jackson beat Baker, Paterson beat Jackson. Moore had beat Baker and Valdes so Patterson v Moore was a logical vacant fight.

Under that scenario, had Ali retired after shavers, Norton would have become champion.

no it really is nonsense that Tim Witherspoon and David Bey beat Greg Page (who was not a champion in either fight) back to back and Witherspoon gets to be called a champion and Bey didn't. They beat the same guy!

Tony Tubbs beats Greg Page when he was 1-2 in his last 3 fights and he becomes champion before passing it to Witherspoon again.

Then we have Snipes who can beat Berbick and Coetzee (when Berbick can beat Page and Tate) who also drew with Scot Frank.

Dokes who wins a title but draws in the rematch. Dokes then loses to the only guy the last two could beat.

Tate wins a vacant fight as a 19-0 kid (without a signature world level win)then loses his unlikely title to a Holmes victim.

So yes, lots of talent, but These guys really were contenders. They had contender form. Holmes had a resume littered with wins none of these guys could sustain. The number of wins over the versions of Norton, C00ney, Shavers, Berbick, Spinks, Snipes, Witherspoon, Weaver, Smith, Williams and Bey that Larry beat (even though it was between albeit lesser fighters as well)were beyond anything ANY of the guys Holmes did not fight like Page, Dokes, Tubbs, Tate and Coetzee were ever capable of. Page never beat more than one guy of that level. Nor did Coetzee, Dokes, Tubbs and Tate. Like all good contenders they had one good win in them at contender level. Later they might hold their own or match another contender but going on a run of domination just was not in any of them. and their records even prove it!

So what. In all fairness who was Page that Tim Witherspoon wasn't? Holmes just beat Witherspoon months earlier and Marvis Frazier was worth more money. Why didn't they come up with the money for Page that Holmes wanted? All Larry was saying was he thought Page was worth a bit more money than Marvis was. Nobody could match what the Frazier fight was worth so the Frazier fight happened instead. Then Page goes and loses his next two fights. Big deal. After Holmes, at least Marvis won his next two fights.

Ring rated Marvis at #10.

yes, and had there been one title maybe they would have had even less chance of reaching championship level climbing over one another.

no he wanted the right money for these fights. Politics was in the way and Larry was the only one who paid his dues at that level.

each year Larry fought one guy of that level if not one of the guys who won these kinds of titles.

Larry was limited to what he could do.

exactly. Isn't that a shame. Shame on the governing bodies!

 

Which puts Holmes on a par with those guys.

Except Norton didn't win that title in the ring. Young-Norton was not a championship fight, no matter what the WBC said it was later.

He probably would have. However, it always takes some time for the winner of a vacant title to establish his legitimacy, like by beating a few top contenders. So it was for Patterson and so it would have been for Norton.

Spoon and Page were fighting for a title Holmes vacated because he wouldn't face his top contenders, preferring to fight two stiffs instead. Spoon was legit. Or rather his title was as legit as the one Holmes won.

While Holmes ignored all of them to tackle a club fighter, rookies with 10, 15, 14 and 16 fights and a light-heavyweight!

Snipes never beat Coetzee... In any case Weaver had already beaten Coetzee more impressively. Weaver also beat Tate before Berbick (and KO'd the guy who KO'd Berbick in one round). This is the same Weaver Holmes was happy to fight when he was an obscure journeyman, but ignored when he actually held a title and was beating contenders. Weaver was clearly better than Snipes, Berbick and Spinks in 81, so why was Holmes facing them instead? Page beat the snot out of Snipes, the same Snipes who almost flattened Holmes and only got his shot at Holmes in the first place based on a robbery against Coetzee, who got KO'd by Page, the same Page Holmes wouldn't fight. We can all use that circular logic.

While Dokes was fighting Weaver, Holmes was fighting the very limited Tex Cobb (whom Dokes had already beaten) and the even more limited Lucien Rodriguez (whom Dokes had already beaten), both of whom had done zip to warrant a title shot. While Dokes was fighting Coetzee, Holmes was fighting Scott Frank, another journeyman who had done zip to warrant a title shot. While Spoon was fighting Page, Holmes was fighting Marvis, a fight that was considered such a mismatch even the WBC wouldn't sanction it as a title fight. This is a consistent pattern in Holmes' career. The best fighters fighting each other while he fights a journeyman, leaving his fans to claim the above contenders were no good anyway because they were blotting their records against superior comp instead of padding them with lots of soft touches like he was.

If Dokes, Weaver and Coetzee had defended against Frank, Cobb and Rodriguez instead of each other their reigns would have lasted longer too.

