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

JohnThomas1,

Yes, it was an exaggeration.

A gross exaggeration.

Come on now.


You said that his opponents post Witherspoon, were diabolical, where he avoided anyone with a pulse.

Those were your words.

That is what I had an issue with.


Now I’m already aware of what you’ve written above. So it was completely unnecessary to type out all of that. Also, you’ve purposely put a negative slant on things.

It would have been better if you’d have just agreed that you’d gone over the top a little.


Yes, he was winding down, minimising risk. Absolutely. And if you’d just said that, I wouldn’t have had an issue with it. Again, I pulled you on your unfair exaggerations.

Yes, we have to look from how things were perceived at the time. I have no issue with that.

However, despite these guys not being classed as being great at the time, you still have to acknowledge that he was an ageing fighter, where he took on young, hungry, undefeated fighters, who’d got nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Yes, he had huge issues with Witherspoon. Yes, he didn’t rematch him. But what did he do afterwards? He went and fought 6 other undefeated fighters, including Williams, Smith and Bey, all within just a few years. Yes, they gave him more than he and everyone else had bargained for. Yet he still carried on taking on those young, undefeated fighters.


Now Smith was a decent fighter who’d beaten Bruno, and who went on a good run afterwards.

Bey was highly rated, who’d beaten Page.

So Neither Bey, Smith or Williams, were diabolical opponents. They did have a pulse. Again, especially for a guy winding down after normally fighting 3-4 times per year over a 7 year period.

He also tried to fight Coetzee throughout 84, where he’d taken a huge sum just for signing for the fight.

Again, I don’t agree that they were a sorry bunch. And my initial point was, you can’t satisfy everyone. You only need to read this thread in its entirety, to see that he’d have been criticised by some, for whoever he’d not have fought. We’ve got posters here who’d have said that he’d have ducked young, up and coming, undefeated fighters, had he not have fought them. Again, that was my point.

Okay. But he was still another undefeated fighter, and an ATG too.

That would have been nice of course. And according to the Ring’s annual ratings from within that 3 year period, he’d already beat some of their top 5. Also, some of them like Bey were there at the time, and again, he tried to fight Coetzee who was also there.

The Ring’s Annual Ratings, which most of use on here: (top 5)


1982:

Dokes
Weaver
Coetzee
Snipes
Berbick


1983:

Coetzee
Page
Dokes
Thomas
Witherspoon


1984:

Thomas
Page
Bey
Witherspoon
Coetzee

I disagree. I don’t think his run was that lacklustre.

I’ve just listed the rankings from within that period.

And I stand by what I said previously. Witherspoon may not have been highly rated at the time, but he was a young, athletic power puncher, who was a type of opponent that Rocky never saw. Rocky was rematching mostly old guys with a ton of mileage.

 

JohnThomas1,

Everyone’s circumstances are different. Some rematches happen straight away. Some don’t. Okay, you can give him some criticism for him not having had them, but Norton can’t be one. And if he’d not lost to Shavers and retired, maybe we’d have seen it. I’m sure you’ll disagree, but at the end of the day, we can’t be 100% certain that we wouldn’t have done. We don’t know. But him not rematching him straight away isn’t a fair criticism.

Yes, 3.5 years is a decent amount of time. However, he’d only had 5 fights within that period, where 2 of those were low level guys. Like you’ve noted, the others were Tillis, Tate and Coetzee. Tillis hadn’t done anything. So by your own level of thinking, that’s just 2 credible fighters within that 3.5 year period.

Also, here you are, saying that Tate was young and undefeated, putting a positive spin on things. However, you wouldn’t have said that if Larry had fought him, had he have been that young up and comer post Witherspoon.

Again, you previously said that guys like Bey, Smith and Williams, were diabolical who didn’t have a pulse.


So: An inexperienced guy like Bey, with only one credible win, was diabolical.

Yet Tate, who was in a similar position, was a good, young undefeated fighter to you?


So do you really think that you’ve been objective here?

That’s what happens when you put both positive and negative slants on a situation.


Also, you’ve said that Weaver was still rated that highly for another 2 years or more?

Okay. But he only had 1 fight in 2 years, before losing to Dokes.


How/why was his ranking so high?

For what?


Now surely you must have an issue with those ratings, considering that a 9 loss Weaver was ranked number 2, and Bey, who you didn’t rate, was once ranked number 3?


At the end of the day, Larry had knocked out Weaver, who again, had 9 losses on his record.

Therefore, irrespective of the rankings, he shouldn’t deserve any criticism for not having rematched him.

Theoretically he could have done. But he’d just had a really tough fight at an advanced age. An age where Rocky had retired.

