What #1, #2, or #3 Contender did Holmes fight

Bill1234,

Like you said,,,,,,,,,Money,,,,,,,,,,,,'It's Smart Business'

Larry pulled in a cool $1,400,000 in his defense versus #6 Alfredo Evangilista (who got $250,000).
Larry pulled in another fine pay-day versus #4 Ossie Ocasio $1,500,000.

A smart manager, 'make the most money with the least amount of risk'

WBC Rankings of Title Defenses;
11/78,,,,#6 Alfredo Evangilista ($250,000)
3/79,,,,,,#4 Ossie Ocasio (13-0-0 record) (10-1 underdog) ($250,000 fight purse)

 

Who did he avoid? I know they weren't all that great, but Dokes, Page, Coetzee, Thomas, and Tubbs were all WAY better than the guys he fought. And Weaver, Williams, and Witherspoon all deserved rematches, WAY more than these other guys deserved shots. I like Larry, love his talent, but he was not a very responsible champion.

 

I don't thinkyou can knock Larry.
His hands were tied in several promotions.

After beating Kenny Norton in June 1978,
he was entitled to an easy non-mandatory title fight.

Unfortunately the Top 10 was very weak.
#9 Stan 'Avalanche' Ward was in-line for the next title shot as a non-mandatory, but he got upset by un-ranked Randy Stephens.

Another forgotten heavyweight, Bill Sharkey was #10 ranked in May 1978, but blew it big-time, by getting
upset by one Greg Sorrentino, and then Drawing with Scott Ledoux in September 1978.
He was the fighter everyone wanted as a 'First Defense'.

Why the networks approved of #6 Alfredo Evangilista over #9 Duane Bobick, makes no
sense.

 

Sure, politics and money were always factors, but I recall Larry very candidly saying on several occasions that he wanted the easiest fight for the most money. Understandable from his point of view, but as a fan, it sucks. I'm not a fight fan for the sake of watching smart business being conducted! I want competition!

But you know, the sanctioning bodies and their ridiculous ratings, are a big part of the problem too. They put these journeymen in the top 10, usually for political reasons, and then champs take the easy way out and defend against them. I kind of have a soft spot for Evangelista (he had some soft spots too, such as his belly and chin), and he was European champ, but he, along with so many others, didn't deserve a title fight and was basically a human sacrfice to the champ. Holmes was like King Kong, just accepting these sacrifices to him.

 

Vince 'Double V' Voltage,

You don't know how close we came to seeing Billy Aird (British Heavyweight)
get a WBC Title Shot, if he only beat Alfredo Evangilista in March 1978.

Of course, as a Champion, the general rule was, you have to face a #1 Contender
within 12-months. You can have as many non-mandatory title defenses as you want.

$1,400,000 for Evangilista
$1,500,000 for Ocassio

Not a bad 'gig' if you can get it.

 

There was a longer window of opportunity to make certain fights..Tate after his KO wins over Bernardo Mercado, Duane Bobick then Kallie Knoetzee then Gerrie Coetzee

Weaver was supposed to be an easy fight 19-8 but Weaver improved after having Larry hurt several times in the fight from gained confidence, he felt he could have beaten Holmes if prepared. Weaver picked up a title with an impressive KO win over Tate in the 15th, showing improved conditioning and power and confidence, then went on to beat the avoided Coetzee who KO'd Leon Spinks in 1 rd and a rematch would have been a natural...Holmes fought Leon Spinks after a win over Bernard Mercado, instead of Tate,Coetzee,Weaver or Page


Holmes gave up the title to fight Page, who was hot and cold with talent, decent power but conditioning was his weakness.

Coetzee could have been a good money fight and there was a window of opportunity for that fight

Pinklon Thomas, that would have been a good money fight but too much risk for Holmes

Also Dokes was a champ but King controlled him also

With all of the split tiles it was easy to be rated by one of the organizations WBA, IBF,WBC, etc....and It was proven King bribed Ring magazine, so you really could not go by ratings because they were corrupt and there was a few Champs....common sense would have been to unify
I think Holmes had talent but I can not let the revisionist allow me to forget that the best did not fight the best in his era and had there been one solid set of ratings many of Holmes opponents would not be rated.
One of the things King and John Ort were accused of was fixing the ratings for a Holmes opponent TOM PRATOR TO make Holme s win look good.

 

With the WBA and the South African Connection (aparthied issue).

Kallie Knoetzee and Gerrie Coetzee were not in the WBC rankings.

And lets not forget Muhammad Ali and Leon Spinks, their dual-bout 'farce'.

 

I'm not sure why you continue to hold it against Larry for not fighting Coetzee, when I have proven more than once that he signed to fight him, but the fight was called off (not by Larry or Gerrie) a month before fight night. They were supposed to fight in June, 1984, but the fight was called off in May.