I'm not arguing they had better records than Holmes, only that they were better than the men Holmes was fighting. These men had lots of ability, long spells in the rankings, held a portion of the title and at different times during his reign they were a potentially tough fight that he ignored, taking on some lesser light instead. What you're arguing is that because Pinklon Thomas didn't reign for ten years and have a Hall of Fame career, that proves Holmes didn't need to face him. In 84-85 Thomas was a major threat to Holmes. He handled Weaver and Spoon easier than Holmes had. He had the jab, chin and ability to give him hell. Given that Holmes struggled mightily with the less proven and less experienced Carl Williams in 85 and then lost to Spinks, why wouldn't Thomas do at least as well, and probably better? None of the men Holmes fought in 84-85 was better than Thomas, ranked higher than Thomas or considered a tougher opponent. And that was not an accident.

Which big wins had Berbick, Weaver, Snipes, Spoon, Smith, Williams and C**ney etc had prior to fighting Holmes? As I said before, you're crediting Holmes for beating novice or journeyman heavies based on what they did later in their career. If none of those guys fought again after losing to Holmes or if they posted losing records afterwards, how would those wins be perceived now? Spoon and Weaver might just have easily have been another Leroy Jones or Scott Frank. At the time, they were not considered major threats, which is why they got their shots in the first place! When Weaver and Spoon were proven fighters, having just given Holmes a hard fight, he ignored them and fought lesser fighters.

Think of it this way. Freddie Steele KO'd Fred Apostoli in Apostoli's 7th pro fight. Now we know that Apostoli turned out to be a world champ and Hall of Famer, but at the time he'd had just six bouts. It would be ridiculous to credit Steele for all Apostoli's later accomplishments when he beat a clearly inexperienced and weaker version. Oh, and when they did meet when Apostoli was in his prime, he KO'd Steele.

Who was Page? A much tougher proposition than Marvis or Frank. Holmes obviously thought so too, hence he demanded a figure he never came close to earning for any of his title fights outside of C**ney. Did he demand $5m to fight Bey? Sorry but Holmes trashing his title so he could avoid his tough looking mandatories and fight two set-ups instead is indefensible.

Marvis' next fight was against David Starkey (the TV historian?) who had a 3-7 record. Not quite the same as facing Tim Witherspoon is it?

So the Ring considered there to be at least nine better heavyweights out there for Holmes to face. Why was Holmes fighting #10, having just fought Frank (not ranked in the Ring's top ten), followed by the Ring's #9 Smith? How about cleaning out the upper echelon of the division? Marvis, Frank and a novice Smith were not better or bigger threats than Dokes, Page, Coetzee, a Spoon rematch, a Weaver rematch or Thomas.

Had there been one title, Holmes would have found it much harder to ignore the best contenders out there, which happened to be the WBA titlists and the men they were fighting. Unless you're going to argue the journeymen and novice level heavyweights Holmes defended against would somehow have been rated ahead of Dokes, Page, Thomas et al (and they weren't at the time). Defences against Zanon and the gang would be a lot harder to justify while they were all waiting on the sidelines and no other title to aim for.

But, according to you, none of these guys were anything special. Why would Holmes be demanding double what he earned against Witherspoon (and more money than he earned for any title defence except C**ney) if Page was no threat anyway? The way you tell it, Page was barely better than Marvis and Frank. Yet going by Larry's demands, Page was going to be one of his toughest fights.

Holmes hardly ever did that.

Larry limited himself. From the horse's mouth: "I want a lot of money and no more of those big hitters like Tim Witherspoon and Mike Weaver. I've paid my dues, and if they want me back they've got to give me little people I can beat on without getting hurt."

Funny that these problems with the governing bodies did not stop Spinks, Monzon, Leonard and Curry unifying their divisions, nor Tyson doing the same as soon as Holmes left the scene.

 

Dude, why are you debating with the re**** "sad". She comes in to an argument, automatically declaring she's right about everything, then when you ask her to prove it, she'll put you on ignore. What an ignorant SCUM.

 

As much as I like Larry Holmes it's pretty hard to disagree with this.

 

Excellent post.

Choke doesn't see the light though and keeps coming back. At least he has heart.

The only thing I would disagree was the line at the beginiing. I think Holmes beat a legitimate champ. in beating Norton. Norton had beaten Young, who was at the top of the division. I know Holmes and Norton were fighting for a vacant title, but in '78 I think Norton and Young were better than Ali or Spinks. This is a case where Spinks had the linear title, but was really not as good as the two guys fighting for the part that was stripped from him.

Norton was actually probably at the very top of the list when it comes to quality wins that Holmes had

The problem came later, when he obviously became a cherry picker.

