Early 80's discussion

I agree.
Something I often refer to is this: Post-Cooney and certainly post-Witherspoon, Holmes was quite open about avoiding the most dangerous contenders out there, he openly stated he didn't want to fight certain type of opponent unless the money was a lot better than being offered. He justified this by saying he'd already paid his dues. He was offered big money for Coetzee but that fell through. The fighters he faced were mostly relative novices but some of them turned out to be tough. Michael Spinks was supposed to be his easiest yet.

It makes no sense to defend Holmes from something he admit doing at the time.
Of course, nowadays Holmes will tell it different, now he's concerned about legacy. But at the time he was happy to be seen as an ageing champion who had paid his dues and was looking for a few easy defences, from 1982 or '83 onwards.

 

Over and out for the three of us by the looks. One (or in this case 3) can only take so much, even when delivered politely.

 

Can't speak so much for the other weighs but at heavy I believe the rot started when Ali lost tu spinks. The wbc ordered spinks to face Norton, who of course decided to rematch Ali. Norton who had beaten Jimmy young was then declared champ, similar to lennox beating razor. So that point we had wbc Norton and spinks wba. Spinks lost to Ali who later on retired. Then Norton lost to holmes who held wbc for about 5 years till given up that belt for a new body ibf. So at that point there s, 3 heavy weight champ s! And then in 1988 roundabouts the wbo came in to play. They recognise another champion despite tyson holding all 3 belts. And that s how all the crap started!!

 

I agree he said those things and it did not help his cause one bit. He only cared about the money. The system was also bad.

 

I sure am not in the group of A #1 title reign pre Gentleman Gerry. As a matter of fact, I never thought Gerry was any better than a .500 fighter if he had to continually face top 10 competition. It wasn't a case of the guy being a juggernaut nobody wanted to face---Dokes wanted him. Page. Witherspoon. Then you had the talked about Weaver fight. Coetzee was a live body. Pinklon Thomas was on the way up. There was potentially a big money bout w/ Snipes who was a guy from Gerry's backyard and a Madison Square Garden promoters dream bout. None of that happened.

As it apllies to Holmes--sorry but nope. Old Norton. Zanon. Anyone picking Evangelista? How about that other juggernaut Leroy Jones? How about all those Scott Ledoux backers---must've thought they had a good shot against Larry also.

Compare all of that to what Tate had to do in a 2 year timeframe. Fought Bobick and got rid of him in 1. Remember the guy with the amatuer dq win over Larry? He'd already beat Mercado who if nothing else was a dangerous hitter. Then he goes to South Africa and fights another Slugger in Knoetze in front of 60,000 peopl. About 10 people were pulling for Tate. And 1 of them was not Arum--he wanted the Knoetze/Coetzee rematch.
After that win, no breather or Zanon or Ocassio type guys. Nope. Back to being a road warrior in front of 80,000 people and getting his hand raised against Coetzee in S Africa.
Miller wanted a soft touch in his next bout and wanted Lyle--who had just been starched in 2 by Lynn Ball. They did not get that fight and got Weaver in a bout they didn't want.
To me, that little stretch exceeds any stretch of competitive matches Larry had in his career.

So I never did buy into that pre Gentleman Gerry stuff about tough defenses. It was the other belt with the tough road. Even Weaver---he took on 3 DKP fights in a row and he was with Arum. And that's going into the lions den and a loss is quickly on the horizon.

 

I'm sorry but the WBA route was a nonsense from day one.

Before Ali retired the best heavyweights in the world were Ali, Norton, Young and Shavers. Ali retired. Larry beats Shavers and Norton. Shavers beats Norton so Larry beats Shavers again. Who does that leave? Young. Young lost to Ocassio, it was seen as a fluke so Young got the rematch. Ocasio beats Young a second time so he fights Larry and gets beat too. 1979 is a Larry Holmes white wash, he cleaned the house!

The WBA with Ali retiring had two options. recognise Larry or find a new champion. The WBA looked below Holmes, Norton, Shavers, Ocassio and opted for South Africa and the huge gates they got over there. That is all it was about!

The WBA took Coetzee and Tate from the lower half of Ring Magazine ratings to decide a champion.

