Best contender that Larry Holmes didn't fight.

Well, Ali had several of those, and while Joe Louis gave rematches to men who gave him a sporting effort, some of them were guys who probably never should have gotten shots to begin with ( Abe Simon being one of them. ) The Witherspoon, Williams and Weaver fights were definately lack luster performances, but then I never believed that Holmes lost those fights either. I can certainly give merit to the argument that Holmes failed to face some of the top flight challengers during the latter half of his reign, but not giving rematches to some of the guys who gave him some problems is a point that is often over used by anti-Holmes critics to really nit pick in my opinion.

 

although there was many, i think I would have to go with Greg Page who had speed a good chin and a very good right hand . When in condition I think he could have upset Holmes. Dokes was fast ,Coetzee had right hand power,Thomas would have been tough and of all the rematches he should have given I would have liked to see Weaver who improved greatly after his loss to Holmes in which he rocked Larry a few times. Tate would have been a big money fight but Weaver would have been bigger after his win over Tate. Larry has to rank #1 for avoiding the best of his day.

 

Erm, Floyd Patterson, Jack Dempsey?

 

Sure he did. He lost to Berbick on the undercard of a big fight. On the other hand, Larry could have squeezed in another bum like Page before the end of the year.

 

Page choked against Berbick in '82 on the "Holmes-Cooney" undercard. However, yes, Page rebounded by kicking ass over Jim Tillis and Renaldo Snipes.....

Larry Holmes didn't understand boxing's politics that well in 1983... You see, Holmes grossed 10 million from his PPV with Gerry "Boy" Cooney in 1982, but was only offered 2.5 million to fight Page in 1983.... Needless to say, Holmes balked with that offer..... What Holmes failed to see was that Cooney had a way bigger fan following that had money pouring into the buckets compared to Greg Page's following..... Greg Page was dangerous; I know Holmes was aware of that... But Holmes wasn't gonna take a risky fight against a so-called # 1 contender for a mere 2.5 million bucks....... Holmes wanted more.........

MR.BILL

 

At the time Page lost to Berbick, he truly wasn't in line for a shot.He had just asked the WBA to drop him from the #2 ranking he had months earlier because he believed he wasn'
t ready for a shot.Basically, what JT said was right on the money.

 

Holmes didn't fight Greg Page when he was mandated to do so. That's the bottom line. No matter how you try to explain it away or spin it, Holmes didn't grant Page a shot when Page was the mandatory. To me that looks bad, especially when you consider who Holmes did fight instead of Page. It wasn't like Holmes fought Thomas or Dokes or even Coetzee instead of Page; Holmes fought guys who were a class below. And I agree that Holmes wasn't the only fighter to do this, but this thread pertains to Larry Holmes and not every other fighter, so we are discussing Larry Holmes as a single unit.

 

The Berbick loss had nothing to do with 1983 when Page earned his mandatory shot by whupping Snipes.

I'd tell you to stick to what you know, but what on earth would that be anway

 

It really is this simple, but shockingly some people still can't understand

Kudo's

:good

 

Douglas had done exactly zero of this when Holmes had already lost his title. There is no overlap at all between Holmes losing his title and Douglas having done anything meaningful.

 

No despite Cus D'amato's protest Patterson did fight a 3rd fight with Ingo and gave Liston a title shot and Floyd fought every top 70's contender at a ripe age and really beat Ellis, Drew with Quarry and beat Bonavena...Dempsey was a different era, he was the first real champion of the million dollar gate and Tex Rickard want to make the most money he could and Dempsey was a draw for the live gate but Jack did fight a tough Marine by the name of Tunney ( not a good fight for him) Jack was also making movies and anything else he could get $$$ for out of his name. He should have fought Wills but that was world politics of the time not boxing politics.