Part of the problem, though, at least in 1979-1980, is the list of WBC contenders he had to choose from was pretty mediocre. Yes, maybe he could have unified the title in 1980 but the Ali fight was the right one to take because of the huge money involved

From 1981-1985, though you make a great case for how he seemed to avoid the best available competition.

 

it would if Witherspoon or Tate were winning titles from a defending champion rather than a hand picked participating contender of limited World level experience. Norton was defending a title in the ring. Title won in the ring or not Ken was an elite fighter, a defending champion and the best active heavyweight in the world at that time.

Holmes established this by beating Norton, Occasio, Shavers and Weaver by 1979. Tate was hand picked from behind those guys for the Coetzee fight but won instead, it was only Tate that made Weaver a "champion" after Holmes had already exposed him at World level.

This is not strictly true. Witherspoon was high on the WBC ratings after beating Snipes when he challenged Larry, so Tim counted as a top contender when he fought Larry. Ten months later (after losing to Larry) Tim fights Page in the vacant title fight. If other belt holders could go a year without fighting anyone why has Larry got to vacate after ten months of fighting a top contender?

well a fight with Tate fell through, Page and Witherspoon were matched together and Dokes was set to face Coetzee. Who else was there?

Snipes beat Coetzee every bit as much as Spinks beat Holmes.

yes they were better than SOME of the men Holmes was fighting. Was Tony Tubbs really better than David Bey in 1985? Was Quick Tillis better than Trevor Berbick in 1981? Was Mike Dokes in 1982 really better than fighting C00ney? Was John Tate better than Ernie Shavers in 1979? Was Dokes taking on Coetzee in 1983 better than Holmes defending against Witherspoon?

did they have long spells in the ratings before challenging for titles though? Tate was a newby. So was Dokes. Page a relaunched prospect. It works both ways. Coetzee was a payday kept in the WBA ratings for defending against. He never beat anyone after his win over Spinks before the Dokes fight. Thomas?
?? Count the number of signature wins on these guys challenging for titles. it's identical to David Bey or Witherspoon or Smith or Occasio, Jones or C00ney.

Holmes absolutely should have fought Thomas. In an ideal world. but what if in an "ideal world", with one champion, Thomas might fight Witherspoon, Weaver and Thomas before challenging an undisputed champion. He would be finished before he got there. Beating an uncrowded Witherspoon would not be significant enough on its own, compeating with other contenders this win over Tim would still only make pink a very good contender. Like the rest of them.

you said yourself Williams might have beaten the Pinklon that Berbick beat. In an ideal world with one champion Williams might have to fight Pinklon or Berbick first. Would we then be crying williams never got his chance?

Apart from Coetzee who Larry wasted nearly all year trying to get into the ring. A contract was signed but the backers pulled out. Don King put a bid in to promote it but it fell through even after Larry accepted a drop in purse.

Berbick knocked out Tate so that was a fair win. Spoon beat Snipes which was as big as anything Page ever did full stop. Smith beat Frank Bruno which was bigger than Tillis best win to challenge Weaver. C00ney was outright the most logical contender to any champion anyway. Bey beat Page. Williams was simply a quick warm up for Michael spinks that backfired. These guys were not ham and eggs.

no I'm crediting them at the time Larry met them for having the identical credentials as Tony Tubbs and John Tate. Etc.

If we never heard of Berbick, Snipes and Witherspoon again I think, even now, we would be saying "going into those fights with Holmes they had as much going for them as John Tate or Tony Tubbs did going into their title fights... and they wound up winning".

did he ignore weaver or did Weaver take coetzee because the WBA told him to and Holmes took Ali because it was the biggest fight in the world at that time? Witherspoon was tempted to win the vacant title fight with Page and he lost that belt in next to no time to Thomas. when was Tim or Thomas going to fight Holmes? Before or after the signed for Larry v Coetzee fight that never came off?

page was worth more money than Frazier was. Tim had been better than expected. Sure Larry thought Greg could be kind of tough. but fat Greg offered zero appeal. It all became more apparent when he lost his next two fights. Was it worth dumping the WBC title? I dont know.

those two easy fights with Frank and Frazier took place in a matter of weeks, non title fights in another era, there's no reason why Holmes should not have taken them. He was the champion. once Holmes commited to them the four other contenders page Witherspoon, Dokes and Coetzee were tied up. But as soon as those fights took place Holmes was eager to face Coetzee because he caused the biggest splash knocking out Dokes. Page v Witherspoon had been a non event. Because Holmes took Coetzee, Witherspoon took Thomas, presumably because Thomas drew with Coetzee. Once Coetzee pulled out of the Holmes clash Coetzee took Page (who surprisingly beat Gerrie) and Larry took Smith and by then Thomas had beat Witherspoon.

in the absence of a logical contender not tied to another governing body (that the public knew) Holmes took the fight that paid most. It was just ten months since facing a #6 Ring rated challenger. He'd beat Berbick and Snipes and Witherspoon who were still rated. He'd beat most of the top ten. When you have beaten Snipes, Berbick and Witherspoon there's not much difference between a marvis frazier or a Greg page.

