Is Larry Holmes

We agree rival champions didn't match Holmes form (need it even be said) but we sure don't agree they were no greater than some of the tomato cans Larry fought, particularly late.

Completely disagree. Never mind their inconsistency, guys like Page, Thomas and Dokes on their best days rose way above the level Bey, Frazier and umpteen others did.

Here's another huge point to digest - Holmes himself always bemoaned the fact so many fought their best fights against him and how he always brought out the best in rivals. It's down in print. Guys like Page, Dokes, Thomas and co would have been very dangerous opponents under this scenario.

I never mentioned Tate at any point in any post i reckon. Tate is not even remotely on my mind. Bear in mind however many thought him Holmes equal at one point, minus hindsight of course.

Incidently Bobick dropped Holmes in the Olympic trials in 72 and had his DQ for holding too much and not fighting. Holmes then thought of quitting boxing.

Tate actually put on a decent show vs Weaver before getting cold c0cked.

Again nobodies debating Tate over Holmes or overall greatness vs other champs. That would be absurd.

Dokes would have been a good fight for Holmes. As said he could rise to heights above the vast majority of the rest.

Coetzee was more dangerous than Bey for sure, and his one big weapon was a shot Holmes was quite susceptible to. He would have had the omnipresent threat of the right hand.

You want to cherry pick every contender Holmes didn't fight or rematch yet hold ****ey up? ****ey fought a bunch of stiffs then three old names. He didn't even have any basics down pat. All he had was a massive left hand, some size and white skin. He hadn't fought for over a year when he took on Holmes.

Young, who had lost about 4 of his previous 7 fights and was on a downward spiral, conditioning wise gave Gerry plenty of food for thought before being cut badly. Lyle was near 40 and long over the hill. Norton was a shell of what he once was and never fought again.

****ey is a never was, incredibly hypes due to skin color, hatred of Holmes and big ko's over name corpses. Holmes actually gave him too much respect, making damn sure he didn't give him a chance at all. He could have had him out of there substancially earlier if he wanted, but put on a safety first clinic instead.

The fight was very close. The most you could possibly have Holmes ahead was 2 pts. Many scored a draw, many had Holmes by a point. Some had Witherspoon by a point. Do you have a scorecard?

There was plenty of scope for them to fight, and at one time Thomas was being called the peoples champion due to Holmes openly ducking reputable challengers.

Cherry picking. Dokes beat Weaver easier than Holmes did by a country mile in the first fight. Holmes barely beat a guy Shavers poleaxed in 1 round 9 months later. Does this make Shavers better than Holmes? Page schooled a guy that almost knocked Holmes out, is he therefore better?

Dokes had the fastest hands in the division at one time, just shading Page and Holmes.

The inconsistencies often came after they were not given their chance by Holmes i.e. Page especially and Thomas etc etc

Waiting for Holmes

Page and Berbick were both champions.

He picked and choosed, as said so by himself. There were windows before the losses, windows that got locked shut.

If you truly lived and breathed the era as you claim you would not be making this comment about Coetzee-Snipes. Coetzee dropped him twice and dominated. The Ring was showered at the announcement of the decision. It was the robbery of the year. Common scoring ringside was 8-2 and 7-3 for Gerrie.

He was brilliant against Berbick, good against Holmes. Witherspoon was green, as he was against Larry too despite his great showing. Snipes was a decent fighter.This made Pages win in the eliminator to fight Holmes even more impressive.

Vastly different styles.

No-one expected Holmes to fight everybody, but he could have fought someone post ****ey, but he didn't. 9 defenses and basically all of them handpicked. He did exactly as he told us he was going to.

No amount of hindsight post Holmes can change the fact that guys like Witherspoon (15 fights), Frazier (10 fights), Smith (15), Bey (14), Williams (16) were all considered easy inexperienced fodder pre fight for Holmes. In a string of 6 straight opponents only one had over 16 bouts to his name. He then took on a light heavyweight (Holmes a massive favorite)chasing Marciano's record.

