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

The 10 mill that they promised initially wasn't very realistic, I'd say. Five million more so, but I don't remember from the long article I read about it that he was prepared to take that. Was a while ago I read it, though.

EDIT: He did in the end in fact sign the fight for 5 mil: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...disputed-hw-champion-of-boxing.752503/page-14

 

That’s correct.

He gets criticism for Thomas.

He can get criticism for not rematching Witherspoon, but he was 35 and wanting to beat Rocky’s record.

Weaver built himself back up, and a rematch around 81 would have been nice. But at that point, Larry was fighting Leon and Berbick. And by the time he’d fought Cooney, Weaver’s good run had come to an end against Dokes.

 

Nobody ever knows what’s going to happen.

They live in the moment. They don’t have a crystal ball. The benefit of hindsight.

Larry was slowing down.

At the time, the win wasn’t rated that highly.

Since then, it’s gained in value.

Now you could never have expected him to have passed it up at the time, for believing that Witherspoon may have gotten better, and that if he’d have fought him later, he’d have been given more credit for it.

That is completely unrealistic.

Again, what if he’d have planned that, but something had happened which would have stopped that match from happening later?

Then what?

You would literally be on here accusing him of having ducked him.

 

Yes, as I said, there were no Wills, i e oustanding contenders that could rival the champion for dominance of the era. Rather, they like, Valdes were nr. 1 challengers for a while but didn't distinguish themselves from other top contenders.

 

I actually forgot to put Norton there at the start, as Holmes's first nr 1. Norton lost to Shavers, who then went on to challenge Holmes, only nine months after losing to Holmes, so the window was short, but immediate rematches have been given before in cases of close fights.

So even before he dropped his WBC belt rather than face Page and then blanked Thomas and a rematch with Witherspoon, it's hard to escape that it was a recurring theme that he didn't face the nr 1. Yes, you can see reasons for them (short windows and/or rematches, possible interference by King), but out of Norton, Tate, Weaver, Dokes and Coetzee, Holmes seems only to have made a real effort to face one of them - Coetzee.

 

He can’t receive any criticism for not having rematched Norton.

Larry had beaten Shavers.

He then beat Norton.

Norton then had a keep busy fight before fighting Shavers himself.

Shavers beat Norton.

Norton then retired, before Larry fought Shavers again.

We have to be fair here.

 

I understand your points and, without going on a tangent and debating the respective merits of the claims of each contender you list, as a collective, I agree that missing them whilst nr. 1 contenders is material to Holmes all time standing to a degree.

With the benefit of hindsight, the best/greatest HWs active on the world scene during Holmes prime and title reign were Norton and Witherspoon.

Without the benefit of hindsight, the contender that was seen, at the time, as the most dangerous, was Cooney.

Going 48-0, 21-0 in title fights, unbeaten during his prime, beating the greatest two HWs he could have faced with the benefit of hindsight, and the biggest single threat as viewed at the time, is enough to get #3 all time imo, though if I allowed myself ties I'd have Lewis joint 3rd with him.

The lack of a prime or near prime ATG, Norton and Witherspoon both being close fights whilst not quite at their respective absolute peaks, and his defences post Witherspoon clearly not being against the best contenders, diluting the merits of that 21-0 title record, are why I see him amongst the best of rest, rather than up there with Louis and Ali, who he's a country mile behind, imo.

Out of interest, where do you rank Holmes all time, at HW?

 

How does him being older and wanting to break Rockys record excuse him not fighting certain guys?

If it's such a big deal he could dump the belts, announce he is no longer champ and pursue unranked opponents. That way he isn't holding up the division or denying other guys opportunities.

 

What do you mean?

I said that you can criticise him for not having fought a rematch with Witherspoon, but you can understand him for not having done so.

How was he holding the division up?

Whether you agreed with the rankings or the value of his opponents, he was consistently fighting ranked guys.

He beat Witherspoon who I think was no.10.

He fought Bey who was no.3.

He beat Smith who was no.9.

Again, he tried to fight Coetzee.

Dokes was never on the cards. He was with King’s son, and steered in another direction.

Thomas was the omission.

Then he lost to Spinks.

He wasn’t holding up the division at all.

 

In literal terms, they were much better fighters than Valdes though.

 

It depends what the discussion is about. Morality or historical standing.

I'm not interested in the morality discussion, but for whatever ever it's worth, Holmes was self aware enough post Witherspoon to realise he was past prime, may lose to top contenders he'd have beaten during prime and was likely beginning to consider the long term health implications of facing the best contenders. He held on to his title to maximise his earnings. Most fighters would do the same in the same position. Usyk did so up until and including the Verhoeven fight. To his credit, unlike most fighters in his position, he vacated all titles afterwards even though he's considering a final fight, for the reasons you've given.

For the historical standing argument, Usyk's greatness is based entirely on what he did up to and including Dubois 2. Holmes greatness, pre his comeback, is based almost entirely on what he did up to and including Witherspoon. The Verhoeven fight doesn't detract from Usyk's greatness, it just doesn’t add to it in any way shape or form. Holmes post Witherspoon defences don't detract from his greatness, they just don't add to it in a particularly significant way. Uysk's historical standing would benefit from beating Kabayel, just not to a huge degree. Holmes standing would have benefited, for example, by beating Coetzee, just need to a huge degree

 

I would have expected him to fight higher ranked opponents instead of Witherspoon because that's what champions are expected to do.

This really isn't complicated at all. At the time multiple guys were viewed as more deserving and Holmes should have been facing them.

 

Norton was #2 Ring rated.

 

He denied deserving contenders the opportunity to face him post Witherspoon. Id say that's bad for the division as a whole as well as the individual guys he ducked.

I'm sure Thomas would have liked the opportunity to be recognized as the lineal champ which Holmes denied via ducking him.

 

Plenty of guys continue to face the best until they lose or retire so I can't agree there.

Louis was fighting the best right up until he retired. So was Marciano, Lewis, Wlad etc