The upper echelon was chock full of guys Holmes had beat already and guys tied to other fights. Witherspoon was committed to Page. Dokes was facing Coetzee.

he did it every year. In 1978 he beat Norton. In 1979 he beat Shavers. In 1980 he beat Ali. In 1981 he beat Snipes and Berbick. 1982 he beat C00ney. In 1983 he beat Witherspoon. In 1984 he beat Smith. In 1985 he beat Bey.

The heavyweight division and the name "world heavyweight title" was worth more to the governing bodies than "world lightheavyweight" or "world welterweight". In 1980 there were six world heavyweight title fights. In 1977 there were only two.

 

It's been an absolute pleasure to read the responses by Berlebach and Chocklab. Reminds me of classic Classic. Whatever your stance gents, take a bow. Brilliant stuff.

And Saad54 is joining the party I see. Keep it coming guys, it's been a hell of a thread so far.

 

Norton was still not a champion. He was defending a paper belt handed to him retrospectively by an ABC. Holmes won his title against a WBC #1 contender that Leon/Ali wouldn't fight. Spoon won his title against a WBC #1 contender that Holmes wouldn't fight. A "hand-picked participating contender of limited world level experience"? Doesn't that describe most of Holmes' challengers?

Weaver and Ocasio were not the best heavies in the world in 79. Shavers was losing to men like Quarry and Lyle (not to mention Stallings and Stander) years before Holmes ever beat him, so why does Holmes beating him make him the best heavy in the world?

If Norton was the best heavy in the world, and the champion, and Holmes only edged past him, surely he was worth a rematch? Why was Holmes fighting two inferior, less deserving challengers Evangelista and Ocasio? You can say Norton lost to Shavers, yet he'd already been waiting almost a year as #1 contender by then. By contrast, Holmes quickly signed to meet Shavers, who Holmes had already beaten comfortably once, as soon as he beat Norton. Once again it looks like Holmes leaving someone else to knock off a tricky challenger while he fights a few soft touches but quickly taking on a guy he had a better chance of beating.

Holmes exposed Weaver? More like Weaver exposed Holmes. A complete unknown journeyman with no world level experience going life and death with the unbeaten #1 heavy in the world?

Tim was the Ring #10. If we're going by the WBC's rankings then Page was their #1. Spoon wasn't a mandatory. Holmes' last mandatory was against C**ney in June 82, well over a year before. The bottom line is he just didn't want to fight Page, or Spoon, and tackled two much lesser fighters instead.

So you agree that Page, Spoon, Dokes and Coetzee were the best fighters out there in 83-84? Page and Spoon were matched together when Holmes refused to fight them. Holmes wouldn't fight Dokes and ignored Coetzee for years too, so what could they do except fight each other? I suppose they could have fought Scott Frank instead. Once again the best were fighting each other while Holmes took a soft touch.

Why would Holmes be trying to fight Tate, who you say wasn't very good when he was an unbeaten champ in 79-80, let alone several years later? Tate had only beaten nondescript opposition since. Another soft touch.

And every bit as much as Holmes beat Norton, Spoon and Williams.

Tubbs wasn't above Bey in early 85. After beating Smith and Page for the WBA belt, he was better than Holmes' next opponents the inexperienced Williams and light-heavy Spinks. Bey wasn't better than Spoon, Weaver or Thomas in 84-85. C**ney had had three fights in two years, a shot Norton, shot Lyle and faded Young. Dokes beat Young before C**ney did. Dokes beat Weaver, a better win than C**ney ever had. Yes Dokes fighting Coetzee in 83 was better than Holmes fighting Spoon. Coetzee was a recognisable top contender. Spoon was a 15-0 rookie and a big underdog who no one had even heard of. Even Holmes said Spoon wasn't ready for a title fight.

What were the signature wins of LeDoux, Zanon, Rodriguez, Cobb, Frank etc? You can't just ignore them and focus on the decent fighters Holmes faced (though it is tempting). That level of opposition accounts for about half Holmes' defences. Dokes, Coetzee and Page were mainstays in the rankings years before winning a title. Coetzee beat Snipes to most minds before Snipes challenged Holmes. Were Bey/Williams/Spinks' credentials in 85 better than Thomas' or Spoon's? Were Ocasio's better than Norton's in 79? Were Berbick/Snipes' better than Coetzee/Weaver's in 81?