You keep saying this. But he kept taking on those young, undefeated fighters, as well as money up front for Coetzee.

It isn’t beyond debatable.

That’s literally why we’re debating it.


He’d fought Bey, who you’ve acknowledged was top 3.

Again, he’d taken $3m for signing to fight Coetzee.

You’ve said yourself that he didn’t avoid Dokes.


You’ve said yourself that you don’t think he missed any guy by having a fear of losing to them.

We’ve already discussed this.

Okay, you can criticise him for not having fought a mandatory. You can criticise him for fighting Frazier and dropping the belt.


But how much can you criticise him?

To what extent?


Like you said, Page was a good fighter. And he’d only lost to Berbick prior to him becoming Larry’s mandatory.

But again, Larry dropped the belt and he took the huge signing on sum to fight Coetzee, hoping for much more to come afterwards.


Now what happened afterwards?

Page lost a chance to win the vacant belt against Witherspoon.

Then after that, he then lost to Bey, who you didn’t rate.


So again, how much can we criticise Larry?

Page lost back to back fights against 2 guys who’d lost to an ageing Larry, including a guy that you didn’t rate.


That was 3 guys altogether who’d lost to Larry.

So it was a shame for Page, but not a huge omission from Larry’s resume.


Yes, Page then beat Coetzee, who Larry had wanted to fight. Then after that, he lost again and again.

So it was just another opponent who’d have been a nice addition.

Nothing more.

It wouldn’t have mattered where they were ranked. Again, he’d have just got criticised by some, for not fighting everyone who was around at the time. There would always be criticism for someone who he’d missed out on. Again, some fans can never be satisfied.

 

JohnThomas1,

Again, you’ve already said on this thread and similar ones from the past, that you don’t think that he avoided/ducked Dokes, as King’s son was keeping him away from Larry.

Yes, it would have been another nice addition to his resume. I wish that he’d have fought all of the guys. There were some interesting characters and stylistic match ups. So it’s a miss. But it isn’t a huge omission.

You also have to question Dokes’ ranking, as he barely beat any top level guys.

I’ve already discussed this.

It merits criticism.

But again, Larry’s signing on fee for Coetzee was for more than Page would have brought, and then Page lost back to back fights, to guys who Larry had beaten, including Bey, who again, you didn’t rate as an opponent for Larry.

He didn’t freeze them all out.

None of them could put a sustained run together. They all fought and beat each other, where they all had mixed results. None of them went on a run, and only Larry could separate himself from the pack.

Again, it is debatable. Because even when he had a scare, he still kept on fighting those young, hungry, undefeated fighters, including Bey, who beat Page. And again, he tried to fight Coetzee, who was still rated top 5 at the time.

Again, the point is, he normally fought 3-4 times per year, for a 7 year period, where he fought most of the relevant guys of the time. Yes, he missed out on some. But again, nobody who’d put a great, consistent run together. Most of the guys all had mixed results, and many of them were against Larry’s leftovers. What that means is, they weren’t huge omissions from his resume, and in my opinion, he shouldn’t be criticised too much for not having fought all of them.

It’s not like he was in an era with Lennox, Mike and Evander, where he didn’t fight them for whatever reasons.

You keep saying this.


A handful of the very best.


You keep mentioning Page.

Again, a guy who lost back to back fights, one against Witherspoon, as well as one against a guy you didn’t rate, in Bey.

Back to back losses against guys who an ageing Larry had already beaten.

So what does that say to you?


Dokes.

Again, a guy who you don’t believe that Larry had ducked.

A guy who’s best win was Weaver, and who was knocked out by Coetzee.


Yes, I agree regarding Thomas. It appears as though he didn’t want to fight Thomas, whilst he was trying to break Rocky’s 49-0.

We can criticise him for that.

We do know that he was open to fighting him afterwards though, as he was obligated to, with HBO and King’s 1986 HW unification tournament.

Okay, he didn’t clean out the division, as there were guys who he missed.

But it would be like me saying that Usyk had cleared out this era, and then you coming back and saying that he’d not fought Wilder, Parker and Kabayel etc.


So I’ll change the terminology.


Larry proved unequivocally that he was the best guy of the era.


He fought almost all of the most noteworthy guys of his era.

He didn’t purposely avoid all of the guys who he didn’t get to fight.

He tried to fight some of them, and some of them weren’t viable.


There are no huge omissions from his resume, what would have affected his ATG ranking.

 

It’s not as simple as that is it.


JT has said himself that he doesn’t believe he feared anybody.


Larry dropped the belt and took $3m just to sign for a Coetzee fight, which promised much more down the line.

The signing on fee alone was more than what Page would have brought in.


What would Page or any guy have done in that situation?

