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

It's not an exaggeration actually. Some might go post Cooney, but he announced he'd be taking it easy to all and sundrey after Witherspoon.

Cobb was fine, he was rated #9 and tho well suited to Holmes, was a tough guy who could last all night.

Rodriguez wasn't even rated. He was easy pickings. Holmes won every minute of every round against Cobb, a fringe contender and Rodriguez was a very uninspired choice. How the WBC had him in their top 10 i will never know. Holmes won every round against him, not surprisingly.

Witherspoon - A lot of people get confused with the timeline here. Witherspoon had very little fanfare before fighting Holmes. He was rated #10 by Ring and was a whopping 6-1 underdog just 15 fights under his belt. Witherspoon wasn't chosen because he was seen as a worthy or dangerous challenger. He was seen as an easy win. In hindsight he is seen as quite a worthy win, but going in he was anything but. In his previous fight he'd snuck by Renaldo Snipes via a somewhat controversial majority decision. Snipes himself was coming off a draw to the barely regarded Scott Frank, and his previous loss to Holmes.

Summed up Witherspoon wasn't meant to cause so much trouble. There's a message in that. Snipes out of the blue dropped Holmes and had him falling facefirst into the turnbuckle upon rising. Shavers had been shutout by Holmes in a previous fight before almost taking Holmes out in the rematch. Weaver was supposed to be a glorified sparring sesson yet took Holmes to the brink. Yet we always see people writing off the chances of guys like Page, Thomas, Dokes and every other name that comes up. In the real world Holmes struggled with lesser fighters than those he's gifted sure fire wins over, and at a younger age too.

Marvis Frazier - Frazier snuck into 10th in the Ring and wasn't even rated by the WBC hence they refused to sanction the fight. As a matter of fact it was reported that the title would have been declared vacant if Holmes lost. Post Witherspoon Holmes was done with tough competition. He was demanded to fight Greg Page who had beaten Snipes to become his mandatory. The WBC stated he would be stripped if he did not fight Page after Frazier. Frazier was a cherry picked opponent with just 10 fights under his belt and had never beaten a contender. Eddie Futch pleaded with Holmes to get him out of there fast so he wouldn't get hurt too much, such was the mismatch.

James Smith - Yet another fringe contender type at #9. He had 15 fights to his name with one loss and, unless Bruno was somehow ranked, had never beaten a contender. Bruno was easily outpointing him before Smith went hard with 2 minutes to go and knocke dhim out. The bookies didn't even put up odds of Smith winning, it was about how long he'd last. Holmes was piling up points but he was hurt on two separate occasions when his experience and Smith's lacked thereof was of solid importance.

The point again is that Holmes struggling with fringe dwellers like this gives the best fighters in the division great hope.

David Bey - Bey had beaten Page who was on an inconsistent run (rebound fight after losing to Witherspoon) and was put into #3 despite never having beaten another contender. He had 14 fights under his belt and was a 4-1 underdog as Holmes hadn't looked the best vs Smith. Bey hurt him early on but Holmes took control as the bout went on and battered him at the end.

After the bout Holmes said -

"I want a lot of money and no more of those big hitters like Tim Witherspoon and Mike Weaver," said Holmes, narrowing the field to almost nobody. "I've paid my dues, and if they want me back, they've got to give me little people I can beat on without getting hurt."

The 35-year-old champion suggested that $3 million would entice him out of his rocking chair in Easton, Pa. to fight Michael Spinks, the light heavyweight champion. And, grinning, he said, "Only $2 million for either Tommy Hearns or Marvin Hagler."

Carl Williams - Williams had just 16 fights under his belt and was a 6 1/2 - 1 underdog. Yet again (there's a recurring theme here) Holmes was extended far more than expected in a fight a decent amount of people thought he lost. Williams wasn't even rated by Ring magazine.

I've got an article somewhere that talked about how Holmes chose Williams. He watched footage of him fighting Tillis and after Tillis dropped him twice in the forst he said get him. Hedidn't watched the rest where Williams boxed his ears off.

