Why didn’t Holmes ever unify?

Numerous people have already been named in this thread and you keep regurgitating the same arguments.

 

Name the four heavyweights who were more qualified and what they did to earn a shot at Holmes, only to be denied.

You like to type who "shouldn't" have gotten a shot.

Name who should've received a shot instead, what they did to earn it, when it should've happened and why?

Who. What. When. Why. Basic facts. You make the argument.

 

It’s already been explained to you that Holmes dropped a title than to face mandatory Greg page. It’s been explained to you that one of the reasons for the Coetzee fight not happening was because Holmes wanted an unreasonable amount of money. It’s been explained to you that Tim Witherspoon should have gotten a rematch. It’s been explained to you that Pinklon Thomas was the consensus best challenger in the world through two calendar years. I’ll also add that when Tony Tubbs won the WBA in April of 1985 he could have been someone Holmes might have signed to fight but didn’t. Instead of any of the above he opted to fight green prospects with little or no reputation and in some case no rating. Hell james Smith’s only rating was like #11 by the WBC and that was the ONLY fight Holmes took in 1984 while a handful of top contenders were lusting over a chance to fight him. Now come back and make your excuses about money, politics, Don king, little green men, etc.

 

That’s a little rich isn’t it, given our exchange earlier in this thread…

 

Demanding too much money wasn't the reason the Coetzee fight didn't happen. The promoter came to Holmes with $3 million and said I'll give you this much just to sign to fight Coetzee ... and you'll get another (ever changing number) for the actual fight. It was a promised exhorbitant purse that was too high to turn down.

Holmes said when they gave me $3 million, I believed them. The signing bonus was worth more than what he was going to get to defend against Page. Then the price kept coming down and locations kept changing after both fighters agreed to fight. He got conned, essentially. As did Coetzee. It was the old bait and switch. They both tried for a year to make that fight.

Nobody explained to me what Page did to qualify for a title shot, other than beating Quick Tillis.

Nobody explained why Pinklon Thomas was the consensus best challenger, other than he beat Quick Tillis, too, and Witherspoon, who people keep saying wasn't any good in the summer of 1983 when Holmes fought him but was apparently awesome when Pinklon fought him in the summer of 1984.

You can go on page 3 of this thread and see how Pinklon was described in the NY Times before the Witherspoon fight.

But Tim Witherspoon is back. The brash, 26-year-old Philadelphian will make his first appearance since winning the W.B.C. title against Greg Page last March 9. He meets third- ranked and undefeated Pinklon Thomas, who has not been very busy, either. Thomas has fought only four rounds this year in knocking out a club fighter named Bruce Grandham.

And Thomas wasn't the consesus top challenger for Holmes for two years. Pinklon was WBC champ for a year when Holmes lost his title in 85. Coetzee was the top challenger after KOing Dokes and thru all of 1984.

You brought up Tubbs. Who did Tony Tubbs beat to qualify for a title shot? Bonecrusher Smith. Bonecrusher was a stooge four months earlier when Holmes stopped him. But when Tubbs fought Smith and won on points, that qualifies Tony for a title shot?

Seems like you guys want to pick apart everyone Holmes fought, but when you look at who you insist Holmes should've faced, they basically fought all the same guys Holmes' opponents did prior to their title shots.

And when Holmes fought a guy who became a champ later, that doesn't count. But you want Holmes to fight other guys who werent' champs yet, with basically the same credentials as those he chose, because they became champs later.

It's maddening.

 

100% bang on as usual DP. You know more about that heavyweight era than the majority of people that lived it which is rare.

 

He didn't fight Coetzee. It is a moot point. You live in some alternate universe where Holmes abandoned a title to save the heavyweight division, and nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Not unifying certainly doesn't help. The top fighters in the division were WBA champs at one time or another hence Holmes was missing out on fighting the top contenders. Some of their inconsistency is due to fighting each other, fellow top contenders whilst Holmes didn't.

Arguello won titles in 3 divisions and tried for a forth. He also beat the best champs in the divisions he conquered and belted a raft of top fighters at 130. Chalk and cheese.

It hurts both Sanchez and Pedroza a bit, two great champions. People still argue over who would have won.

He's hardly in the class of these others.

He was trying to. He was unlucky not to more than once.

First career he faced about 3 that had previously been champs when he actually faced them. Norton is actually an outlier as he was gifted the title down the track after the fight.

As for Ali, lol I could've beaten Ali that night.

No ****.

his resume would have been stronger particularly if he faced some top fighters post Cooney. Doesn't matter if that still doesn't make him the GOAT.

I currently have Lewis, Foreman and Marciano ahead of him. Had he unified, he would certainly be in my top five.

Fans missed a lot of good unification's. They were ecstatic to get fights like SRL - Hearns.

 

**** I just saw the village idiot endorse this post. Wish I saw earlier. Would've saved me a lot of time, and makes my point better than anything I could say.

 

Kinda weird considering his post career attitude, always trying to prove he was the best HW ever and just coming like obnoxious.

 

Gotta partially agree, but again it works both ways.
It seems Larry cares a lot about what ppl thinks about him as a fighter and where he is ranked.

 

And don't forget that he said that Usyk was just looking to cash out against AJ. He has basically called every heavyweight title fight of the last six years spectacularly wrong.

 

When someone plays both sides strongly only months apart it's almost certain they are just here to vent, posture and argue for the sake of arguing due to angst. Holmes was around his best in 1980 and he'd tear Wilder a new one. He's hardly likely to be one punched and Wilder couldn't finish Fury multiple times - he's hardly going to finish Holmes. It's common sense. Trained up and motivated 1980 Holmes is one helluva obstacle inside those four corners.

 

And believe it or not you ain't seen nothing yet.

Go to post #103 for the full dubs experience.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/deontay-wilder-in-the-70s.685431/page-7

 

Yes that's the feeling I get aswell what other reason could there be for it ? If you're constantly changing your narrative and agenda from thread to thread. All that means to me is that you want to be different to get a rise out of people on purpose or just want to argue for the sake of it depending the agenda he has for a particular topic.

That's why I have no interest in reading his posts anymore or interacting with him it's literally a waste of time. I'm here to debate and interact with actual fans that want to learn or share some thoughts about the sport we are all passionate about. I don't want to argue or get into slanging matches especially on the internet.