 

Yes, no matter how we slice and dice it, Holmes' mentality as champion was sorely lacking. He put us through more pointless, boring defenses than any long-term champion I can think of. Deplorable, really. I know politics played a part, but not entirely. Larry was just a little too open about it too, repeatedly stating that he wanted easy fights for big money. I was so glad when the whole thing backfired against Spinks and Larry suffered the humiliation of losing to a light-heavy. He got what he deserved.

 

Rival champions did not match Holmes's form, that is clear, but I do think the rivals were better than Zannon, Frank and Rodriguez. I never said they were no greater than Tate or Page or Coetzee. When did I say that?

I have maintained all along that Larry did fight soft touches to stay busy between more worthy contenders.

I do believe that the rival champions Tate, Dokes, Coetzee, Page and Tubbs were not superior to Weaver, Norton, Berbick, Witherspoon and possibly not even the versions of C00ney, Snipes, Williams, Smith, Bey and Leon Spinks that Larry did beat.

In no way could anybody suggest Tate, Dokes, Page and Coetzee were clearly any better than the best challengers Larry beat. Consider that each of them (apart from Coetzee who had already failed two times to win the WBA belt) were (like may of Larry's challengers) also fast tracked prospects of limited World level experience. Tate was 19-0. Dokes 24-0-1, page was 22-3, Tubbs 20-0, and Coetzee had already failed two times to win the WBA belt.

Most of the rivals were accidental winners taken as a soft touch. Tate was not supposed to win against Coetzee in south Africa. Weaver was not supposed to beat Tate in his home town. Coetzee was not supposed to beat Dokes. Page on his losing streak, was certainly not supposed to beat Coetzee.

 

Scott Frank is from NJ. I watched him in the gym for years. A very low talented fighter completely undeserving of a top ten ranking let alone a title shot.

 

But he was just an "extra" defence. Larry defended his title four times just in that year alone, it's not like Frank was ever his main fight that year, Larry beat Witherspoon that year.

By comparison as champion both Weaver and Coetzee took over a year out each before defending.

I would have no complaints if Coetzee fought Frank to stay sharp sometime within the fourteen months he sat on his belt without defending.

When Coetzee did defend he lost to a guy on a losing streak.

 

That's actually quite damning for Holmes, seeing as he made 21 title defences in seven years and you reckon he fought a total of four men who were better than Page, Dokes et al. Even those four are arguable given where they were when Holmes fought them.

 

Holmes title reign from 1978-1982 warrants merit. From 1983-1985 it calls for criticism.

 

But in saying these four men he defended against were all better than Page/dokes/Tate/Coetzee/Tubbs and a further six were at least as good as Page/dokes/Tate/Coetzee/Tubbs it cannot be said that Larry did not fight "the best" opponents. Only that he did not fight "all"of the challengers.

My position is that Larry was the best himself and he still beat the best. And that politics prevented and diluted the situation allowing nothing more than what amounted to "regular contenders" in any other era being promoted above their station.

Yes some got away. Fights we wanted to see. and Larry fought at least three or four contenders inferior to page/dokes/Tate/Coetzee/Tubbs but so did most long serving champions.

Joe Louis defended against Jack Roper, Harry Thomas and Johnny Paycheck too. We all know about Ali during his second term as well.

There was a lot of talent around and Larry still beat most of them.

 

That argument is dependent on people accepting that all those you named were better than or equal to Page, Thomas, Dokes, Coetzee and Tubbs. Not many would. C**ney never beat a top prime contender. Snipes lost to Page and almost everyone thought he lost to Coetzee. Leon got KO'd in a round by Coetzee. How could they be better or equal? The bottom line is Holmes rarely fought the best in the division, whether you go by rankings (Ring or ABC), records or just perception. Smith, Weaver, Spoon and Berbick are nice names to rattle off in hindsight but at the time none was considered the best in the division. They were respectively rated #9, #8, #10 and #7 by the Ring. They could just as easily have turned out to be another four no hopers you never heard of again. So that leaves who, Norton?