Coetzee beating Spinks the former accidental champion (whom Even old Ali beat before retiring) was a fair enough win to challenge Holmes with, but that's all. Tate was just a kid. When he wound up beating Coetzee who did the WBA have Tate fight? Larrys Knockout victim Mike weaver. The same Mike Weaver Larry was laughed at for fighting. Only Weaver knocked Tate out!

The WBA from then on had a champion built on being second fiddle to Larry Holmes. Any one who "beat the guy who lost to Larry Holmes" was still obviously below Holmes. Each damn WBA fight was pass the parcel of a paper crown that may have well been called "second best heavyweight in the world".

 

You are correct if you are suggesting Holmes's pre-Cooney defenses were dotted with some terribly weak challenges.

I think he can't really be faulted for 1978-'79. Norton was a great fight to take the title. Ocasio eliminated highly regarded Jimmy Young. Evangelista was a soft touch and Weaver was supposed to be. Shavers was a top contender coming off the Norton win.
1980 featured a weak bunch.
1981 was decent.

I've also noticed that the WBA line was a far tougher schedule too. Between 1979 and 1985 there really were no soft touches getting shots at the WBA title. An undefeated James Tillis was probably the weakest and he was pretty good. No one could an easy first defence on the WBA line. Holmes syphoned off all the bums of the month.

 

A few rounds into the Holmes-Weaver fight, no one was laughing. Weaver proved he was no joke.

To be fair to Tate, he did well against Weaver for 14 1/2 rounds. That counts for little when all is said and done, but both those fights (Holmes-Weaver, Tate-Weaver) suggested these three guys were on operating on the same level at the time.

 

Yes, but it was the "second best" often defending against "third" or "fourth" best.
Meanwhile, "THE BEST heavyweight in the world" was most often defending against guys clearly outside the top 5.

 

That is correct, but could this be because Larry was more active? After beating Norton, Shavers and the guy who beat Young the rest (which included Tate and Coetzee) was much of a muchness. Remember Larry flattened Ocassio who drew with Dokes?

The same Dokes beat weaver then drew with him! Cobb had a very close fight with Dokes but Larry schooled him. Then there is the whole Coetzee thing. He lost to Tate who lost to Weaver so Gerrie lost to Weaver too, then when Dokes beats then draws to Weaver that's when Gerrie beats him. It's like the guy who couldn't beat the first two guys beats the third guy.

And to add to that Coetzee had a close fight with Snipes who drew with Scott Frank (another two guys Larry stopped).

Then there's the Page-Snipes-Berbick-Witherspoon thing. Larry is 3-0 over the 3 he fought. He missed page who was 1-2 with the same guys.

I don't think Page having lost to Bey was a good challenger for the WBA title. I don't think the credentials of Tony Tubbs was any greater to challenge for the WBA belt as Williams credentials to challenge for the IBF or as good as Bey. And why did the WBA have a Gerrie Coetzee fetish? He kept getting shots.

So yes, If Larry fought but once a year and there had been no confusion over belts, and mandatory fights no conflicton over South Africa etc he should by rights have fought Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Ali, C00ney, Coetzee, Leon spinks, page, Witherspoon then Thomas. In that order. But I imagine even if he wanted to with other titles up for grabs and all the confusion we did get it could not have been done.

Until HBO paid 20 million for an elimination series the promoter AND the governing bodies wanted to stay split.

 

I agree with the point about Greg Page and David Bey.
That was a solid defence from Holmes, although he was probably hoping to capitalize on Bey's relative inexperience.

But all of the WBA challengers were of a certain calibre, above the calibre of the Lucien Rodrigues, Scott Frank etc.
And I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of Holmes's challengers were relative novices. Perhaps you could put that down partly to Holmes's busy schedule and his need to rush opponents in the ring with him, but looking at the WBA line we see more challengers with 20, 25 fights, rather than 14 or 15.

 

David Bey was okay. He gave Holmes some tough moments but ultimately he was outclassed by the experienced champion. The Bey was matched quite tough, I think he was put in with Berbick next and was stopped late. I guess those two losses back-to-back knocked a bit out of him. He was a good fring contender/gatekeepper for a couple of years after that, and as you say he gave Biggs a scare. Truth is, Biggs was really lucky that fight wasn't stopped on the cut. On the other hand, I think the scar tissue made him prone on future fights, eg. against Tyson.