Michael Spinks - There's nothing wrong with the light heavyweight champion getting a gig but it came after a long line of carefully selected fringe contenders fights, and even a non contender. Spinks was 6-1 against and wasn't expected to cause much drama. He ended Holmes reign.

As i showed above these were gren, inexperienced mostly frigne contenders, if that. It was a sorry bunch. The cticism is him not fighting top contenders, no-ones going to worry about him not fighting fringe guys, and worse.

No. Spinks was a cherry pick gone wrong tho, as everyone knows. At one point he tried to sell Cooney for his 50th fght. I've got an article somewhere that tells how his choice of Williams came about and how he wanted someone easy for his 50th to beat Marciano. Hopefully i get time to find it.

Some top 5 fighters mixed in.

It was, yes. As i have exdplaiend Witherspoon was #10 and no-one rated him much. It's not like he chose Witherspoon when he was top 5.

Certainly not Smith, Frank, Williams, Frazier and co.

Rocky rematched the best contenders in his division. Rocky's championship acumen was brilliant. Witherspoon was remotely considered "dangerous" going into the fight.

 

Norton would have had to have been straight away. Plenty did that of course, Louis with Walcott after a tough fight, Rocky with both Walcott and Charles after tough fights, Leon Spinks with Ali, the list goes on. Of course a pertinent one is Michael Spinks gave Holmes an immediate rematch after a close first fight.

But Norton as a stand alone isn't a biggie. It's more that he never rematched any of his tough fights, and he had quite a few. Joe Louis wanted them again, to show people there was no dispute that he was the man.

Weaver didn't simply just get stopped by Holmes then lose to Dokes and Thomas. He didn't lose for another 3 1/2 years. 3 1/2 years is a long time. He knocked out (young and undefeated, Olymipic medal as well) Tate for the WBA crown. Tate had a bit of a following and some even thought he might even be the man. He was rated second to Holmes when Weaver took him out.

Weaver then knocked out Gerrie Coetzee, who was rateed #3 in the world. Here's something to get your head around - at this point Weaver had more wins over top 5 heavyweights than Larry Holmes. Weaver was rated 2nd to Holmes for around 2 1/2 years or more. Weaver was also wanting to fight Holmes. Their fight was a classic, with Weaver looking like he might bring it home at times and according to most observers droppping Holmes. Getting stopped at the finish means little. Thousands of boxers have come back to avenge stoppage defeats. He'd also gained experience knocking out world class top 3 opponents in Coetzee and Tate.

They could have rematched instantly. In post fight material Holmes said he wasn't getting one so the window meant nothing. The crowd booed the decision. Many scored it for Witherspoon. What would Rocky or Joe Louis have done? We already know.

• The crowd booed when the decision was announced in favor of Holmes. Many felt that Witherspoon deserved the verdict. A straw poll taken at ringside had Witherspoon winning by two points. Boxing Monthly listed the fight as one of its ten most controversial fights of all-time.

It'd have to be pronto again, but Holmes was never taking on a guy that gave him such a tough fight. It went agaisnt everything he was trying to do - get easy fights, break Marciano's record and retire.

He avoided all the top guys post Witherspoon. It's beyond debatable.

Holmes stated himself "i am ducking Greg Page". Is that enough? Sure, he cited money as the reason. He was back fighting for King in no time, but only against low rated fighters. Holmes dropped his long held WBC title rather than defend against Page. I'll do a spiel on the whole saga at some point in this thread.

Not if they were top 5.

 

Dokes was a top #5 heavyweight for 3 1/2 years while Holmes reigned (mostly top 3 in this period). You don't think he'd be better than the vast majority of Holmes defenses? Why would beating the best fighters in the division not help ones resume? Who would you point to in Ali or Louis' reign that was ranked that high for that long that never got a fight? Wlad's reign even? I mean, we have his brother and rest assured that hinders him for me but at least it's understandable.

No.