Yes Louis did fight a few soft touches. The difference is he always took care of his top challengers in timely fashion as well and gave rematches to tough opponents. Thomas and Roper were followed by defences against his #1 contender. Paychek was sandwiched between fights with Godoy. Whereas with Holmes Cobb was followed by Rodriguez and Frank was followed by Frazier while the best were left to fight each other. It's true Ali was doing some cherry picking himself in the final few years of his reign. But it is mitigated by the fact that he fought virtually every top fighter in the division before that. Holmes never did.

 

But Tate, Dokes, Coetzee, Page and Tubbs were not superior to Weaver, Norton, Berbick, Witherspoon.

Who would pick a 1978 Norton to lose to Tubbs? Or a 79' weaver to lose to an 84' Coetzee? Page beating Berbick? Weaver Did beat Tate. Witherspoon did beat Tubbs.

C00ney, Snipes, Williams, Smith, Bey and Leon Spinks that Larry did beat versus Coetzee/Tubbs/Page/Tate/Dokes?. Those pairings are 50-50. Bey did beat a prime Page. Snipes has the win over Coetzee and Berbick. Smith did beat Weaver.Williams beat Trevor Berbick and took Witherspoon to a split verdict.

Tubbs was never seen as the best in the division. Tate was never seen as the best in the division. If Coetzee, weaver and Page were ever seen as "the best in the division" they would have been expected to win titles as they challenged rather than the surprise winners that they were.

And who was above them in the ratings? Guys like Snipes, Berbick, Weaver that Larry had already beat. ,

and Berbick. Don't forget Berbick knocked out Tate and ended the unbeaten run of Thomas and Page. Larry beat "trusty Trev" between these prime wins of his.

it's not the same making comparison with undisputed title reigns and the mess that went on when the Alphabet soup soldiers began handing out belts that promoted inexperienced prospects above their station.

 

This is simply not true post ****ey, which is a 9 fight string over a 3yr period and repesents a substancial period of Holmes *reign. It simply cannot be debated.

Witherspoon cannot be held up as he was not considered a serious challenger at the time and was a 6-1 underdog. This is why he was chosen of course. Page beat Snipes easily on the same card making him Holmes mandatory and next bout hence the mags from these bouts on featuring Holmes - Page as an upcoming bout. From memory Page was 8-5 against and one mag considered him to be in the right place at the right time after his superb showing against Snipes and Larry's struggle against the inexperienced Witherspoon.


*Giving him the benefit after he was stripped of his only title for not fighting his mandatory and was not beat in the Ring (and thereafter determined not to be while nabbing Marciano's record vs easy opponents).

 

Cobb was #9 with Ring over the year and had taken Dokes to a majority decision. Weeks later Weaver blew his title to Dokes (who had been behind ****ey as a challenger). In the time that WBA title was tied up with a rematch with Weaver and the "automatic" defence against Coetzee (that all WBA champions seemed to have) Larry was effectively frozen out of a unification fight. In that time the challengers were

Larry Holmes
1. Mike Weaver (gets knocked out by Dokes in December, draws the rematch in May 83)
2. Michael Dokes ( Weaver x2 then loses to Coetzee in September)
3. Gerry ****ey (Larry just beat him)
4. Greg Page (lost to Berbick, beats Tillis who just lost and 1-1-1 Snipes)
5. Gerrie Coetzee (treading water with a draw against Thomas then gets a shot at Dokes)
6. Trevor Berbick (Holmes beat him April 81. He beats Page but loses to snipes and s.t. Gordon)
7. James ‘Quick’ Tillis (already beat by Weaver goes and loses to Thomas, Page, Witherspoon)
8. Randall ‘Tex’ Cobb (Holmes beat him in November)
9. Tim Witherspoon (Holmes beats him May 83 after Tim beats Snipes)
10. Renaldo Snipes[Holmes beat him Nov 81 then he goes 1-1-1 until meeting Page)

