Why Didn't Larry Holmes Ever Unify The Title?

Bob Dylan - Mallard of a Thin Man (Mr Holmes)

 

i agree 100%.the black hercules gave holmes a decent fight too but was ultimately outclassed

 

It was a big thing for the boxing purest back then but so was this split title corruption. The WBA, WBC formed outside the USA where controlled by American organizations detached from American Law. It is not a revisionist concept this is something that has been forgiven by the modern fan who was too young to remember the split title morphing.

Holmes should not be singled out but Larry had some Don King fixings from the beginning when his opponent in the tournament (Tom Prator) got a ranking paid for by Don King to John Ort of ring (this is a fact) Larry could have fought some of the other split title Champs and gave up a title not to fight Greg Page.

For Coeztee there was a bit of an issue because he was a right hand puncher but Larry used the racial card and South African policy (as if that had something to do with Coetzee) Nevertheless None of the champions held on to the title too long and Larry had the longevity but he could have done a Calzage and made money fightng the split title unification fights.

It would be like Joe Frazier never fighting Jimmy Ellis but those titles were dived by location. There was Pinklon Thomas and Dokes and Tate and a natural fight vs Weaver but Larry enjoyed fighting under the rules of his ORG. which naturally did not promote unification as long as they received there fees. We all know a lot of the promoters had a hand in the development of these organizations WBC, WBA,IBF,ETC.

I think Larry could have taken the high road and fought the best out there, instead of fighting the likes of Ossie Ocasio 13 fight guy or 10-2-2 Leon Spinks(who was already destroyed by Coetzee in 1 rd. or a 10 fight Marvis Frazier or an already beaten by Ali Evangelista or Zannon or Leroy Jones or Scott Frank or David Bey. A lot of Larrys opponents had less than 15 fights. I hate to sound like a unforgiven but I hated the split title corruption and change of the sport back in the day and the dirtiness behind it. I guess of the younger fans today do not know the difference but it troubled me back then and Mike Tyson was a breath of fresh air because he fought the best and went after split titles.

Don King has always been a behind the scenes villian, Arum a lawyer who knows the law utilizes there orgs also. Even now King with his limited control just screwed up the Vital/Valuev fight.

I don't just blame Larry but he did not take the high road and used the ORG law to hide behind. I could not imagine Joe Louis,Ali,Marciano etc. having someone else claim a crown and not go after them.

It was a weird time, remember Larry Holmes was not a household name and the politics of the sport was too hard for people to understand. Actually it was easy to understand, fight under this flag, use there rules and fight under there ratings....Notice you will never see another ORGs champ in those ratings despite there ability

 

Good one:good yeh it was the Don & Bob show back then what with King having the WBC as his vassel & Arum the WBA. Todays generation obviously don't realise that the champs/contenders back then had to be "working" fighters, no big HBO cheques for these guys, it was gate $$$$ & Closed Circuit with marketing without the benifit of modern technology, no P.C's/mobiles/fax's ect.

There's this fav expression used today called "Padding" total nonsence in the main, these guys fought for pay & to quate larry it was chump change, but what with King having everyone stitched up tight they had to accept any $$$$ morsal that was offered or end up in the wilderness.

It was Bob Lee jumping ship from the WBA (not sure) & formed the IBF that gave Larry his chance to free himself from King/WBC by accepting the title offered.

But the only chance of any unification fights ever happening came down to Howard Smith & his MAPS set up when he'd got his fingers into the Wells Fargo till big time so as to finance the biggest ever unification series & wiping out King & Arum at a stroke. he nearly pulled it off!!!! Got arrested just a couple of months before it was due to go as he had every signiture from every WBA/WBC champ & was going to put on a 2 day extravaganza at MSG & Caesars in Vegas.

Yeh that was the case back then that you never saw any WBC fighter rated in the WBA & vice versa, total carve up. No one really ducked anyone, i hate all this modern day bull****, these guys fought for pay & any pay at that, no one was pampered back then, fight too eat or starve & keep the day job to hand.

Larry took the Marvis fight as he was offered $1 Million so he took it, but the WBC refused to sanction it as if he cared.

