Is Larry Holmes

I've seen that one

Page was extremely fast, much faster than Monore, who was much smaller.

After the Snipes fight, Page seemed to always be out of condition, even in beating Coetzee he was 236.

He didn't trim down until he weighed under 230 lbs for Wimpy Halstedt. But, by then it was too late

He even got down to 220 lbs. for Orlin Norris in 1989. He looked good physically, but his reflexes were eroded from his prime.

 

what many forget was it helped the WBA look rediculous. Weaver was supposedly a cherry pick for Holmes (he was actually an exciting journeyman made good with wins over Ward and Mercado) and they allowed their champion to face the same guy to eclipse Larry's performance and it backfired drastically in Tates home town.

if Tate had finished the Weaver fight people would still be unsure of Tate. Beating Tate made Weaver. He still has not beat an established world level fighter. Larry has beat Shavers twice and Ken Norton by then.

so why wasn't Weaver forced to rematch Tate then? Weaver lost the whole fight until the knockout. If Holmes has to rematch each competative contender why not Tate?

wasn't Berbick the next best thing? Now Holmes has beat both men to beat Tate. He might not have fought him himself but once Berbick has knocked Tate out of contender status Larry wants to beat both of the guys to beat Tate. Imagine if he avoided Berbick?

Spinks was believed to be a special talent gone off the rails. The story going into the Holmes fight was that Leon had finally found stability and was recording serious wins. He was taken very seriously for this fight. In 1981 Leon without a belt was proberbly more of a mainstream name than Weaver was.

Holmes had a knack of Winning.

Where as The belt holders all had a knack for being inactive and then dropping the ball. Each of them lost fights they were supposed to win.
when challenging they had no better credentials than any of Larry's better challengers. To get their shots Dokes beat Gardener, page lost two fights in a row to earn his, Tubbs beat the guy Holmes just beat to earn his...Weaver got his third crack at a title from a Comical DQ win...

yes coetzee and Page were better than Rodriguez and Frank but no better than Witherspoon, Norton, Shavers, C00ney, Berbick, Williams and Bey.

 

Rid**** Bowe.

Equal to the likes of Spoon, Smith and Weaver, all of whom gave Holmes a tough fight, but better than most of the rest. It is a shame he didn't fight these guys. Page, Thomas and Coetzee would look better on his resume than a lot of the fighters who did get onto it from 78-85.

They were losing to each other. They weren't losing to Zanon or LeDoux. When good, evenly matched fighters face each other across a series of bouts, then results will go up and down. Foreman beat Frazier who beat Ali who beat Foreman who beat Norton who beat Ali. Barrera won his series with Morales but lost twice to Junior Jones, who was KO'd by Morales. Leonard lost to Duran who lost to Hearns who lost to Hagler who lost to Leonard.

Do you think it was a coincidence that on the rare occasions Holmes did mix with one of the WBA gang, they gave him hell?

Bob did beat a few mediocre heavies.

Yes Frazier did take a couple of soft touches after Ali, though he did follow up by fighting his #1 contender Foreman. Holmes never fought another mandatory or #1 contender after C**ney.

By the time Spoon-Page happened, it was clear Holmes wasn't interested in either of them, so of course they were going to take other fights.

Holmes gave title shots to far less qualified challengers. Page after losing two in a row was still a better challenger than I don't know how many Holmes challengers. He dominated and KO'd the guy Holmes had been trying to arrange a fight with. If Coetzee was a legit fight for Holmes to chase, then he was legit when Page beat him.

While Coetzee was fighting Page, Holmes was fighting the then unheralded rookie Smith. When that fight was announced, it met with such derision that HBO had to arrange a press conference to try to justify it! No one expected that Smith would accidentally give Holmes a tough fight.

Coetzee had as many fights in 84 as Holmes did and like Holmes had a few fights fall through. Weaver was stalled by a few legal issues outside the ring, but nevertheless still defended against a #1, #3 and #1 challenger. Did Holmes ever manage three consecutive defences against contenders ranked that high?