Holmes took Cobb, he's beat six of the top ten anyway! Within months he beats Witherspoon too. Right after beating Witherspoon Dokes has his obligatory defence with Coetzee. Since Dokes is tied up with that Holmes picks unranked Frank just to stay busy the same month that Coetzee beats Dokes in an upset. Now the biggest fight out there is Holmes v Coetzee and Larry wants this fight but when it looks like Coetzee wants more time out of the ring Larry picks up a payday against Frazier whilst still looking toward Coetzee. The WBC no doubt irritated that Larry is more concerned with fighting a rival champion than their own #1 challenger start unnecessarily campaigning for Larry to fight Page instead but Larry only has eyes for Coetzee after Frazier. The WBC actually sanction Frazier then when Larry still shows more interest in Coetzee next Larry walks away from them under the umbrella of the IBF to pursue Coetzee. By the time that fight falls through the WBC title has been won and lost again and Larry and Coetzee have to take seperate fights in order to defend their own titles. Coetzee picks a guy losing fights and Larry picks a guy winning fights. Coetzee lost his belt to underdog Page. Larry then signs to fight the guy Coetzee should have fought David Bey because he beat Page. It was losing to Bey that actually got Page the shot at Coetzee!!!

Witherspoon, if you look at 1983 ratings was one of few guys in the top ten Larry had not already beat who wasn't like Dokes, Weaver and Coetzee affiliated with the WBA title. He had beat Ratliff and Snipes. Don't forget all page had done since losing to Berbick was beat the same Renaldo Snipes that Witherspoon and Larry did earlier. Of course, by the time Page beats Snipes, Renaldo is 1-1-1 in his last 3 fights yet because Larry is showing more interest in a rival champion (Coetzee) when Page beat Snipes the WBC push for him being some kind of emergency WBC #1 challenger!!

yes Page was as good no better than Witherspoon and Larry had just beaten Witherspoon and was now in hot pursuit if a WBA title.

I remember reading a KO magazine fight preview of the up coming Holmes v Coetzee fight and the list of experts all gave Coetzee next to no chance. Ironically Page wound up beating Coetzee when we least expected it and Holmes v Coetzee did not happen. Go figure?

Taking David Bey when he did was not on paper the easy fight you think it was. Boxing News picked Bey win. Weeks after that one Page lost to 20-0 Tony Tubbs who was pretty unknown.

 

Regarding bolded part, you are right. That was actually the caption over a picture of Page/Snipes

I believe it was Aug. '83 issue of World Boxing.

Edit: Here is the link to the actual Magazine cover.

http://flickrhivemind.net/blackmagi...www.flickr.com/photos/67413744@N07/8601967786

It was actually Sept. '83.

I guess I am not quite "Rain Man" in my recall

Larry must have read that issue and been like, "man, these guys have it figured out, get me Marvis Frazier's manager on the phone quick. I need to make some easy money before the sh%t hits the fan."

 

Listen to what Berlenbach, John Thomas and half a dozen other people have been saying... They WERE better opponents because of the TIMING of the matches. Weaver, Berbick and Witherspoon were still relatively unestablished prospects and fringe types when Holmes met them.. Where as Dokes, Coetzee, Page, and Tubbs were either top contenders or fellow title holders when they were up for a shot at Holmes. You're using their hindsight accomplishments of later to give Holmes credit for beating them.. Are you also going to use hindsight to point out that Renaldo Snipes went 1-4-1 in his next six fights including losses to Parkey and Evangelista after decking Holmes? Or Carl Williams getting sparked in two rounds by a 35 year old Mike Weaver after practically dethroning Holmes? Or David Bey going 4-10-1 in his next 15 bouts after losing to Larry? How bout C00ney fighting only 3 times over the next 5 years after meeting Holmes and becoming easy pickings for Spinks and Foreman? Or Norton going 2-2-1 in last five bouts and getting aniolated by Shavers and C00ney without a fraction of the difficulty that Holmes had? Hindsight can work both ways. The other problem is that most of the quality opponents you listed that he beat came within the first 4 years of his reign.. Well about the remaining two and half years when some of those OTHER challengers were prevalent ?

