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

In the scheme of things, I'm not sure it matters to Holmes' legacy all that much, and I think there's some middle ground to be had here, anyway.

On the one hand (and Bey's fleeting moment in the sun notwithstanding), I would certainly have liked Holmes last few years to have included recognized top contenders. Coetzee, Thomas, Page, and Tubbs were rated in the upper-tier, but nothing came to pass. At face value, this is quite irritating.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Holmes tried to make the Coetzee fight, which fell through, and the Page negotiations took place in the midst of a Holmes/King feud and were doomed to failure. The Frank and Frazier bouts were disappointing but the upshot of Holmes making his escape from King and defecting to the newly formed IBF.

In short, I think boxing politics and financing were, in large part, to blame for this drop-off in the last three or four years of his career. However, denying Thomas in favor of Spinks signified the end of Holmes' meaningful championship, both symbolically and, in the end, quite literally.

 

This is where HWs active on the world scene from the beginning of Holmes prime in 78, to when he lost his title to Spinks, rank in McGrain's top 100 HWs of all time. Note, I've excluded Ali, who ranks at #1, because he was obviously shot to bits when Holmes fought him:

#22 Norton - fought and won
#34 Witherspoon - fought and won
#54 Shavers - fought and won x 2
#55 Thomas - didn't fight
#64 Berbick - fought and won
#73 Weaver - fought and won
#76 M Spinks - fought and lost x 2, when past prime
#95 Cooney - fought and won

I appreciate this is high level compared to the more detailed analysis provided by posters on both sides of the argument, so I present as nothing more than an impartial indication of the quality of his opposition relative to what was available.

Whilst Thomas is the obvious omission and I agree that Holmes didn't fight the best available contenders post Witherspoon, he did fight, and beat, most of the best HWs active during his prime and he doesn't have a massive miss. He has no Harry Wills.

 

Do you suspect you would agree with McGrain's ranking give or take a few places?

 

JohnThomas1,

You’ve picked out a typo that’s all.

He fought Frazier for more money, and then he saw the dollar signs in his mind, when he took a huge signing on fee for Coetzee, which was also more than a fight with Page would have brought.


Yes, I consider my posts fair. Because I’ve said that you can criticise him for not having fought Page when he was his mandatory.


The questions I’ve asked are:

How much can you criticise him?

Was Page a big omission from his resume?


Why should you not admit that you’ve exaggerated?

Really?


Labelling a guy like Smith as being a fighter with no pulse?

Labelling a guy like Bey as being a fighter with no pulse?

Of course it’s an exaggeration.


Everybody reading this thread knows it.

Again, I get that they hadn’t done much, and they weren’t considered huge threats at the time.

But if you seriously think that, then lots of questions arise from your comments.


Again, such as:

If Bey didn’t have a pulse, then why are you so bothered that Larry didn’t fight Page, when Page couldn’t beat him?

If Bey and Smith didn’t have a pulse, then what would that make Tex Cobb, who you bizarrely have no issue with in being rated in the top 10?

If you don’t rate Smith who was number 9, and Bey who was number 3, then surely you must have an issue with the rankings back then?


You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t say that some of the guys in the top 5-10 weren’t worthy, whilst at the same time, your criticising him for not having fought other guys within the top of those rankings.

No, I have agreed with you and been fair. I’ve only looked at what they did after, if it’s relevant to what we’re talking about.

I have agreed that at the time, those guys hadn’t done much.

When Larry fought Tim, we didn’t know how good he was and what he’d go on to do afterwards.

So I agreed with you, in that we have to try and view things from how they were back then.

So, yes, guys like Smith and Bey had hardly done much. So I can appreciate that. However, it’s still an exaggeration to say that they were diabolical opponents who hadn’t got a pulse. Now if you can’t see where you’ve gone over the top, then that to me is ridiculous.

They were young, ranked guys.

They were young, hungry ranked fighters.

Fighting an ATG fighter, for their ‘Superbowl’

Larry was also ageing, where he was slowing down.

Many of them gave him more than he bargained for.