Holmes dropped his title to avoid fighting Page. He said he was ducking him. Page had lost one fight when Holmes wouldn't take him as a mandatory. He won an eliminator to fight him, like Shavers and Spinks. Holmes only had one title when he relinquished it. I provided photographic proof in here many years ago that the fight opened with Holmes 8-5 fave (Compare that to the odds against the sorry string he fought thereafter). KO Magazine stated "If he fights the champion the way he did Snipes - aggressively, jabbing and then forcing his way inside - he may find himself in the right fight at the right time to become a world champion. Page was on an inconsistent string post Snipes, his problem was always motivation. He pole axed Gerrie Coetzee when motivated later on.

The best contenders fought each other on a regular basis because Holmes froze them out. That led to plenty of losses as the best were fighting the best (best except Holmes). Dokes fought Weaver x 2 then Coetzee, Page fought Witherspoon, Coetzee, Thomas fought Witherspoon, Weaver and Cetzee climbing the rankings etc. Tubbs came into the picture late etc. There was a load of fights between the top contenders.

He somply didn't, certainly not post Witherspoon. It's not debatable. You don't get freebie wins without actually beating people. Everyone was sure he'd beat Spinks too. They were sure Bey/Smith/Williams/Witherspoon would all be easy.

But they didn't lose to Larry. The whole A/B/C thing doesn't hold water. The best guys he beat Berbick/Weaver/Witherspoon were considered easybeats at the tim ehe fought them - they made waves against Holmes and thereafter. Berbick beat Page, Snipes beat Berbick then Page easily beat Snipes. I could do a thousand of such simple examples.

A handful of the very best. Page and Dokes were long term top 5 guys, for years. Sure, he tried to fight Coetzee near the end but he doesn't get the victory for trying. If he hadn't priced himself so high it likely would have happened. Thomas made a big mark in a short time too. He beat Witherspoon with far less trouble than Holmes and then axed Weaver. He'd drew Coetzee well prior. Holmes purposely shut him out tho, which I'll prove beyond dispute later on in the weekend. I'll tag you.

Holmes didn't come close to cleaning out the division.

 

Holmes: “I’m ducking Greg Page.” - His actual words.

ESB: “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s not jump to conclusions. That could mean literally anything.”

 

He didn't. Weaver had Tate and Coetzee, while Holmes had Norton, Ocasio and Shavers the second time.

Both Holmes and Dokes were under King at the time, and he didn't want them to fight each other, wanted to milk 1 belt at a time.

 

Just to expand (on my 35 000 words already) for people like OddR who seem interested in this topic. I don't believe Holmes was specifically scared of one guy or another or anything like that. I believe he was so bitter at the press and general public and had such a huge chip on his shoulder that he simply didn't want to lose at all and give them ammunition of any sort. There's an interview in print i had years ago but have had trouble finding where in 83 he said the same things as later after Bey. He said he wasn't going to give the public the satisfaction of seeing him lose or something akin to that which led to shutting up shop when it came to the more serious threats. It's ironic and irksome because the courage and fortitude he showed in the ring were at longs odds with those last half a dozen opponent choices. He had some serious stones inside that ring. It got him thru a number of fights.

 

You are right, i stuffed up the date somewhere and wasn't counting Norton for Holmes but counted Tate for Weaver - i had meant to say title defenses. Doesn't work either way LOL

I hnew you'd find any irregularities which is always welcome. That wins over contenders list thread of yours is brilliant.

There was indeed a plan for Dokes to chase the WBA belt. I've mentioned it many times in here. Unfortunately it's still a long term top 5 fighter missed. Page was under King when King was pushing Holmes to fight him. I have a feeling King was hoping Holmes would lose at that point.

 

exactly.

Those title defenses matched the defenses--and excuses--of Valuev. Lots of defenses and lots of guys not getting their deserved shots.

 

@JohnThomas1

That's the issue with some of Holmes challengers in the last few years of his reign. They were mostly very inexperienced Heavyweights in the pro ranks.