Holmes was the biggest offender of avoiding the best ( PAGE, Dokes,Weaver,Coetzee,Thomas,Tate,Witherspoon,Williams,Norton...Larry did not rematch and he did not unify and money and pulbic interest would have generated nice dollars for any of these fights instead Larry fought guys like Frank,Marvis,Ossie,Lorenzo,Alfredo,Bey,Smith, and a 10-2-2 Leon Spinks who was just KO'd in 1 by Coetzee.

I dont know why only a few can see it. Shavers and Cooney were his big fights and they were shaky, good punchers but both had big weaknesses, Cooney's was not exposed, Shavers was a few times before Holmes and after.

I enjoyed Larry as a fighter and got a kick out of him as a man ( he was a charactor) . I liked him but I would have loved to see him fight just half of the guys I mentioned because they were the best of his time. Even a rematch with Norton because the first fight was great. I was very disa pointed with boxing at that time and lost interest for a while because of the boxing B.S. but that is just my opinion and the way I remember it.

 

Great post! I was too young to be an observer of Holmes' championship reign ( I was just under 11 years-old when Holmes was dethroned by Michael Spinks), but going over the history and studying the boxing world at the time, I could see how a person could lose interest (at least with heavyweight boxing) during the latter parts of Holmes' reign. He simply did not fight (for whatever reasons) the best available contenders. And not just one; there were a whole bunch of good fighters around that, on any given night, could have given Holmes a lot of problems. Holmes reign from 1983 onwards was a joke. Witherspoon and Williams were viewed as easy fights. Just because they turned out to be competitive doesn't mean that Holmes went into those fights seeking and expecting tough fights.........I like Larry Holmes. He was a great fighter, and he seems like a good, well-meaning guy, but the facts are the facts......Lennox Lewis fought more worthy fighters than did Holmes.........

 

That's exactly what happened though. What really helped the sport is when Mike Tyson came along and fought everyone and cleaned up the division. And it sure as hell didn't take long to do it. That's what we hadn't seen the early 70's and it started with Ali handpicking guys on his 2nd title reign & continued for more than a decade. so many good matches out there to be made and we the fans, got drek instead.

The equivalent in recent times would be Wlad Klitschko never facing the likes of a dangerous Sanders/McCline/Byrd/Brewster/etc. Lets take those names off the dossier and put some other names on instead; Don Steele and that big ko record. A comebacking Peter McNeely. Courage Tshabalala. Fres Oquendo. Audley Harrison. Not only is the Klitschko record better, the matchups that don't get made just fade away eventually.

 

I have to agree, one thing I have to say about Mike is that he wanted to fight everyone and did clean up and dominate. It was a breath of fresh air and it renewed my interest in the sport

 

There has never been a bigger offender of ducking first tier challengers than Floyd Patterson. He was taking on the Pete Rademachers, Roy Harris's, and Tom McNeeley's when he should have been fighting men like Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and Sonny Liston ( earlier. ) It wasn't until Liston cleaned out the division FOR Patterson that Floyd had no where left to run, and hence was forced to face Liston. Also, if you're going to credit Patterson for work that he did when he was past prime in his 30's, then I shouldn't need to remind you of the obvious need to do the same in Holmes' case.

You use politics as a tool for letting Dempsey off the hook, but not in Holmes case? Harry Wills was the concencus best contender in the world for the better part of a full decade, while Greg Page was a top rater for perhaps a year. Holmes also never sat on the title for a FULL THREE YEARS the way that Dempsey did. ****, even fighting guys like Lucien Rodriguez, Marvis Franzier and Tex Cobb is better than fighting zilch.

Again, Holmes not fighting 2 or 3 worthy challengers who were only top raters for maybe a little more than a year, and at the very end of his reign, was nothing in the same context as Dempsey holding the title captive and not fighting Wills, or Patterson dodging an entire generation of top contenders during his prime. Common sense could remedy most of this debate.

Jess Willard and Louis Firpo were some of Dempsey's best opponents while an ancient Archie Moore and Ingo Johansen were Patterson's. I don't think the comp was much better in either direction you take, but its sure obvious which two of the three men avoided the best of their eras.