By the way, no comment on Holmes trying to arrange a fight with a finished John Tate in 84? If Tate was unqualified when he was an unbeaten champion back in 79-80, what on earth was Holmes doing trying to fight him four years later when Tate had done nothing but beat a few club fighters in the interim? Jimmy Young was also being lined up for Holmes in 82. No cherry picking there! We might have seen a Holmes fight with Kip Kane if he could have found someone willing to sanction it (and pay for it).

Weaver got a shot because he was an ex-champ who was still highly rated. Williams had had 16 fights and wasn't in the Ring or anyone else's top ten. As if to ram home the point, Weaver KO'd Williams the following year. You're massively exaggerating the Anthony incident. He got fouled and the guy got disqualified.

That, and the fact they were already highly ranked. Most of Holmes' title defences hadn't even got that far. Coetzee did also have a popular victory over Snipes. If losing to Coetzee got Snipes a shot at Holmes, no reason why beating Snipes shouldn't advance Coetzee. Plus he KO'd the great Scott LeDoux, a former world title challenger! I don't know why you keep talking about Gardener. Dokes beat him 18 months before he faced Weaver.

But if the fighter is hurt, he's hurt. You complained about the Weaver-Dokes stoppage. Well, that referee certainly waves off Holmes there. You'd agree that Snipes wasn't as hurt when the fight was actually stopped?

Of course they were cherry picks. Weaver was a fringe journeyman who hadn't won many more fights than he'd lost, and certainly hadn't won any important ones. True he was on a KO run... against the legendary Stan Ward and a couple of guys with losing records. Not exactly on a par with Sonny Liston's rise to contention. Absolutely no one thought Weaver would do as well as he did against Holmes. The three big networks all refused to buy the fight, on the grounds that it was considered a mismatch.

And in the mean time, Snipes got himself back into contention by beating the highly ranked Berbick, and then lost to Page in an eliminator.

Ratliff was himself just a prospect at the time. Thomas KO'd him as well not long afterwards. You can't get away from the fact that Spoon had had 15 fights, all but one of those against unheralded opposition, and before that just a handful of amateur bouts. When is any fighter at their best at that point in their career? Holmes certainly wasn't, nor was Tyson, Ali or virtually any other fighter you could name.

Yes if Page had been more interested, he'd have probably achieved a whole lot more. He had the talent. As it was, when the opportunity to face Page came up, Holmes turned down what would have been one of his biggest purses, demanded more than he earned for any fight outside of C**ney (which he was never going to get) and fought two far less deserving opponents instead. Holmes wasn't to know Page would lose his next two fights (and both fights were close, BTW, even a disinterested Page could fight). Bey in particular could have gone the other way, since it was Page who landed most of the damaging punches, hurt Bey several times, closed his eye and cut him badly.

While Holmes was disinterestedly ignoring all of them but very much interested in lining up defences against Zanon and co!

The Ring's ratings were what they were. You can't tout their ratings, then rearrange them when they don't suit your argument. Holmes was the Ring champ after 80, and the WBA champ was #1. Everything else was up for grabs, and if Dokes/Page/Thomas/Coetzee were rated higher than most of Holmes' challengers, it's because the Ring rated them higher. It has nothing to do with Holmes fighting lots of guys who squeaked into the top ten at #8 or #9. If you go by the WBC rankings, he doesn't fare a lot better.

Why? Who wants to see a mismatch against Frank or Zanon? I'd much rather see them tackle a prime deserving challenger, which the WBA guys did for the most part.

They weren't equal to Weaver either.

 

Tubbs never received that decision. It was a learning fight fought at sparring partner level.

yes it's a shame but with one title not all of them would make it past final eliminators, they just lost against rated fighters all the time. All of them.

you make it sound like that's all Holmes fought. Larry also beat Norton, Weaver, Shavers, Spinks, Berbick, Snipes, C00ney, Witherspoon, Bey, Smith and Williams. There is not a single ABC guy who could win two of those Lind of fights without getting themselves beat.

no, it's not a coincidence those guys gave him hell because they were good fighters, but it's no coincidence either that Larry could keep beating those kinds of guys and the disinterested bunch couldn't.