As you said fighters like Witherspoon that win only aged well in hindsight he wasn't seen as a overly dangerous challenger at the time.

His only real notable win was against Snipes and as you said that wa hardly a convincing win.

This is my scorecard of the fight below and I felt it was a legit draw with Snipes actually coming on strong at the end.

Tim Witherspoon vs Renaldo Snipes

1 Snipes
2 Witherspoon
3 Witherspoon
4 Witherspoon
5 Witherspoon
6 Snipes
7 Snipes
8 Witherspoon
9 Snipes
10 Snipes

95-95 Draw

It's also funny that someone like Page had beaten Snipes much more convicingly in what should've been his chance of a title shot against Holmes.

But yet Holmes doesn't fight Page but yet is happy with Witherspoon as a challenger who barely sneaked past Snipes.

 

I fixed your typo mate, you had Page insteead of Snipes on the card. You do good cards and if you had it a draw it's razor close. Snipes could be a handful. Page put on a good show vs Renaldo, some scribes said he was the best on display that night, the "Crown Affair" that was Holmes - Witherspoon, Weaver - Dokes and Page-Snipes.

 

I don't really have the time to write a long post, but I agree. I don't even think Holmes necessarily would've lost to the guys he avoided. What annoys me is the endless excuses made on his behalf, especially when much lesser offenses by other fighters are consistently brought up.

Marciano, for example, gets (rightfully IMO) criticized for not fighting Valdez, but that was the only instance where he failed to fight his #1 contender. Holmes, on the other hand, never fought his #1 contender except on one occasion, if I'm remembering correctly. Yet somehow this gets endlessly rationalized.

Another example is Frazier getting criticized for fighting Stander and Daniels because they weren't ranked and shouldn't have been anywhere near a title shot. And that's absolutely fair—they shouldn't have been. But why isn't the same standard applied to Holmes' defenses against guys like Bey, Frank, and Marvis? Holmes also didn't endure serious punishment anywhere near the extent Joe did in the FOTC, one of the most brutal heavyweight wars ever fought, to at least provide some context for a subsequent step-down in opposition.

I also disagree with the premise in this thread that Holmes should somehow get credit for the guys he missed because "well, he beat the guys who beat them lolz."

That's not how this works. Walcott took the title from Charles, who had previously taken it from Louis, yet Walcott had already lost to Louis twice. Ali lost to the same man Foreman subsequently demolished with frightening ease. Did Foreman real good that. When Foreman and Moorer, stepped in the ring, Moorer was coming off a win over Holyfield, who Foreman had decisively lost to. Obviously Foreman didn't get the memo, that this meant he should've lost decisively.

Contrary to what some may have you believe in this thread, fighters don't swap resumes and analyze performances against common opponents with a fine-tooth comb when they step into the ring. Holmes doesn't get credit for victories he might have had against opponents he blatantly avoided, nor does he get some sort of victory by proxy for beating someone who happened to beat them.

Maybe Holmes would've beaten all of them. I wouldn't even necessarily argue otherwise. But they deserved the opportunity to find out, and repeatedly avoiding deserving contenders is a blemish regardless of the chances of him actually being dethroned by those guys.

 

Never understood why this is controversial to quite a few here.

 

Yup. I was actually going to refrain from participating in this thread because I don't really have the time, but it got under my skin. Holmes gets an insane amount of leeway compared to other heavyweights, and things that would be obvious blemishes on someone else's resume are explained away when Holmes is involved. That's the double standard I take issue with.

What really gets me is that, unlike the vast majority of these situations, the consensus here seems to be that Holmes' failure to fight these legitimate contenders is either perfectly excusable or doesn't really count against him in any meaningful way. That's a pretty remarkable standard to apply to one fighter when the same reasoning wouldn't (and doesn't) fly for most others.

Edit: This reply was meant for @Bokaj my apologies.

 

Probably because he was considered the lineal champion

 

Yep. Lineal carries a lot of weight with me too. Beating the champ comes with many privileges.