Back to the Future

Show me where Katz or Putnam said he was a temporary champ, or words that could be paraphrased to that affect.

Show me where Larry’s performance against Cobb was criticized.

 

Which is what I said.

Find me where all these respected voices were treating Holmes (well into his reign) as an interim type champ, dismissing him as if he were not the real champion.

Back up your original post with facts.

I did a quick search and found Putnam saying Holmes could do things Ali couldn’t do even in his prime — that his jab was as good if not better but that it obscured the fact that he had a complete arsenal, that he could throw combinations that Ali never could.

Doesn’t sound like a man who is considering Holme as a here-today-gone-tomorrow champion to me.

 

Yes, the idea Holmes cherry picked and avoided all the big guys of the 80's is less credible than a scientology paper if you actually study the era and what went down. Many of them rose in the rankings then fell off almost immediately. Sometimes by fighting each other and then you never heard from them again.

 

There was trajectory for a John Tate unification but of course Mike Weaver took care of that.

And being that Holmes had already stopped Weaver (albeit in a great fight) there was no hue and cry for a rematch … that result just established Larry as the true champ since he had already defeated the other title claimant.

Coetzee is the unification that came closest to coming off, I think, but as noted the financing fell through. Larry signed to fight him once or twice but blaming Holmes for someone not having the money to make it happen … why not blame Gerrie? Makes as much sense as blaming Larry but both were willing and neither were at fault.

 

Most artists are not appreciated in their prime.

Ali eventually became recognized for his greatness but he was mostly considered a braggart and big mouth (the Louisville Lip) until Foreman. Then people began to say ‘wow this guy really is something special.’

I can show you contemporary accounts of Sugar Ray Robinson that did not gush all over him and treat him like he was the greatest fighter who ever lived.

You’re walking back your stance to something more reasonable and akin to truth: Larry was not regarded for the length of his reign as some kind of interim or temporary champ. For a brief period after he beat Norton there was a period where Leon/Ali were lineal and thus considered the ‘real champ’ … same as it’s always been.

But then Ali retired and they had a WBA tournament of sorts and John Tate came out on top and Holmes was absolutely considered the more legit of the two (he had beat a name brand in Norton and defended successfully, whereas John beat Coetzee who was unknown before stopping Leon). And once Weaver beat Tate, Holmes was considered the legit champion of the world because he had beaten Weaver.

One of the best examples of a top, ATG champion getting little or no appreciation in his time is Monzon. Read some accounts of his defenses from Sports Illustrated or the New York press and they were unimpressed (largely because his style simply did not scream ‘dominant champ’). Heck, it took Marvin Hagler quite a while to get over because of the draw with Vito and just generally he was a blue-collar champ in a flashy era where SR Leonard and Hearns and maybe a few others were flashier. Eventually, as with Holmes, he earned that universal acclaim and respect.

 

Ward, Hopkins, and Canelo. I'm on the fence about Floyd. For the casual sportswriter he will be revered and fawned over, but for dedicated boxing scribes (which are far and few between), there will be some dispute over his legacy.

 

I have all those maga hear but you can look them up on SI Vault & NY Times back issues. As I said

This content is protected

NOW LIKE ANY LIAR WHEN HE IS PROVEN OUT. HE RUNS. GOODBYE. PEACE LIAR.

 

Ignore him, mate. He's an acquired taste. Welcome aboard.

 

For sure Holmes suffered for a time in the shadow of following Ali. Same with the era of champs after Joe Louis until Marciano came along (and even then to a degree). Jack Dempsey’s shadow also loomed large for a long time.

But I think I like it better that way — the ones who stick around and prove themselves over time eventually get their due. Today the latest flash in the pan is often hailed and hyped as being superior to all that came before and then they lose a year or less later and the boxing fan base, such as it is, just proclaims a new next big thing. I think there was more skepticism — ‘yeah, he’s the champ, he won a big fight … let’s see if he can defend it now.’

I think of guys like Holmes and Hagler and Arguello and Azumah Nelson and others who stayed around at the top so long as to be undeniable. They earned greatness by answering all the questions one fight at a time.

Thanks for the conversation. I’m not as good with color schemes as @Indefatigable but as noted, you’ll get used to him — just like those Holmes skeptics finally got used to Larry haha.

 

Now let’s get down to brass tacks: Back to the Future was a damned fine movie. Still stands up today.

 

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Andre Ward
Saul Alvarez
Roman Gonzalez