Larry Holmes opposition

That was essentially my point in my first response Bill...

This topic has been beat to ****....

That, and its also Friday night.... I'm married to a pregnant wife.... What's YOUR excuse....

 

Some topics really seem to stir people up, geesh.....

It would have to be Michael Spinks. Holmes fougt some good fighters, but his reign was not spectacular. From 1983 onwards, Holmes' reign was pretty weak. I'm a fan of Larry Holmes' talent and skill as a boxer, but I can still question many of the opponents that he chose to fight. Witherspoon and Williams were viewed as minor threats before they challenged Holmes. They were good but green and inexperienced.

 

I agree w Magoo ..

 

Michael Spinks should not even be in this thread. Holmes was the very first heavyweight he ever fought, let alone beat.

Coming in Cooney was probably the best of a flat bunch. He'd beaten a few has beens but who in Holmes defenses had done better? Many experts picked Cooney over Holmes (a ridiculous amount truth be told) where as Spinks was about 5-1 or worse even tho he faced a far more worn Holmes than Cooney did.

 

Bummy, Spinks had never even had a heavyweight fight and was ridiculed by most as a challenger. No light heavy champ had ever won the big one. No way on mother earth was Spinks the best credentialed Holmes ever faced. He was seen as Holmes taking easy street to 50-0 and many said who was next, Hagler?

A lot of boxing experts, well the majority in a lot of polls picked Holmes, many via early KO. It wasn't just the non boxing brigade.

Wins over heavyweights, well even one heavyweight has to be essential. It's a HUGE jump from 175 to the big time. I agree Cooney had many suss wins but the prominent point here (and the one i believe you are aiming toward) is that Holmes didn't fight many hot fighters at all. Cooney might be the best of a very ordinary bunch.

Again, IMO Spinks should not even be mentioned.

 

Holmes, like Marciano before him, will always be criticized for fighting men in an era that was considered weak. Marciano's opposition was against men older than himself, while Holmes era seemed to lack depth. However, both Marciano and Holmes did something very few people who held the title managed to do, and that was to defeat everyone from the bottom to the top and maintained unprecedented undefeated streaks. Marciano ended up 49-0-0, Holmes was 48-0-0 with 20 title defenses before losing to Spinks. You can knock Holmes for not unifying the WBC/WBA titles against Coetzee and Page, but is there really any doubt that Holmes was THE man of the division?

Holmes can't be held back because he defeated an older Norton, a washed up Ali, limited trial horses like Tex Cobb and Scott LeDoux, white hopes like Scott Frank and Gerry Cooney, wind sucking power punchers like Earnie Shavers, etc. He did what a champion is supposed to do: REMAIN CHAMPION UNTIL YOU'RE TOO OLD TO DO IT ANY MORE.

His comeback in the 1990's showed how good he truly was, when the 90's is considered by many to be 2nd to the 1970's HW division. Had Holmes been in his 'prime' its safe to say that Holmes would have bested Holyfield, McCall and others.

 

Well, I've been a 'Holmes' jock-sniffer since '78.........:yep:scaredas:

MR.BILL

 

I agree with Bummy.

Williams, Bey, Smith, and Witherspoon were all green at the time they fought Larry. Holmes did what Vlad does now, trying to get future threats out of the way before they become too dangerous.

Weaver was considered a journeyman...Holmes took flak for fighting him. That fight made Weaver....but he got no rematch.

Cooney is an enigma. People are still enamored of his potential, not of what he really was. Cooney, if he'd fought once in awhile, was probably on the road to Shavers-dom, being a highly dangerous but highly vulnerable dude.

The Zanons, LeDouxs etc we already know about....unworthy challengers for a quick buck.

As far as title defenses go, Shavers was the most dangerous and had the best resume. Even then, we all knew he was old, tired, and had already lost to Larry.

Spinks was expected to be easy, but wasn't.

I agree with Bummy that Larry's defenses were not high quality. In terms of talent though, Holmes was great.

 

Where was Duane Bobick in all of this ?I think Bobick -Holmes would have been great and also a great opportunity for him to avenge his loss to Bobick in the 72 Trials.