 

Missing a guy is acceptable if you are fighting comparable opponents but that's not the case here.

Holmes fought numerous guys less deserving than Thomas or Dokes. Like Rodriguez, Frank, Frazier, Bey etc.

I don't think some of these guys were even deserving of a shot to begin with

 

There weren’t lots of guys who deserved their shots.

Most of them had barely done anything.

 

We might be talking past each other here but I think that we can all agree that anyone who disputed that Holmes was the champion is a big, fat poopy-head.

 

Were they all excuses?

Or were they valid reasons?


Who has given him credit for guys he didn’t fight, and for victories that he didn’t have?


Avoiding deserving contenders?

Who were these guys, and why were they deserving?

 

I think you need to do some research.


Larry missed Page, but beat 3 guys who Page couldn’t beat.

Even when at the end of his reign when he was slipping, he beat Witherspoon and Bey, who Page lost back to back fights against.


Dokes’ best ever win was against Weaver, who Larry had knocked out, and who had 9 losses on his resume.

Dokes had to have 2 fights to get the better of Ocasio, the kind of low level fighter who you’re saying wasn’t deserving of a fight.

Dokes was knocked out by Coetzee, a guy who Larry tried to fight for a year.

Dokes was also steered away from Larry by King’s son.


He should have found a way to have fought Thomas, although there was only a short window.


Again, you can’t just name drop here.

You’ve got to follow the timelines and look at the circumstances.


Larry didn’t avoid Page, Dokes, Thomas and whoever, to specifically fight lesser guys instead.

 

All that typing wasn't just for you. I've put a negative slant on things but you consider your own posts balanced and fair?

You stated this to @NoNeck "Page was his mandatory. But as you know, the IBF came in, again, similar to Zuffa today, where they offered him more money to fight Frazier instead, and for a new belt."

This is beyond a positive slant, it's blatantly false. Holmes did not fight Frazier "for a new belt". The belt was gifted to him 2 weeks after that fight via means that had nothing to do with Frazier.

Why would i state I'd gone over the top a bit. I stand by my comments. Well, unless you want to pin me on these guys actually literally having a pulse when they entered the ring? I think you know exactly how i meant it tho.

Disagree to disagree.

Yet you keep going to fights ahead that people lost after Holmes was supposed to fight them. You obviously have an issue with it and have made numerous comments indicating so.

Young, hungry, undefeated and also fringe contenders, rank outsiders and not as good as numerous other higher ranked fighters.

I've already waded thru every one of these guys. Young and undefeated lacks so much context it's not funny.

Bey was ranked highly for 5 minutes. You love to go ahead in timelines for losses, well Bey lost 5 of his next 6 after losing to Holmes. You've been using forward timelines to claim others didn't deserve shots, well how about Bey's performances moving forward? Smith lost 3 of his next 4.

You've told us why all these top ranked fighters didn't deserve qa shot, why don't you tell me exactly what Rodriguez/Witherspoon/Frank/Frazier/Smith/Williams did to deserve one?

Here's another one. Holmes told Thomas he'd never get a shot after he fought that goddamn South African. Obviously Coetzee was on Holmes never to fight list as well as Thomas. So what changed for Holmes to drop the morals and aim to fight Coetzee? He's suddenly claiming Gerrie "isn't like that" etc.

They were comparative to who he could have fought. He didn't spice any of them into that run.

Your opinion that posters would have said he'd ducked young undefeated fighters of the calibre of Frank, Frazier, Williams, Bey and co is just that - an opinion. Personally i highly doubt they would have. None were well up the ranking for years.

I said i had no trouble with Spinks. He was however another cherry pick in a long line of them.

That's just a yearly snapshot. Note there's no Frank, Williams, Frazier, Smith etc.

We disagree but that's fine.

A snapshot yes.

Ezzard Charles and Walcott were top contenders. That's the point. Rocky was aiming up at the best available. It's opinion how Witherspoon would have went against them and resume isn't based on opinion.

Here's some light reading from pre and post Bey fight, incidentally. Thomas, Page and Witherspoon were NEVER getting a gig.

48 hours pre fight

Larry - "You don't stand a chance. David, you're a half breed and you know whites bleed." (Bey's mother is Irish caucasion and his father is of Lebanese descent and once served as Joe Louis' sparring partner in the Army!)

Post Fight

Larry - "I might fight Spinks, but only for money, not ego Or (laughing) the winner of Hagler - Hearns, but definitely no more big guys. I'm tired of guys like David Bey hitting me up the side of the head. That means no Pinklon Thomas, no Greg Page, no Tim Witherspoon."

 

It almost certainly would have happened. The fact remains tho, no matter how much you try to isolate these cases and form excuses ZERO rematches were given. It stands out, like dog balls.