 

Which leaves 17 defences against fighters who were not better than Page and co. And let's face it, a lot of that 17 were against men vastly inferior to Page and co. Strange you didn't include Thomas in that list. He beat better versions of Witherspoon and Weaver than the less experienced, less distinguished versions Holmes fought.

Considering Norton barely s****ed past LeDoux and Cobb the following year, a prime Tubbs could certainly beat him. But what do fantasy fights have to do with anything? The argument being made is that Holmes did not fight the best fighters around. Whether the 1978 Ken Norton could beat the 1985 Tony Tubbs has no relevance to Holmes not fighting Pinklon Thomas in 84-85. Weaver was not even close to being the best heavyweight in the world in 1979. The fight was considered such a mismatch the big three US networks refused to buy it. We can't pretend that Holmes knew Weaver would go on to win the WBA belt and start beating contenders. When Weaver (and Spoon) actually were considered the best fighters in the division, Holmes didn't fight them and picked easier opponents instead.

Leon gets KO'd by Coetzee, Smith loses to Tubbs, Snipes loses to Page, Spoon and Coetzee, Williams gets KO'd by Weaver and loses to Spoon. C**ney fights an old Joe Bugner instead.

Tubbs was better than Smith, whom Holmes had just given a title shot to. Tubbs was better than the unranked Carl Williams and he was better than career light-heavyweight Spinks. Tubbs didn't have to be better than Ken Norton, just better than the men Holmes was fighting instead. Earlier you were claiming that Coetzee was the logical #1 contender in the division (presumably only while Holmes was trying to fight him). Well, Page dominated and KO'd Coetzee that same year. And then Tubbs beat Page. Meanwhile Holmes took on an unranked prospect and a light-heavyweight, fights that were universally seen as cherry picks.

And all the guys that Holmes never fought like Page, Dokes, Thomas, Coetzee. You know the guys who you say weren't very good even though they were higher ranked than most of Holmes' challengers, Holmes ditched his title belt rather than face one of them, demanding huge purses, refused to unify or give rematches, and took easier fights instead...

According to the Ring, there were nine better fighters than Smith around, eight better fighters than Weaver, ten better fighters than Spoon, and seven better fighters than Berbick. The Ring clearly didn't think Holmes was facing the best in the division.

Those two Berbick wins are easily superior to most of Holmes' title defences. But that's to Berbick's credit, not Holmes'. You can't give Holmes credit because someone he beat when they were an obscure prospect later beat two men he ducked. Holmes wouldn't have even defended against the more experienced and highly ranked Berbick that Thomas faced. He'd have fought Kip Kane instead.

You're still persisting with this flawed logic that because Holmes beat X and X beat Y that proves Holmes didn't need to face Y. When Walcott was #1 contender, would you argue that Louis didn't have to fight him because he already beat men who beat Walcott? Should Marciano have not fought Charles, since he beat men who beat Charles? Great champs clean out their divisions, they don't rely on other fighters to knock off dangerous contenders for them.

About a third of Holmes' title fights were against inexperienced prospects! By comparison the WBA champs were seasoned veterans. If you're going to blame the ABCs, do you also credit them for keeping Holmes away from his fellow champs, and sanctioning all his mismatches against journeymen and novice heavies instead of forcing him to meet more deserving challengers?

You brought up Louis and Ali fighting soft touches. They did, yet it's also true they did a much better job of cleaning out their division than Holmes. Can you find the equivalents of Page, Thomas and Dokes in their careers?