And as I keep saying #3 was as good as #1 when the top two spots were reserved for the interchange of alternative belt holders.

by the time spoon-page happened Larry had already freed himself up of the two easy fights he took with Frank and Marvis and had signed to meet WBA champ Coetzee. Seeing as Coetzee had drew with the guy who would then beat Witherspoon, at that point of signing, Coetzee was a joint logical #1 to Larry. And Holmes signed to meet him… so no, Larry was not interested in either of Witherspoon (who he had already beat) or Page who lost to him.

I'm not sure that could be possible. The chances of a challenger winning has to be based on where he is in his career not just on pedigree. Where as A guy losing two in a row is clearly on a losing streak and hand picked. He's on the down turn.

Even the weaker challengers Larry defended against were on the upside of where they were going to. They might not have had the same kind of pedigree as Page but are they any more hand picked than selecting a bigger name on a losing streak?

when Coetzee pulled out of the Holmes fight their unification collapsed. the two of them still had to defend their own belts. Gerrie took page (who was losing fights) and Larry took Smith who was winning fights.

In fact Smith beating Bruno in Wembley Arena was the highest grossing non title fight in the division that year. It was broadcasted live across the world.

Bruno was a better pre title win for Smith than Dokes had when he challenged for a title off the back of beating Tommy Franco Thomas or when Coetzee challenged Weaver out of beating that Karonacki character or Weaver challenging Thomas after that comic key stone cops disqualification episode with Tony Anthony.

And who exactly in South Africa expected Coetzee to lose to a guy on a losing streak? Who in John Tates home town of Knoxville Tennessee expected to see him knocked flat by the guy Larry Holmes had already beat?

yes, I am certain Spinks, Berbick and Snipes back to back in 1981 for Holmes was a better run than any of the ABC pretenders achieved ever.

a better fight for Thomas instead of old man Weaver might have been setting the record straight in a WBA unification with his old opponent Gerrie Coetzee. They were champions together for about four months. Why no screaming for that fight? If ever there was a chance to outshine Holmes and his lightest regarded, newly created IBF belt that was it surely! Don't tell me that Page on his losing streak and former opposite holder Weaver, who suffered a knock out in his last fight (but won by disqualification), had a more urgent claim.

weaver suffered a knockout all the same. He won by concussion. It's hardly the most dignified pre title challenging performance.

Snipes got the decision, I can only assume the WBC wanted Larry to face the guy who received the verdict?

I was actually giving Dokes a break. The last guy he fought before challenging for a version of the World title was even weaker than John L Gardner. It's a struggle to find a strong win for him. Cobb was a majority verdict, he was beat up getting by in that one, and he drew with little Ossie Ocassio. Beating "Tommy Franco Thomas" was actually the final win that supposedly advanced "Dynamite Dokes" into championship contention.

Snipes was hurt in every round, even throughout the round he dropped Larry. He was pinned in a corner taking more shots, presumably with no where to go but down. The referee decided the remainder of the fight could not possibly turn things around for Renaldo and stopped it. He could have let it go but was there seriously any point at all?

thank you. He didn't show more interest though did he? Page was very patchy at world level he's like 1-3 against "rated at the time" within the top 10 at best.

good job Larry didn't ignore C00ney, Snipes, Bey, Shavers and half the guys who wound up winning titles.[/QUOTE]

 

[/quote]

Your post has a glaring mistake

Holmes signed to fight Coetzee in 1984 AFTER he gave up the WBC title. He was IBF champ (a title he never won in the ring) by then.

Anyway, he didn't fight him, and Page, the guy Holmes got stripped for not fighting, then KO'd Coetzee.

Holmes fought Smith, who's only good win to that point was a last round come from behind KO of an exhausted Bruno, who was also a prospect at the time and hadn't fought tough competition.

It's hilarious that you try to give credit to Smith to pump up Holmes, but then denigrate Coetzee for fighting Page - when Holmes failed to fight EITHER Page or Coetzee, before settling on Smith.

Holmes defending his IBF title (which was handed to him) against Smith was much less of a significant fight than a defense against WBC #1 Page, who had earned his status through several very good wins, and had just beaten the man that beat him, or a unification with Coetzee.

