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

I think we can put as much on there not being a Holmes-Weaver II on Mike as you can on Larry.

Weaver won his WBA bauble in March 1980 against John Tate. At that moment, there is no hue and cry for a rematch with Holmes. They fought just nine months before and Holmes won by KO.

Larry was moving toward a fight with the biggest name in the sport, a comebacking Ali. That dwarfed a Holmes-Weaver rematch (which literally no one at the time was clamoring for) in both interest/draw and significance. In fact, Ring magazine had recently had a cover story on the ‘fights we want to see’ and Holmes-Ali was their choice at heavyweight.

We know how ill-fated that one was, but through the lens of that time when the match was made, it was the man who had given up the title (and not lost it in the ring) against the guy who had beaten Ken Norton … who hadn’t actually won it in the ring (he beat Jimmy Young in an eliminator that was retroactively made a title fight when Leon Spinks chose to give Ali a rematch). This would settle the lineage and determine if Ali was ‘still champ’ or would pass the baton.

In fact, if Larry had turned down Ali, there’s every chance that Weaver would have given Muhammad a shot instead. He would have certainly taken that over a Holmes rematch.

(Keep in mind also that Mike was a Bob Arum fighter by virtue of beating Tate and signing rights to promote his first defenses, while Larry was a Don King fighter, and neither King nor Arum was going to risk giving up the rights to promote the only heavyweight champ if they unified unless there was a ****-ton of money to be made … enough to satisfy both promoters and fill their coffers, as Leonard-Duran I did. And Holmes-Weaver absolutely wasn’t going to be big box office … Weaver was still barely known and Holmes was still establishing himself as champ in the long shadow of Ali.)

So Larry is fighting Ali and Weaver takes the money to go to South Africa to beat Gerrie Coetzee. That happens October 1980 (same month as Holmes-Ali.)

What happens after that? Weaver sits out an entire year as he has now signed for a BIG money showdown with the most marketable name out there, Gerry Cooney. But the courts get involved because James Tillis is due next shot at Weaver for (I am not making this up) beating Argentina champ Domingo D’Elia (because the WBA is corrupt). So by the time all that is settled and Weaver is done with a nobody-cares win over Tillis … now it’s Larry vs Cooney, which is worth a dozen Weaver fights.

Then, for reasons I cannot recall at the moment, Mike sits out 14 months before the Dokes loss. By that time, King had probably made his WBC cronies enforce the Dokes mandatory (since Weaver didn’t make a non-mandatory defense in a full year after Tillis).

So all that being said, I think it’s Weaver’s circumstance more than Larry’s that roadblocked a unification (not that there was a lot of people demanding one).

 

Funny thing is that Tate absolutely dominated Weaver before he was kod in like last 20 seconds of final round. Meanwhile Holmes had very competitive hard fought 12th round ko against Weaver.

i think had Tate not taken that shot from Weaver i think Holmes would have been underdog going into that match.

Also maybe Ali would have chosen to fight Tate instead of Holmes.

Incredible what one punch can do!

 

Yes, after Holmes, since Ali was still champion, That's why I wrote 'Holmes nr 1' but should perhaps have said 'the nr 1 guy after Holmes himself'.

 

Strange if Coooney was seen as the most dangerous after feasting on has beens. His record was quite Itauma like. Weaver was ranked ahead of him.

I usually have Holmes at nr 3. As you, I think he's closer to the guys behind him than to Ali and Louis. If he had beaten all these guys we're talking about, I think he might have belonged there up with Ali and Louis.

 

Ah ok, i follow mate.

 

Cooney was built up as the great white hope. He was white, had a story, and was knocking people out. The average punter only recognised the names (Lyle, Norton, Young) and had little idea they were shot or well past their best. He was hyped way up. Cooney was rated #3 in the world i believe, behind Holmes and Weaver.

 

Whether i think he avoided him or not, he didn't fight him and it was another long term top 5 contender missed. The champ can fight whoever he wants as Zad said, if he wanted Dokes he'd have got Dokes.

But he did. Page was his mandatory and he refused, dropped the title, etc. He openly stated on more than one occasion Thomas was never getting a shot. Those two, for starters, were frozen out. It's not even debatable, it's factual.

Well I'm glad you brought him up.

Usyk has fought -

Anthony Joshua (contender number 1)
Anthony Joshua (number 2)
Tyson Fury (champion)
Tyson Fury (best available opponent)
Daniel Dubois (best available opponent)

So in a 5 fight run he has fought the top heavyweight in the world, which Holmes never did. Granted he went to top after winning the title but he didn't defeat #1 for the crown.

Holmes never beat the best available contender or #1 contender in his entire reign, Usyk has done it 3 times on top of beating the champ. That's extraordinary in such a short run and Rocky Marciano is the only one that can remotely compare. Whilst he doesn't fight often (common nowqadays, obviously) he's sure as hell making up for it by taking on the elite of the division.