Okay so we're agreed that Holmes should have fought Thomas. In an ideal one-title world, Thomas would likely have been #1 contender in 84-85, which would have made Holmes not fighting him even more egregious. It was easier for Holmes to get away with fighting Bey, Williams and Spinks when Pinky and co had an alternate title to aim for.

Is this the same Coetzee who was only in the WBA ratings as a payday? I agree Holmes did at least attempt to meet Coetzee after he won the WBA belt (though it suited him to ignore Coetzee for several years prior), and it wasn't his fault the fight fell through. Doesn't that show that unification with the other champs was possible when Holmes was actually interested?

Yet look where they were in the rankings at the time, and how many fights they'd had. Most had less than 20. Most were in the bottom half of the top ten, except Williams who didn't even make the top ten. These guys were not considered the best in the division or major threats. Weaver had already KO'd the undefeated Tate in a more important fight. C**ney was only the most logical contender on account of the mega payday he represented, which owed much more to him being a great white hope than anything he'd actually accomplished. Bruno was himself just a prospect at the time and almost got KO'd by Jumbo Cummings a few fights prior... would that have made Jumbo a suitable challenger for Holmes too?

If we never heard of Berbick, Spoon or Weaver again we'd say three more inexperienced no hopers that Holmes defended against.

Was the Coetzee fight going to take up a whole year? He had two years to fight Weaver. Ali and C**ney are understandable because of the money involved, but Berbick and Snipes were not bigger or tougher than a Weaver rematch/unification. Both their big wins were over guys Weaver had already beaten in bigger fights. Leon's big win, Mercado, was another Weaver KO victim, plus Weaver beat the guy who KO'd Leon in a round. As for LeDoux, Cobb and Rodriguez...

Spoon and Thomas would have fought Holmes any time. It was Holmes who was chasing fights with Marvis Frazier and David Bey while they were fighting each other.

 

Going by Holmes' $5m demand, Page was worth more money than anyone he fought except C**ney. Sounds to me like Larry was expecting a tough one, or otherwise why not also demand $5m to fight Bonecrusher or Bey? Since Holmes never made near $5m for any other title defence, we can assume he priced himself out. The easiest way to get out of a fight you don't want is to make demands no one will meet and Holmes' words and actions (especially post-C**ney) show he was going for as many low risk defences as possible. What appeal did Marvis and Frank have? How about Smith, Bey and Williams?

In another era those fights would have been exhibitions, not serious title fights. There's every reason Holmes shouldn't have taken them, as neither was a remotely deserving challenger and he hadn't beaten a mandatory for over a year. Of course he could have taken $2.5m to beat Page (especially since Holmes knew Page would lost to Spoon and Bey next), kept his title and then taken the money fight with Marvis. But the way Holmes went about it makes it look like he'd rather just fight Marvis and leave Page and Spoon to beat each other up. Once Holmes committed to fighting Frazier and Frank, of course Spoon et al were going to look for other fights.

There were plenty of logical contenders, it's just Holmes didn't want to fight them. Who was the Ring's #6? The last person he'd fought ranked higher than #9 by the Ring was C**ney. He beat Berbick and Spoon when they were much lower rated and less experienced. I'll point again to the Freddie Steele/Fred Apostoli ana-logy. Why didn't he fight Spoon again when he was higher ranked, held a title and had just beaten the guy Holmes demanded $5m to face? Why didn't he fight Berbick again when Berbick was higher ranked and had more experience? There was a world of difference between Page and Marvis. Even Holmes thought so, hence demanding $5m to face Page. Holmes picking Marvis didn't fool anyone at the time.

Did Holmes have an aversion to rematches? Great champions like Ali, Louis and Marciano often had rematches with difficult opponents. Rematches with Weaver and Spoon would have been welcome. The upper echelon was chock full of guys Holmes never faced like Dokes, Page, Thomas, Coetzee, and others he had massive struggles with like Weaver and Spoon and wouldn't go near again.

Four of them never won a world title of any description. Three of them had had 15 or fewer fights. The 1980 version of Ali wasn't beating anyone in the top ten (and probably much lower down too). Out of interest, Shavers was the Ring's #3, Ali #5, Snipes #10, Berbick #7, C**ney #3, Spoon #9, Smith #9, Bey #3. The Ring obviously thought there were better fighters out there.

And in 1989 there were only two heavyweight title fights. This determination to stay separate didn't prevent Tyson unifying in 86-87 and them staying unified for five years until Bowe dumped one of them in 92.