You could argue that Don King froze him out once he gave up the WBC title, but if he didn't want to be frozen out, he would have fought Page.

The truth is he wanted away from King for two reasons. He could make more money without King and he could avoid all the top young heavyweights who were controlled by King.

 

yes and its a great pity that (unlike Holmes) Tate/Dokes/Coetzee/Page and Tubbs could not win consecutive fights at world level. Perhaps if they could have somehow achieved this there might have been time enough to mount enough of a campaign to to demand individual unification on each particular occasion.

Holmes beat Weaver, C00ney was ahead of Dokes, Larry signed to fight Coetzee.. What more could he do? WBC wise, Larry already beat Witherspoon (who did not win a title from a defending champion) and Thomas lost his title around the same time Larry lost his. And Thomas lost it to a Holmes victim anyway! as did Witherspoon second time around as a WBA champion when he was knocked out by Smith.

And they lost each time. Neither of them were supposed to win the championship and all of them (apart from weaver - a Holmes victim) flunked their first defence.

Berbick beat Tate too. Berbick was only the second fighter to beat big John boy. Wasnt that was the fight that made Weaver? Berbick has quite the resume. He beat Thomas, Page and Tate and even he was no better than Snipes.

 

yes I think initially Holmes was keen to only have the newly formed IBF recognition as a kind of "stop-gap" until he could win the WBA title from Coetzee. And that's why he signs to fight Coetzee to legitimise his decision to take the money fight with Frazier over Page. During the whole period Larry was covered in the blanket recognition from Ring Magazine who provided belts for the real champions since the days of Jack Dempsey. Ring Magazine did not strip him.

no you are getting confused. Page was losing fights by the time he surprised Coetzee. It's ludicrous that he WBA would not accept Larry's existence as WBC champion yet allow Page after losing two fights in a row to challenge their champion. Page had never been their #1. Page was never a independent #1 in reality. Page was just the WBC #1 contender because Berbick (who beat Page slipped one place losing his next fight)

But Page was losing fights. Don't you see Smith beating the "Gerry C00ney of Europe" on a main event live on TV both sides of the Atlantic from Wembly Arena is better than Greg Page failing to win the USBA title against David Bey on an undercard at the Rivera Hotel?

Holmes failed to fight Coetzee? He signed to fight Coetzee, Larry was a huge favourite to win by the way, and the fight fell through. He failed to fight Page but beat both men who beat him months appart.

"Holmes defending his IBF title against Smith was much less of a significant fight than a unification against Coetzee"? Larry only fought Smith because his fight with Coetzee fell through.

the top young heavyweights were identical to each other. The ones that challenged Larry got beat. The ABC belts disguised the fact that that as challengers each of Larry's rivals were no more qualified than Berbick or Snipes were challenging Holmes and less mainstream than Gerry C00ney had been. Weaver, Coetzee and Page were relative surprise winners and so far as the non sport fans were concerned relative unknowns. Dokes was a flop. Tubbs inexperienced.

 

He beat Bowe to many minds.

Against better and higher rated fighters than Holmes was facing. If they'd defended against Cobb and Zanon they'd have gone unbeaten for years too.

You listed 11 names there, and less than half of them were in the Ring's top 5 when Holmes fought them.

He could (barely) beat them when they had no championship experience (and not much experience full stop) and when no one considered them a threat. It stands to reason the more experienced versions would have done better, likewise the WBA guys who were on a par with them talent wise but had more experience and better credentials.

#3 was as good as #3 and #9 was as good as #9. The top two spots were not reserved for anyone. If you're going to complain about the WBA champs being rated #1, then you have to question how Holmes was automatically rated as champion, seeing as he hardly ever fought men in the Ring's top 5.

By the time Spoon-Page happened Larry had already dumped his WBC belt so he could fight two set-ups instead. It was clear he wasn't interested in either of them. He'd much rather they fought each other. It's funny how you've argued over and over in this thread that the WBA title was "bogus" and the men who held it weren't much good, yet as soon as Holmes shows an interest in meeting one of them (after five years of ignoring them), suddenly the WBA champ is "joint logical #1". So we can agree that Coetzee was one of the top fighters of that era that Holmes failed to meet, along with the other joint logical #1 Thomas.