He missed at least three and maybe more if possible rematches are taken into account. Another 3 or so top shelf fighters would have really rounded him out. The stats above vs Usyk do however put his top end record into perspective.

 

Can't agree with what, exactly?

I've said fighting poor opposition when past prime doesn't detract from a fighter's greatness, it just doesn't add to it. Is that the premise you can't agree with?

 

Not at all. You had the facts wrong and stated something that was blatantly incorrect. We ll make mistakes. It's ok to own them.

Because i stand by what i have said.

Most people knowing the thread will be able to interpret what i am saying.

I literally said "except Bey" in my first post. I literally stated Bey was #3 in my first proper reply to you. How many times would i need to say Bey was top 5 rated for you not to insinuate i lied or omitted him on purpose? I commented on him being top 5 in other posts as well.

Well we certainly agree they weren't.

Now i don't expect anyone not named Marciano or Bey to fight top fighter after top fighter after top fighter. I do expect a few mixed in with the lesser lights however. Holmes did not do this post Cooney, but more particularly lets go with post Witherspoon as this was when Holmes realized he was in decline and told the world he'd be taking the easy road. This is factual.

Obviously prior to that Holmes had an excellent reign going.

The point here is that these morals he used as reasons he would never fight Thomas (and coetzee by design) but they were dropped later when it suited. There's a message in that.

It would depend exactly what Witherspoon did. No-one knows what he may or may not have done and you certainly don't know people would be saying he ducked him. It's irrelevant however as in reality the main chat is post Witherspoon.

Already addressed above, i most assuredly stated Bey was top 5. For 5 minutes.

Resume wise he fought the best, that's the point. He had no ranking fluff in his record.

Yes, just because guys like Marciano and Louis rematched their hardest challengers and put them in their place doesn't mean Larry had to.

Did you follow boxing then? It happened all the time. Fighters get injured, they get waylaid with court cases etc.

I am lost for words that you are somehow trying to compare Weaver fighting Tate (#2 in the world, had beaten Gerrie Coetzee on his home turf) for the WBA championship of the world is somehow akin to Holmes fighting 14 fight David Bey.

It's truly bizarre.

I have said his "reign" post Witherspoon or whatever was diobolical. I never once said Bey on his own was "diobolical" did i? But yes i described his choices as lacking a pulse post Witherspoon or whatever it was. Most people would understand what i meant one would hope.

Where was the rule one must fight more than once in two years to retain a high ranking? How many times do you have to fight exactly in two years to retain said ranking? Even more complicated, what rankings of foe are needed as well not to lose places?

It's not a thing.

Most rate him very highly, but his top end is bare to be fair. But beating Tate and Coetzee, holding Dokes to a disputed draw, he's a top 3 or 4 win in Holmes first career.

Rocky rematched 2 title opponents.

Swapping opponents is opinion and not overly important to resume. What is important is beating high rated guys, to ste the obvious.

Again, Bey was acknowledged and one single fleeting top 5 guy does not make a summer.

That's a strawman. Where did i say you haven't criticised him???????

It's all good, no stress mate, no drama. The threads been in good spirits and plenty of good stuff every which way has come out of it. At this point we are obviously going around in cirlces and more circles.

A beer would be no trouble and no doubt the phones would be out with all sorts of stats and **** lol.

 

I've just checked using AI, Shavers and Cooney were broadly joint the most favoured by fight time, in the betting market, of all Holmes defences.

Of course, no odds exist for those defences he didn't make, but I can't think of anyone he missed, at least during his prime, whose odds would have been as short as Coomey's were.

 

Yeah a great many were picking Cooney including guys you'd think would have been wiser.

Holmes was 8-5 fave for Page when it loomed. The odds were in the mags. Thomas would have been shorter later on, it would have been somewhere around evens or one a very very mild fave i reckon.

 

That's a top post.

 

Was that early 85 after Page had beaten Coetzee?

Would you agree Holmes didn't miss anyone during his prime (lets say up to the Witherspoon defence) who'd have been shorter odds than Cooney come fight time? I agree that Thomas likely would have been come 85, Larry had clearly slipped significantly by that point.

 

Cheers, JT.

 

No, it was right after Page beat Snipes on the same card as Holmes - Witherspoon and Weaver - Dokes (Crown Affair). Page - Snipes was an eliminator to get a shot as Holmes mandatory title defense. Holmes had actually signed for the fight but kept wanting more time etc then eventually said no and gave up the title.

You would be correct, no-one would be shorter odds than Cooney. Holmes was still prime around then. Thomas would have been better than 8-5. Evens would have been somewhere around the money.

Ali closed to around 8-5 but that was a lot of Ali stigma. Holmes - Cooney shortened to 7-5 i believe. Shavers was 7-2 i reckon so Ali was shorter than Shavers.