How much does failing to unify hurt Holmes legacy?

Its not so much the fact that he didn't start a belt collection, but rather that he didn't fight and beat a lot of those guys who at one point or another ended up with those belts.. So even if he beat Page, Dokes, Thomas, etc, before or after they held those titles, he'd likely still be ok.

 

Not much to be honest. Most still regard him as the longtime #1 despite whatever minor quibbles about missing a guy here and there (all of whom you would had to have to made heavy underdogs anyway)

 

Interesting post. I tend to feel it didn't hurt his legacy much, though perhaps in a general sense some may have viewed him more favorably.

I looked at the WBA champs from Leon Spinks up to Bonecrusher losing to Tyson. I found it interesting that only two champs successfully defended the title (not counting Dokes retaining via a draw) -- Weaver (over Coetzee and Tillis) and Witherspoon (over Bruno). Those two both had losses to Holmes prior.

Sent from my NS-P10A6100 using Tapatalk

 

Your post derails in the first sentence. He was not the best Heavyweight for the entirety of his run.

After he abandoned the WBC title it is debatable if he could have beaten the WBC and WBA champions of 1984-1985.

 

What many ignore is that the WBA champs who played merry go round were often facing tougher foes than Holmes was at the same time.

 

Yeah, he missed fighting way too many top contenders. It affects his legacy, in my book.

 

U da man:good

 

Like him or hate him(or something in between), Larry Holmes is universally considered one of the greatest heavyweight champions ever, and no one else mentioned on this thread is. I believe that says it all.

 

Yup:good. Sounds about right.

 

What about the irrational titles?

Never snagging the π belt damaged his legacy more than missing Page, Dokes or Pinky.

 

Well, he knocked out Leon Spinks, Muhammad Ali and Mike Weaver. None of them would've beaten him when they held their version of the title and Holmes had his.

If Holmes had faced Ali in 1978, let's say, instead of Ali facing Spinks ... Holmes winning the title outright from Ali at that time certainly would've been the biggest boost.

Other than beating Ali before Spinks got to him, the Coetzee unification fight that was signed and fell thru several times probably would've been the biggest boost.

John Tate was only a beltholder for about six months. Missing out on fighting him was no big deal. (Holmes almost defended against him, too, later on. They even had a press conference. But Tate was already forgotten by then.)

Greg Page lost to Berbick on the Holmes-C00ney undercard. I know Holmes vacated the WBC rather than fight Page, but Page turned out not to be anything special (which Berbick and Bey and Spoon and everyone else who beat him proved). And Holmes didn't fear Page so much as he dumped the belt for the larger unification payday against Coetzee (that ended up not happening).

The only guy Holmes really never considered fighting was Michael Dokes. And the story was Holmes wouldn't do it because he thought, if it went the distance, there's no way he would've gotten the nod, because Don was Dokes' promoter and Carl King was best friends and the sometimes manager of Dokes. He felt he'd have to knock out Dokes for any chance to win. And he may well have been able to do that, but he didn't want to bother. And Dokes never got in any position in the WBC to force a fight with Holmes. So Larry just ignored him.

So, long story short ... I'd say if Holmes had taken the crown from Ali in early 1978 (instead of Leon doing it) ... that would've been the biggest boost to Holmes' legacy.

Other than that, the Coetzee WBA-IBF unification in 1983/1984 that left both guys inactive for a FULL YEAR while it withered on the vine due to a lack of funds ... hurt Holmes' legacy the most.

If he'd unified with Coetzee, that would've been the biggest fight and the capper on his career.