Greg Page in 84, even after losing two fights, was still good enough to beat up the division's "joint logical #1" and still superior to any version of Zanon, LeDoux and the rest.

Because a better fighter, even if he's lost a couple of fights, is still more dangerous than a guy who has never shown anything at world level. Fritzie Zivic sometimes lost 3, 4, 5 fights in a row. He was still more dangerous than someone who'd never got anywhere in the first place.

Coetzee took Page, who had been #1 contender earlier that same year, and whom Holmes ducked. Holmes took 15 fight rookie Smith, who wasn't rated higher than #9 by anyone. The Smith fight was derided as a mismatch.

Smith a then unknown journeyman KO'd a 22 year old untested prospect. And that makes him world title material?

Where was Bruno ranked at the time of the Smith fight? Jumbo Cummings almost KO'd Bruno not long before. Would that have qualified Jumbo for a title shot too? Weaver, Dokes and Coetzee were all ranked #1 when they got their title shots. Weaver was also a recent champ and Coetzee an experienced recent challenger. Smith was none of those. It was a mismatch and HBO were derided for buying it. From the New York Times:

Holmes, who said ''maybe this is a coast for me'' and ''I don't have a great deal of respect for Bonecrusher Smith,'' was not the only one worried about the reaction to the apparent mismatch. Before the formal news conference yesterday at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, Home Box Office invited reporters to an unusual meeting with Seth Abraham, the subscription television network's executive in charge of sports, to ''explain'' why it had paid ''seven figures'' for a fight no one was eagerly awaiting.

Coetzee was fighting the guy who Holmes ducked who had been #1 contender earlier that year, and Tate was fighting the guy had just given Holmes hell as a complete unknown. They were a better bet than Smith. Vegas wouldn't even give odds on that one.

Leon, the most beatable heavyweight champ in history still living off his Ali win 3 years earlier (and had been KO'd by Coetzee in the mean time), an unheralded Berbick whose only claim to fame was KO'ing a guy who had already been KO'd by Weaver and who you say was never much good anyway. Snipes was coming off his robbery "win" over Coetzee. Not exactly murderers' row.

Old man Weaver? He was champion barely two years earlier, and he was #1 contender. The following year an even older Weaver knocked out Carl Williams in two rounds. The Holmes-Coetzee bout was supposed to happen in Autumn 84. By the time it fell through Thomas-Spoon was already signed and sealed, while Coetzee had to make a defence by the end of the year, so your timeline doesn't work.

He was punched from behind well after the bell had rung! It was an obvious instant DQ and did nothing to hurt Weaver's standing. How good do you think Holmes would have looked if Cobb punched him from behind when he was walking back to his corner? I don't know why you're still going on about this fight.

Yes I'm sure the WBC considered it an urgent necessity that Holmes should face their #7 contender (and the Ring's #10).

Dokes also knocked out little Ocasio in one round in Ocasio's home country, the same Ocasio Holmes had recently given a title shot. Dokes also beat Jimmy Young. Beating the same Young earned Ocasio his shot at Holmes and was C**ney's biggest win going into his Holmes challenge. Heck, three years after Dokes beat him Young was being lined up for Holmes! Losing to Dokes was obviously a fast track to a Holmes fight, since two other Dokes victims, Cobb and Rodriguez, also got a shot at Holmes. Perhaps if Dokes had let them beat him, Larry would have fought him.

Holmes was allowed to continue when knocked down hard and staggering around like some keystone cops farce, but Snipes got stopped on his feet? Once again the Weaver-Dokes ref you were complaining about waves Holmes off.

And he was nevertheless Holmes' #1 contender and a dangerous fight for Holmes, who preferred to take two mismatches instead. Just for good measure, Page then dominated and KO'd the man Holmes spent much of 84 trying to arrange a fight with.