The only interest I had in Bey, was for the following reasons:


1. You said that post Witherspoon, Larry avoided anybody in the top 5.

Yet Bey was rated number 3.


2. Page couldn’t beat Bey, yet you seem to think that Page is a relevant omission from Larry’s resume.


3. If Bey was rated 3, and you think so lowly of him, then surely you must have an issue with those old rankings.

I’ve never said that they were deserving of a fight.

We know exactly what changed his morals.

The dollar signs.

He was given $3m alone, just to sign.

At the time, he thought that he’d be able to make crazy money, possibly somewhere in the region of $9m.

I’m obviously talking about more known guys.

For example, if he’d have fought Thomas, Dokes and Page, but then missed a guy like Witherspoon, there’d be people on here saying that he’d ducked him.

My point was, unless he’d have fought 4-5 times per year, there’d always have been someone of relevance who he’d have missed. To some people.

Yes, it was just a snapshot.

But you said that post Witherspoon, he avoided anyone in the top 5.

Yet the rankings of the time say otherwise.

Those were legendary fighters who deserve huge respect. But they were very different eras.

Rocky didn’t have a huge number of relevant fighters to fight.

His pool was shallow.

Just because he rematched guys, it doesn’t mean that Larry had to.

Regarding your quote, I read it a few days ago.

He was minimising risk.

I’ve already agreed with you.


For me, Thomas was the biggest omission.

Dokes and Page would have been nice additions. Again, I wish he’d have fought them. It’s just that I don’t think that they were big omissions from his resume.

Thomas was. I think that he was the most talented of the bunch.

 

My all time HW list only goes down to 25, mate. It is different to Matt's, but, in the main, there is not much, if anything, wildly different.

Below 25, at a glance I can't see anything I think looks well out of place, but I'd need to complete dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of research and analysis to confidently rank a top 100 all time HWs.

I wouldn't present McGrain's top 100 as perfect, but it's the only top 100 list I'm aware of, his research and knowledge across all eras isn't matched by many and he takes all time lists more seriously than anyone I'm aware of. I think his list can be cited as an impartial and credible, if not solely definitive, source.

 

JohnThomas1,

They’re not excuses though.

Some of them genuinely weren’t viable.

If you want to criticise him for not having rematched Williams or Witherspoon, okay.

But it’s not fair to criticise why the Norton rematch didn’t happen.

You typed 3.5 years, to try and justify the lengthy high ranking.

Again, it was a fair amount of time.

However, he only had 5 fights within that period.


The best ones were Tate and Coetzee.

It was either a weak era, or the rankings were bogus.

Only beating those 2 guys, shouldn’t have warranted such a high ranking for that prolonged period of time.

Tate had won a vacant belt against a world level fighter in Coetzee. He then lost it in his 1st defence against Weaver.

Bey beat a world level fighter in Page, then went on to lose to various guys.


But it doesn’t matter if you think that Tate was a better fighter than Bey.

That’s not relevant.


Again, I pulled you on your bias and your exaggerations.


To you, Tate was a young, undefeated up and comer, who’d had a world level win.

Yet Bey was also a young up and comer, with a credible world level win over Page.

You could also same the same for Smith.


The difference was:

In your opinion, Weaver fighting Tate was good.

Whereas Larry fighting Bey, who was ranked number 3, was awful, as Bey was apparently a diabolical opponent who didn’t have a pulse.

He shouldn’t have had a high ranking for only having fought once in 2 years.

I don’t rate the Weaver win that highly for Larry.


My stance is: he shouldn’t be criticised for not having rematched him.

I’ve told you why.


Yes, he gave Larry a good fight. But Larry stopped him.

Yes, Weaver then had good wins over Tate and Coetzee, before he ran into Dokes.


Again, during the period between Weaver having lost to Larry and Dokes, Larry had beaten:

Shavers, Ali, Berbick, Leon, Snipes and Cooney.


During the specific period you’re looking at, which was early 81 for a potential Larry-Weaver rematch, Larry was in camp to fight Trevor Berbick.

Then afterwards, he fought Leon Spinks.


Yes, from Weaver’s perspective, an early 81 rematch would have been great.

But the point is, you can’t criticise Larry for not having taken it.