The posters were made and everything for the fight.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

A unification bout could have been done with John Tate.

Maybe throw in Tommy Franco Thomas too.

 

WBC Rankings versus Larry Holmes in order;

#30 Fred Askew
#21 Roy Williams
#16 Tom Prater
--- Horace Robinson
#19 Fred Houpe
#10 Ibar Arrington
#2 Earnie Shavers
** Ken Norton
#6 Alfredo Evangilista
#4 Ossie Ocasio
#8 Mike Weaver
#1 Earnie Shavers
#5 Lorenzo Zanon
#2 Leroy Jones
#8 Scott LeDoux
** Muhammad Ali (Was not ranked by the WBC, but given a special Champion ranking)
#5 Trevor Berbick
#3 Leon Spinks
#7 Renaldo Snipes
#1 Gerry Cooney
#5 Randall Cobb (At this time Michael Dokes was the #1 WBC Challenger)
#11 Lucien Rodriguez
#3 Tim Witherspoon
#10 Scott Frank
#18 Marvis Frazier (Not sanctioned by the WBC, 10-Round Non-Title Fight)
#11 James Smith (IBF Ranking)
#2 David Bey (IBF Ranking)

 

In earlier eras a promoter would have one world heavyweight champion to promote who might fight 3 times a year yeilding a maximum 3 title fight promotions, but king had a couple of world heavyweight champions to promote all at the same time. His atitude was "why kill the golden goose and have a unification? I will be left with ONLY one HW champion and stage half as many title fights?

The dilution of the title was damaging to the sports popularity but very good business for tv, promoters and to an extent the boxers. A lot of fighters who were nothing more than top 5 contenders got to call themselves "champ" and earn a championship purse before losing to the next guy when in another era they would have faced each other just to stay in the ratings for a lot less cash.

With hindsight we can look back and say holmes was the true linear champ who kept stringing defences together when the other belt holders never could. when it was all over holmes beat a lot of them or the guys who beat the guys. but at the time it was a confusing mess.

I have come to terms with it. like a deck of cards, Holmes was the real king and the others were jacks trying to climb over each other within te same suit. Top contenders who had a belt without being the champion. I look upon the sitation as if in the late 1950s zora foley and eddie machen fought for a vacent belt whilst floyd patterson was on tour against london, radmacher and harris. Neither was realy beter than the other or quite as good as the champion. machen would go on to lose to patterson anyway and all would lose (as they did) to liston.

The "lost generation beltholders" did not effect the real title because they were in effect solid contenders like there always has been in any other era who were all the same kind of level and just behind the real champ. They just had a belt to share that was the equivelent of being a #2 contender.

 

Each of these three were the reigning European Champion when they challenged Holmes. As this was supposed be be a world championship, I don't have an issue with these defenses, anymore than I did with Mildenberger, Bugner and Dunn challenging Ali. For a dominant and active long term heavyweight champion, defenses against reigning European title holders goes with the territory.

 

First off Weaver did not get better post Holmes. He was in great shape to fight the night he fought Holmes. He had his first extensive training camp. He was fully prepared and ready to fight. Holmes happened to be sick with the flu and still managed to knock Weaver out on his worst pre-Cooney night.

So you are saying you feel either Page, Dokes or Coetzee beats a prime Holmes ? I agree that post Cooney a 33 year old Holmes manipulated his division to a degree but he still fought Witherspoon, Bey, Williams and Smith. He had also stopped Weaver who KOed Tate and Coetzee, diced up Berbick who had just ***** slapped Page.

The problem with Page, Coetzee, Thomas, Dokes and Tubbs were they were all inconsistant, kept losing to each other in boring / sloppy fights and had little box office appeal. None were ever close to a big money opponent like an Ali or a Cooney and Holmes , late in his reign, said "fu-k it". He made as much or more fighting others who for the most part were justr as good anyway.

Page was a huge disappointment as a pro, a flabby tub of lard who lost to Berbick, Witherspoon, Bey and others while in his prime ... Coetzee lost to Tate and was KO'ed by Weaver and Page. Dokes self-destructed on drugs. Tubbs was an embarrassment. Thomas was ridiculously overated, a one armed fighter with zero big wins except squeezing out a decision over a yet again poorly conditioned Witherspoon and went on to immediately lose to Berbick ... the whole group amounted to **** .. nice to make them seem like something today but at the time NO ONE considered anyone but Holmes the champion.

 

Larry did one thing...........he beat everyone who was put in front of him.

Lorenzo Zanon, was the European Heavyweight Champion, but his crown was lifted when he signed to fight Larry Holmes.

So really, he wasn't the Champion.
But geez,,,,, a #5 Ranking.

 

I agree with this overview of what the division looked like BACK THEN..