 

Most titles had been split by the early 1970s, so this wasn't really something new by the time Holmes came along. Even a heavyweight title divide was not a complete novelty, although it had held together for eight years since Frazier unified it in 1970.

Most did not support apartheid, and considered South Africa an outlaw nation. Kallie Knoetze was actually an armed police instrument of that state, who had gunned down a youth in the service of his government. The WBC did not recognize South Africa, nor did the IOC. (Neither did the WBC ever rank Rahway inmate James Scott.) Some television stations in the United States refused to cover matches involving South African fighters, and those which covered Knoetze-Sharkey, Tate-Knoetze, Tate-Coetzee, Weaver-Tate, Coetzee-Dokes and Page-Coetzee, took tremendous heat for airing them. (In each case, whispers of "Uncle Tom!," dogged the American participants in those events, to the detriment of their public acceptance.)

If the WBA had joined with the WBC in disqualifying South Africa as a member nation, the heavyweight split may have been brief. (The WBA eventually did withdraw their ranking of Scott, so they could have pulled their sanctioning of South Africa. Don King is scum, but money does talk louder than questions of right and wrong sometimes.)

Coetzee did denounce apartheid, but immediately qualified that with the declaration, "But I am too young to discuss politics." Again, it bears repeating that domestic rival Knoetze had physically enforced those policies.

Larry was seen as a hero by many for his antipathy towards South Africa at the time, and the anti apartheid press was supportive of him, while resenting him at the same time for not being Ali.

Today, we live in a post apartheid world, so it's easy to insist that Holmes should have taken on Coetzee and those who stepped in the ring with Coetzee before taking on Larry, but back then, you easily could have found yourself branded as a racist WBA supporter of apartheid for suggesting such a thing.

Ali was coy about resigning his WBA championship in the months after regaining it from Spinks. If he had any idea it would have eventually been used to showcase apartheid South Africa the way it was after he relinquished it, I suspect he might have attempted to extend his reign against Mike Rossman, following Rossman's upset of Galindez. (As it was, Muhammad sat on it for a year before giving it up. Rossman had lost his title back to Galindez by then, while Leon got starched by Coetzee too late for Ali to attempt resuming his reign.) In early 1979, Ali-Rossman would have been both highly promotable and winnable for Muhammad. Rossman was an instant media darling, so this was clearly the way to go if Ali chose to make one last defense.

Yes, but an undefeated 13 fight guy who had just decisioned Jimmy Young twice over 10 rounds. I don't recall anybody begrudging Jaws that shot after those back to back wins.

But unlike his first shot, Leon earned this chance off of an impressive ninth round stoppage of a streaking hot Mercado in a title eliminator, and he did prove himself over the 15 round distance when he beat Ali. Many in the press were predicting that Leon would spring an upset. Holmes was criticized before the fact for defending against Weaver (although Mike was then USBA champion, so I felt it was a reasonable defense) and Frank, and Snipes fielded accusations in press conferences that he was not a worthy challenger, but Jaws and Leon have only been questioned in retrospect, not when they were coming off those wins over Young and Mercado.

Marvis was coming off of two impressive televised wins, avenging an amateur loss to Broad, and decisioning a resurgent Bugner (who had recently demolished Denis with a single deadly right in what may have been the most aggressive and devastating performance of his career). Like Mancini, it was a good story guaranteeing a solid payday and interested viewership.

Evangelista was universally rejected as a qualified challenger for Ali. Since then though, he had remained busy, captured the EBU title, and defended it over the 15 round distance. He had never been knocked out. As with Leon, he had made himself into a far more worthy challenger for Holmes than Ali.

Not a strong challenger, but he had lifted that EBU crown from Evangelista, and defended it successfully a few times. What Larry held was supposed to be a world championship, not merely an American title, so his defenses against established veteran EBU titleholders Evangelista, Zanon and Rodriguez were appropriate as I saw it.

Undefeated successor to Foreman's NABF title. Not a strong challenger, but skilled and competent. He won that NABF crown by decisioning Weaver over 12 rounds. The night he challenged Holmes, Weaver upset Tate. Mike earned that shot by shutting out LeDoux in defending his USBA title on Scott's turf. Thus, Leroy's defeat of Weaver further validated his credibility as a qualified if over matched challenger.