Not after he’d stopped him, before then going on to fight and beat: Berbick, Leon, Snipes and Cooney.


Just because it suited Weaver, it doesn’t mean that Larry should have taken it. And especially as he went on to beat those guys listed. (apart from Ali, which was awful)

It isn’t a justified criticism at all.

Again, I respect that. But again, everyone’s circumstances are different.

You can’t do direct comparisons between the 50’s and 80’s.

Different eras.

Different opponents etc.


Again, you don’t know what those guys would have done had they have all swapped eras and opponents.

Just because Rocky kept rematching guys over and over, again, it doesn’t mean that Larry had to.

Again, you said that post Witherspoon, he avoided any of the top 5.

Yet that isn’t the case.

I’m not sure why you’ve posted the quotes.

I’ve agreed that he was winding down minimising risk, and I’ve also repeatedly criticised him for not having pursued Thomas, who I believe was the genuine, big omission from his resume.

How can you say that I haven’t criticised him at all, when your highlighted text literally has me having said to you:

“Okay, you can criticise him for not having fought Page…”


Yes, it’s up to the individual.

That’s why I asked for yours and others opinions on the matter.


Again, I have criticised it.

But I don’t think that Page was a big omission from his resume, and I know that he thought he was going to get mega money from the Coetzee fight.

Again, I have no issue with you not having rated Bey. Again, I only mentioned him, because I found inconsistencies in your post. But if you don’t agree, we can leave it there.

Yes, it’s a shame that it didn’t happen. And especially as the Coetzee fight didn’t even happen anyway.

I don’t.

Because I’ve been on here years. Nearly 15 years.


Again, I’m not talking about the lesser guys.

I’m talking about relevant fighters having slipped through the net.

Fans can never be satisfied.

There’s always criticism of guys they missed in their era, irrespective of the reasons.



Look, we haven’t seen eye to eye on a number of things.

But I have a lot of respect for you, and I’ve enjoyed the debate.


It would be much better face to face in a pub.

I’d be drunk, handing you a beer, saying: (in a nice, fun way)


“WTF JT? How could Tex Cobb have been ranked 10?!”

“How could Weaver have had that high ranking for such a prolonged period?”


Maybe you’d get tired, and knock me out?

Ha!


Anyway, nice debating you.


If you want to carry on, I’ll happily continue to do so.

However, if you want to leave it, then we can agree to disagree.

 

Who do you think he’d have lost to?


He still had wear and tear, fighting 3-4 times per year, against young guys who could hit.


Nothing preventing matches from happening?

There’s been boxing politics for years.


A lot was happening back then.

 

You haven’t got the capacity required to give any valid input.

Go and troll on the Mayweather thread with Dunham/Rooster.

 

You keep saying all of this.

But it is useless without context.


It would be like saying:

“Why didn’t Usyk find the time to have fought Parker and Kabayel, when he had the time to fight far lesser guys in Witherspoon and Chisora?”


Tate?

He lost his title in his very first defence to Weaver.

A guy who Larry had already knocked out.

Again, context needs to be applied.


Again, do some research.

Follow the thread.

Look at the timelines.

The circumstances.


You keep saying the same thing.

Yes, we know he fought lesser guys than some guys who he missed.

But again, he didn’t specifically fight those lesser guys instead.

 

Great post.

 

When you consider he was a small half blind swarmer fighting heavyweights I'd say raw chin 9.0 and ability to respond and recover 10.

 

Alphabets aren’t the real champs. You’re the champ when you beat the guy who beat the guy. Or the guy retires and you are recognized by tournament or some other form (Patterson, Frazier, Wlad). Holmes beat the guy and earned his greatness even if u think he is a tad overrated

 

The next time you write a long winded post to me I’ll throw it in an LLM and have it changed to a concise list of talking points. It would be helpful to you and anyone reading the posts. A true win for all.

 

You won’t be getting any posts from me.

Time and time again I’ve given you a chance.

If you want to spend your time in here trolling, then you do that.

Why you’d want to do that is mind boggling.

But obviously you have some issues.

 

The issue is actually that I mostly post while working.