Speaking of negativity, that's an incredibly negative slant. The guy had beaten the #2 heavyweight in the world, then he knocked out the #3 heavyweight in the world inside of 7 months.

Tell me when Holmes beat the #2 and #3 heavyweight back to back? No soft tough in between for Weaver. He was lined up to fight Cooney next but Arum and thw WBA interjected. You're building up fringe contenders and calling the #2 and #3 "credible"???

Say what? You do know that Tate was the WBA heavyweight champion? He was a good undefeated fighter with a world title. And guess what? He'd just beat young undefeated contender Gerrie Coetzee who i am pretty sure was rated the #2 heavyweight behind Holmes. He'd pole axed Leon spinks before fighting Tate.

Your comparison isn't in the same stratosphere. We are talking quality high ranked fighters who had beaten other high ranked fighters. One of these is not like the other. These guys were actually proven fighters.

From beating Tate and Coetzee and not losing, of course.

Say what? Why would Weaver not be #2, I've now told you multiple times why he was and who he beat, and even where they were rated.

If Weaver was so unattrective with 9 losses on his record, what is your excuse for Holmes fighting him with 8 losses on his record? How on earth did he get a shot?

The truth is he was immensely more viable when #2 as he'd given Holmes all he could handle and then *drum roll* KO's both Tate and Coetzee.

As a matter of fact in January 1981's Boxing Illustrated, their fight coverage of Weaver - Coetzee was -

In action packed South African bout.......
WEAVER WHIPS COETZEE -
To set up heavyweight showdown with Holmes

So there you have it.

Rocky had half a dozen more fights under his bealt than Holmes at the Witherspoon stage. Joe Louis has cclose to a dozen or so more than Larry when he rematched Walcott.......after a really tough fight at an advanced age. He was probably a touch older than Holmes and had fought myraids more contenders and top contenders.

I don't see debate. So i am unreservedly correct on that particular opinion? He had a fear of losing alright, overall. Everyone knows the better fighters you fight when declining the more wear and tear and chance of losing. It cannot be argued against.

As for the chances of any beating Holmes, here's Weaver after Pinklon beat him and Holmes about not fighting Thomas, again -

"Pinklon Thomas is a great fighter," said Holmes, the IBF champion, "and one of these days he's going to be a great champion - when I leave."

In a way, Holmes has already left the heavyweight picture. The 35-year-old fighter, at the tail end of a brilliant career, is carefully choosing his opponents now and Saturday signed to meet Michael Spinks, the light-heavyweight champion, in September.

The 27-year-old Thomas can claim all he wants to be the "real champion," and even Weaver said Thomas would beat Holmes "right now."

That's up to the individual. You, not at all, me, quite a bit while stll rating him a top 5 heavy.

I don't rate Bey. He had one good win, over Page who we all know was inconsistent.

This has been explained endlessly.

Yes the proper time to fight Page was 1983, as we all know. If he had and beat Page we'd be eternally hearing what a talented fighter Page was and he had his best night against Larry etc. He went off the rails but man was he good right at that time etc etc. There's certainly more chance of that than people saying damn, i cannot believe he never fought Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier. How could he miss them?

I completely disagree. Do you see him getting criticised for not fighting James Broad? How about Frank Bruno? James Tillis?

No-one would care. You can't duck fringe contenders.

 

Well John---it all boils down to this; Holmes loses a fight earlier than Spinks. Significantly more wear and tear fighting those legitimate challenges instead of those numerous soft title defenses.Now he is having to put forth hard rounds and against multiple guys. And not the guy susceptible to a jab/minimal experience/slow feet.

The wear and tear Larry suffered in those bouts--and this goes back to his initial defenses when it was no murderers row--was absolutely minimal. The only guy I ever saw in my life on par was Roy Jones. Just absolute minimal wear and tear.

And since it was Don King as promoter---there was nothing preventing matches from being made--if they really wanted them. As it was--not too many of King's guys ever had a WBC belt stripped from them.

Just a bad time for us fans of the sport. And then Tyson came along and cleaned that mess up. fast.

 

Good catch. I hadn't actually read all of his post.

 

Very true.

Isn't it bad that we have to yearn for the days of two or three titles let alone 1. Two wasn't too bad when you look at recent history.

 

Many Holmes opponents were lesser fighters to Dokes and Thomas so this is a clear case case of not fighting the top guys in favor or worse opponents.

Not fighting them is indeed a very bad look when guys like Frank, Frazier and Rodriguez all get title shots.

And Tate was far more highly regarded by the boxing public than Witherspoon, Smith, Bey, etc. So that seems like a disingenuous argument.