Why is it not held against Holmes legacy more that he was never the undisputed HW champion of boxing

Page & Thomas would've been noteworthy additions but not "huge" - neither 1 stands out as being distinctly better than numerous other fighters that Holmes beat, including 1s that beat either or both of them (i.e.: Berbick).

By that logic, do you also devalue Tyson & Holyfield's statuses as unified champs b/c neither 1 chased down the WBO title years before people started caring about it?

 

Thomas was on pfp lists. It would’ve been a very significant win for Holmes and arguably his best.

The second part is a false premise. IBF, WBC, and WBA all mattered during Holmes’ time. Tyson and Holyfield would’ve been stripped for fighting for the WBO, which was viewed as a major title until later.

 

Yes, they all mattered.

So it was great that Larry became the IBF champ.

That must be very pleasing to you.

I’m still waiting for you to refute my earlier post.

 

Holmes didn’t duck anyone and anyway there was no one around that would warrant ducking anyway.
The other champs were either guys he had already beat or guys who got beat by guys he beat.
Even though the above applies to them let’s consider Pinklon and Page (the best you can come up with)? He would have whooped Thomas azzzzzure. Greg Page was a huge underachiever I can’t see him beating prime Holmes he gets his butt kicked also. And you know Holmes knew he could whip those guys.

 

I think that Thomas was a noticeable miss.

But the others definitely weren’t.

And accusing him of ducking/avoiding them, is absolute nonsense.

You can go back and look at the circumstances as well as the timelines.

For example, within the period that Larry had beaten Cooney and Witherspoon, Michael Dokes had drawn with Weaver, then lost to Coatzee. Also, either side of those fights consisted of him fighting lots of lower level fighters who weren’t in the mix at all.

So it’s absolutely bizarre that Larry gets accused of avoiding him, and that he was really deserving of a fight with him.

It’s just nonsense.

Apart from Thomas, the others such as: Page, Dokes, Tate and Coetzee, would just have been additions to his resume.

And again, they’d probably have come at the expense of some of the others, unless he’d have fought over 3-4 times per year.

To me, had he have fought those guys/some of those guys, he’d now just be accused of ducking/criticised for not having fought, whoever they’d have been.

I’d be arguing with people on here, who’d be saying things like “He fought Page etc, but he wouldn’t fight a young, undefeated Witherspoon” etc.

You can’t win with guys like that.

 

You can unify regardless of whether the public wants it or not

 

Nobody would have an issue with him from not fighting Rodriguez, Frank, Frazier etc in favor of better opponents

 

Those guys were all mixed in with his better opponents.

We’ve got No Neck trying to imply that he ducked Thomas and Page etc, to instead fight those guys instead.

Yet that isn’t the case at all, which is why I’ve used Dokes as an example.

Larry missed out on Dokes, but he fought Cooney and Witherspoon instead, and he also tried to fight Coetzee.

Apart from Thomas, none of these criticisms are in any way valid.

You can literally go back and look at the timelines.

He’s even been questioned for not having rematched a guy who he knocked out.

It’s absolutely ridiculous.

 

For 2 years the WBA belt was held by the guy he knocked out, there was no reason to fight him again. After that, he tried to unify with Coetzee but the fight fell through.

 

Having lived through Holmes' era, I can confirm that the other belts were just an interesting sideshow, and Holmes was universally viewed as the champion. Unification wasn't the big issue.

 

Usyk was never the unified HW champ. Did he win the WBC Intercontinental belt? No. The WBO Interim "Special" belt? No.
The Aztec belt? No.

Etc.

The people knew who the champ was....Larry "the Eastern Assassin" Holmes.

 

Except Frazier after Ali’s first retirement and Tyson unified after Holmes. There’s an odd man out in the middle.

 

It was a good fight and Weaver had him in trouble, so of course there was reason. It was a KO, but hardly Tyson-Spinks. Or Holmes-Frazier for that matter.

Unification with the nr 1 contender in a rerun of a fun, exciting fight. Of course there's reason for such a match-up.

 

I think Holmes defended against one top 5 contender in the last three years of his reign. In what world is that a good second half of a reign?

The defence here is that the ones he didn't face weren't outstanding contenders and lost, often to guys that Holmes beat. That is usually the case with contenders. And champions do actually lose to guys who has lost to fighters they have beaten.

I have Holmes at nr 3 usually, so he still does just fine in my rankings, And no, becoming undisputed against Weaver in 1982, wouldn't push him into top 2 for me. Not even winning both the WBA and WBC when he held the IBF. But having wins over Tate, Coetzee, Dokes, Page, Tubbs and Thomes would put him in the conversation. Rematch wins over Weaver and, especially, Witherspoon wouldn't hurt.

 

This is getting silly now.


Larry knocked him out, and in doing so, gave him his 8th or 9th loss as a pro.

So Larry can’t in any way be criticised for not having pushed for a rematch.


What happened afterwards?

Weaver had good wins over Tate, Coetzee and Tillis, before losing to Michael Dokes in 1982.


What did Larry do within that same timeframe?

He beat: Earnie Shavers, Trevor Berbick, Ali, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes and Gerry Cooney.


So: We’re criticising Larry for not having rematched a guy with 8/9 losses, and who he’d knocked out??


Ridiculous.