Undefeated, and the smartest of Larry's defeated challengers. Not one of the top heavyweights Holmes is criticized for never fighting had the brains or know how to pick up the goddamned telephone and dial his number to issue a challenge. Thus, they were all too stupid to deserve a shot at Holmes. When Scott dethroned Wepner for the New Jersey State Title, he also inherited Chuck's balls.

Undefeated USBA Champion. Made his professional debut by knocking out 5-0-0 Buster Douglas in two, picked up a hell of a lot of experience in decisioning skilled and crafty 57 fight veteran Leroy Caldwell over ten, then got his shot at Holmes by defeating Page via a 12 round UD, the very man Larry is most criticized for never having fought .

I hated apartheid, and Tyson was fortunate to come along at a time when that abomination was no longer such a political obstacle to unifying the championships of the various sanctioning bodies

Bummy, you're being too kind here. King and Arum are roadkill material.

Apartheid may have been a bull**** excuse for Holmes not to give his blessing to WBA policies regarding South Africa on grounds of morality, but if that's true, it was a publicly savvy move on his part to bolster support for his claim. In the case of Ali, somebody else did claim his crown in 1978 (Norton), and Muhammad did not go after him.

That Tyson came along when apartheid was no longer such a major issue certainly made it far easier for him to consolidate all claims without suffering public controversy and condemnation in his own country.

Larry was famous enough to secure a nationally televised commercial endorsement for KFC that ran for years. This level of mainstream cultural recognition was unusual for a boxing champion even during the early 1980s. Foreman endorsed Meinike, Ali endorsed d-Con Roach Traps, and Larry endorsed Kentucky Fried Chicken. Holmes was absolutely a household name in the United States. (It should also be remembered that Larry's match with Ali was shown in the USSR and People's Republic of China, instantly and automatically making Holmes infinitely more famous worldwide than the Beatles ever became (by a margin of well over a billion people who never even knew the Beatles existed until a tiny news blurb about the shooting of Lennon merited passing mention in the state controlled media).

And don't be seen as supporting apartheid in any way if you are a boxer of African heritage.

Regarding Dokes, he and Larry were good friends, as well as Don King fighters. Holmes versus Dokes was never more likely to happen than Frazier and Norton, and it was never discussed. In any event, I never read any suggestion that Dokes could win such a match, but again, there wasn't the slightest hint of a rivalry between the two.

 

Sad but true :good:good

 

Do the people who hold Holmes's refusal to fight Coetzee in South Africa also hold Ali's refusal to go on as champion in the 1960s against him? Had Ali backed down and went into the army (and made a few public statements in support of the Vietnam war), he could have been fighting for the title again within a year. All Ali had to do was condone the Vietnam war and go along with the draft. Instead, he chose not to go on defending his title.

Why is one a courageous stance and the other a "duck"?

 

I just posted a long post and I don't really have time to respond but a few quick points. I disagree with you assessment of the quality of Holmes challengers there were better men to fight.

I liked the way you said David Bey beat 57 fight Leroy Cadwell, but remember Cadwell's record was 27-27-5 ...nevertheless Bey went on to win 4 of his next 17 fights after Holmes.

I can go on with all of the opponents but the point is there were better fighters to fight

As far as Coetzee, I have a difference of opinion on that. I mean should Joe Louis not have fought Max Schmeling because he was from a Nazi country.

As far as South Africa and what was going on at that time you can disagree with the country but why punish the sportsman. There were many of Black ruled regions of Africa that murdered Millions of innocent blacks, would we refuse to fight a Black fighter from that region because of his dictator.

The question that was asked was should Holmes should have unified. I gave an answer about the politics of the time. It may have started with Ali but Ali was in no position to unify at that stage of his career.

I give great credit to the fighters that unify and do not want to share a title sometimes it is not easy. I think Holmes had a chance against Page, Dokes, Coetzee,Weaver,Tate,Thomas to unify but he did not not fight any of them. None of them may have stayed on top for a long time but these fighter were better than any of Holmes opponents and Weaver grew from the Holmes fight,yet Holmes did not look for a rematch, Weaver did.

