Is Larry Holmes

You don't understand boxing history.

You can't strip the worlds hwt championship.

Foreman beat the true champion in Moore. He did not lose a fight until Briggs beat him. Briggs was then the worlds hwt champion. Then Lewis koed Briggs and he then became the new champion. Period.

 

It's like when the lineal geeks had Mustafa Wasajja pencilled in as the real light-heavyweight champ because he beat Bob Foster when Bob made an ill-advised comeback in the late 70s. So Spinks could beat Qawi, Gregory, Johnson, Lopez, etc but if he hadn't beaten Wassaja, he couldn't have called himself the real champ!

 

You are pointing at a rare situation and attributing it to the entire concept. The basic idea is the link between a champion title today and the champions before today is very important. That link provides credibility to today's champions. Without it you or I or anyone can create a new boxing commission and create new champions and be on par with every other champion. It's only the history behind the title that gives it credibility. Being able to logically trace today's hwt champion back to Sullivan is vital. Unfortunately those that run boxing today have ruined this link to its past because money is the name of the game. This all really began in the early 80s when the commissions realized they could manage the boxing world (their version of the boxing world) into huge cash cows. This effect today in 2016 has led to the sports ruin.

 

By then a new lineage had been started by Conteh beating Ahumada

 

Pinklon Thomas reached top 10 pfp at one time.

 

Thomas had huge technical flaws.

 

Ali had huge technical flaws.

 

Ali was the greatest hwt champion. An ATG with ATG characteristics. Thomas a contender. A fighter without ATG characteristics. A fighter with huge technical flaws.

 

Are you saying Ali didn't have technical flaws, pal?

 

Well said.

After Weaver beat Tate in March 1980, Ring (FWIW) recognized Holmes as champion by virtue of his previous win over Weaver. Holmes cemented his claim with a victory over retired champion Ali, who at the time was given a fair shot at pulling another miracle and beating Holmes.

The magazines may in no way be official, but looking at their ratings from any given time after 1975 (when IMO the organizations really became corrupt) will provide a more accurate picture of the true status of the division than any concurrent set of WBx ratings.

No, a retired champion doesn't get to un-retire and get his title back (though I recall Ali doing this a few times in 1977). But a new recognized champion's victory over a former retired champion does help cement his claim to the World's Heavyweight Championship. See Johnson-Jeffries, Charles-Louis, Frazier-Ali I, and, um, Holmes-Ali.

And Shannon Briggs did win the World's Heavyweight Championship from George Foreman. Foreman had never retired, was fighting at least annually, and had never lost the title. In his second reign he was one of the poorest champions ever and was certainly not the best in the division, but he was still champion. Many times in boxing history the champion is not the best in the division. I give a lot of credit to organizational champ Lennox Lewis for going after Shannon Briggs and legitimizing his (Lewis's) claim to the World's Heavyweight Championship.

 

Dokes, the WBA champion in 1983, could not win a fight that year. You are insisting Dokes not winning at all in 1983 makes him superior to Larry Holmes. It's impossible. He was knocked out that year by Coetzee and a draw to Weaver. Two fights. No wins.


I'm not talking about Weaver, he was yesterday's news after 1982.


how many times did weaver fight Stan ward? Did the fans really crave so many Weaver v Stan ward fights?

 

Sweetsci knows this sport. Bravo.

 

All hwt champions have flaws. Not all hwt champions are ATG fighters. Thomas was neither champion or an ATG fighter. Ali was a hwt champion that happened also to be an ATG fighter.

 

You said Weaver didn't win a fight in 1983. He did. That's what I was responding to.

You were making a big deal out of Holmes fighting #3 ranked Bey (one of the rare occasions he fought someone with such a lofty ranking). I merely pointed out that Dokes clearly took much tougher fights in 83 than Holmes did.

This is the problem here. You're bigging up Holmes for staying unbeaten against much weaker comp than his fellow champs were facing. Let Holmes fight Weaver back to back followed by Coetzee while Dokes fights Cobb, Frank, Rodriguez, Frazier and a green Spoon and see who emerges with the better record.

I'm sure you'll come back and say Holmes would have won those fights easily, in which case you have to wonder why was he taking a creampuff schedule and leaving his co-champion to fight the Ring's #2 and #3.

 

Problem is HOLMES was the champion. DOKES was NOT. It does not matter what a contender does unless it includes beating the true champion. Unfortunately the times dictated these two never would fight. My money would be on Holmes.