Holmes faced four men who went on the win the WBA/WBC title. His other sixteen defences didn't. Had they been good enough, they would have. Snipes had several shots at the WBA boys and either lost or needed a gift. Shavers was at the end of the road, and his record against top contenders is nothing to sing about anyway. C**ney was protected from serious competition and never showed he could have beaten prime top contenders like Spoon, Weaver, Page et al

 

They were less consistent because they had this weird notion of only fighting other highly ranked fighters. Had Spoon ignored his top challenger Thomas and instead fought Leon, Frank, Zanon, Ocasio, Frazier, Evangelista, Rodriguez, LeDoux, Cobb, etc he would have reigned far longer too. That's an additional nine defences right there. If he also defended against a 12-0 Evander Holyfield and a 15-0 Mike Tyson, imagine his legacy now.

You named three fights in seven years, one of which didn't even take place. Beating C**ney didn't prove a whole lot, since C**ney was so unproven at the highest level. Beating Weaver (barely) when Weaver was a nobody doesn't prove anything. He never fought Weaver when Weaver held a title and actually was highly rated. Beating Spoon (barely) when Spoon was a 15 fight novice doesn't prove anything. Holmes never fought him when he held a title and was highly rated. If Spoon, Weaver, Berbick and Smith never achieved anything in their careers after Holmes, your argument would fall apart and that's why it's flawed.

Weaver, Dokes, Thomas and Spoon made their first defence against their #1 contender. Holmes' first defence was against someone called Alfredo Evangelista. Once again you're ragging on them for losing when they were meeting the best fighters in the division. Holmes wasn't. All his struggles were by accident against men who turned out to be better than the set-ups they were supposed to be. He never fought one #1 contender after 82 and he didn't fight many before that.

Berbick beat a guy who had already been KO'd by Weaver in a title fight, Weaver KO'd the guy who KO'd Berbick, KO'd Coetzee and had already given Holmes a hellish struggle. Berbick was definitely not equal to Weaver in 81.

Berbick is actually underrated. It's ironic that his wins over the unbeaten Page and Thomas, two men Holmes wouldn't face, are superior to most of Holmes' 20 defences. Unfortunately, they came after Holmes beat an 18-1 Berbick who wasn't long removed from a one round KO defeat to Bernardo Mercado, and regardless you can't give Holmes retrospective credit for every win Berbick subsequently had. Berbick could just as easily have been another Leroy Jones.

 

The best WBA run was Weaver: he beat Tate, Coetzee, and Tillis in a row. That more than qualified him for a Holmes rematch...and Weaver wanted it. That's THE fight that should have happened. As tough as Mike was, Holmes probably would've beaten him again, and then had he been allowed to keep the WBA title, might have defended against these other guys. Having two --and then three -- titles, diluted everything in the division. Just like it continues to do now 35 goddamn years later. Yay boxing!! It's so great to be a fan!!

 

I agree whole heartedly. If Holmes had of been the undisputed Champion already a contender clocking up those kinds of wins would have been enough to make Weaver Larry's outstanding challenger. and without the belt weaver had he could not have demanded parity on the purse for a showdown so it absolutely would have happened after weaver beat Tate, Coetzee and Tillis in non title bouts.

However, in the real world both are champions. if you check the timeline by the time Weaver beats Tillis (the third win that ordinarily would force their showdown) both Larry and Weaver are eligible for a Mega bounty defence against New sensation Gerry C00ney. Their own fight is eclipsed by the distraction of C00ney. For what ever reason C00neys people could not get Weaver in the ring so Weaver took the next best challenger Dokes and got himself beat. Their fight was controversially officiated and they then drew. Don't forget Weaver went a year between some fights so it was difficult for his cause to gain enough momentum.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. The governing bodies ruined a good period of talent.

 

Weaver didn't need to beat an unproven Tillis to qualify for a shot at a rematch with Holmes.

Koing Tate and Coetzee was enough.

It would have been an attractive unification matchup anytime in 1981.

Instead, Holmes fought Berbick and Spinks and Weaver layed off.

 

I just thought of something

I've been arguing in this thread with a guy (choke) who thought Scott Frank was on par with Snipes, Berbick and Witherspoon because Frank got a draw with Snipes. Enough said. I'm out.

 

It's not exactly rocket science is it.

 

About as clear as day my friend.