Do you think Thomas, Weaver, Tate, Coetzee, Page, Dokes, were better than Holmes best 2 opponents Shavers and Cooney. Those are 6 fighters that held titles in Larry's era

 

Coetzee and Holmes signed to fight each other, and it was Coetzee - NOT Holmes who withdrew.... How many times does this need to be repeated? As for Michael Dokes, he was being managed by Carl King and largely protected with the intent in mind that he might one day be Holmes' successor.. The fight was never going to happen, and it had nothing to do with either of them ducking the other.... There may be some valid criticisms for Holmes never signing to fight Pinklon Thomas or Greg Page, but I doubt that it was ENTIRELY all Holmes doing that led to those fights never materializing, and frankly I'm not even so sure that they were much better than some of the men Holmes WAS fighting at the time... James Smith, David Bey, Tim Witherspoon, Carl Williams and even a 10 fight Frazier weren't too far off the mark, especially considering that two of them beat Page, while Trevor Berbick would eventually beat Thomas.... Of course, I am awarding Holmes the benefit of hindsite in some of these occurrences, but at the end of the day, this was not anything like Bowe ducking Lewis or Dempsey ducking Wills..

As Legion already put it, the promotors make the fights, not the fighters... Boxing is a business and its complications go way beyond two guys getting in each other's faces and saying " I'll throw down with you any day of the week Mother f--cker.." That might be how its done in the movies but not in a multi-billion dollar industry where gangsters and politicians have their hands in the pot, and the fighters are at the bottom of the food chain.. If it were that easy, Wlad would have mopped the floor with Valuev for the WBA title about 3 years ago, and then signed to fight his own brother....

 

POLITRICKS! Plus, he already beat Weaver in '79......... Weaver had legal battles with his team and the WBA and was in court in the early 80s........ Holmes and company said: "**** That Noise."

Later in 1984, Holmes was set to fight Coetzee..... Holmes was willing...... Coetzee and company later found a way to weasle out of that BIG-ASS fight set for Vegas, and went ahead with the losing Greg Page down in South Africa instead.......... Guess What? Page looked like a solid pro in hammering the slower, plodding Gerrie Coetzee to take the title........

LARRY HOLMES IS GREAT! He was champ of the WBC and IBF during a period from 1978 to 1985..... 20 title defenses......... That is good enough for me......... HOLMES!!

MR.BILLdeal:hat:bbb

 

I'll drink to that..:cheers

There is virtually no title reign in history that we can truly deem as being perfect, and there were plenty that were a lot worse than that of Larry Holmes. In an ideal world, I would have liked to have seen him retire at 50-0 with every plastic manufactured piece of crap strapped around his waste, over his shoulders and hanging from his wrists, but at the end of the day, he was the best of his era regardless of such things never happening..

 

He also has the distinction of losing his last 5 title fights.

 

I think Don King was the key obstacle.

MY memory is that there wasn't a lot of demand for unification until after the Cooney fight. Nobody took Tate very seriously and Holmes had beaten Weaver.

In his last years as champ Holmes focused on reaking Marciano's 49-0 as the key to his legacy instead of unification.

 

What I find ironic is all these people make exuses for why Larry was unable to unify one, just one belt in his 7 year reign...yet tyson wins the WBC belt in 86, and in just one year unifies all 3 belts on top of a linear HW belt unification. Too me, those facts make tyson look pretty dam good, and leave holmes with question marks.



One other thing. Larry Holmes never gave rematches in close fights. One thing Louis, Marciano, Ali prided themselves in was giving rematches in close fights and proving themselves superior the next go round. Spoon, Williams, weaver, Norton all took holmes to the brink of death..some of which were highly controversial decisions...and when the press asked about a rematch, Larry ran for the high hills. It's a travesty a more experience Tim Witherspoon was never given a rematch against Larry. Not to mention poor Pinky Thomas who sat on a # 1 rating and undefeated record for years waiting for larry to give him his shot..or greg page winning his WBC mandatory and holmes throwing the belt in the trash so he wouldn't have to fight him. I feel that if holmes had rematch spoon and beaten thomas, page, and either dokes/tubbs...I could make a case for him being a top 1-2 heavyweight of all time. Now as it stands, I have a hard time fitting him into my top 5.