I am honestly curious about this.....Do you think that the fighter(s) have any say at all as to whether or not a title gets unified? Do you really think that Larry Holmes could tell the WBC that he wants to unify the titles and that the WBA, WBO, IBF, and WBC would all think that it was a great idea and work together to make it happen for the good of boxing? That isn't how it works, not at all
In the early 1980's, the only boxing organizations that existed was the WBA and the WBC, the IBF became known in 1984, Larry Holmes was their champion. The WBO was much later. When Michael Spinks defeated Larry Holmes on Sept 21 1985, he won the IBF title.
just to echo one of your last points. Marvis beat Bones the year Bones beat witherspoon for the title
Precisely. Marvis was no different to Dokes or Tate or Tubbs. All those belt holders had padded records with no more than maybe one decent win each..which was about the same as a Holmes challenger. The difference was the Holmes challengers were not becoming champions unless they challenged the other guy. All who did picked up their belt. i think Quick Tillis was the only WBA challenger not to win the WBA title. Literally all those belts ever stood for was a place behind Larry. Certainly after 1979 anyway. And i think that’s how history should record it now.
Well, to be fair, the Weaver fight happened AFTER Norton lost to Shavers. And you are also leaving a lot out. First, Norton and Young fought to a controversial 15-round split decision in a WBC elimination bout in November 1977 and many people DIDN'T think Norton won. Then Ken was awarded the WBC heavyweight title retroactively when Spinks signed to fight a rematch with Ali. And Jimmy Young and his fans were angry about that, because YOUNG wanted a rematch with Norton. They didn't think the WBC should've just handed the belt to Norton. But instead of giving Young a rematch after he was named WBC Champion, Norton decided to give the #5 contender Larry Holmes a title shot because Holmes had just beaten the #4 contender Shavers and Don King offered him $3 million purse. And Norton-Holmes was announced days after the Ali-Spinks rematch was announced. Papers called Norton-Holmes "The Other Title Fight." As Ken Norton said in the NY Times before the Holmes fight, "I need an impressive win, or it will make Jose Sulaiman look bad, it will make me look bad and it will make boxing look bad. People will say, 'See, it (Spinks being stripped) shouldn't have happened.'" Then Norton lost to Holmes and Young lost to Ocasio the same night in two big upsets. Then Holmes said he'd fight the winner of the Young-Ocasio rematch, which everyone thought would be Young, and Ocasio beat Young again. And, on the undercard of Holmes-Ocasio, Norton got knocked out in one round by Shavers in an eliminator. So, Holmes and Ocasio fought because they WON. Holmes beat Shavers and then Holmes beat Norton. Ocasio beat Young ... and to qualify for a shot at Holmes Ossie had to beat Young again, and he did. The only guy who could win a freaking eliminator was Ocasio. Larry's second and third title defenses would've been against Jimmy Young and Ken Norton ... but neither could beat opponents in eliminators they were favored to beat.
Dubblechin---please remind me never to challenge you about Holmes.... Have a great day. Loved your info.....Learned alot
I think some of it was him going after easier pay days while ducking mandatories or unifications. Other times it was things beyond his control like Bob Arum holding the WBA hostage with his own stable, fighters backing out for their own reasons ( like Coetzee ) etc..
This wouldn't surprise me...but I think most Champs do a little of this. Why constantly take the hard road? Ali didn't, Louis, Foreman... This is one reason I gained massive respect for Iron Mike during his 80s reign...I mean, the competition wasn't anywhere near the 70s, but he still did go for the best of the rest imo. I don't rank him as high an ATG as the above names, but during his reign he went for it, no doubt.
I think Cooney was the number one contender. Up until then all Holmes challengers were legit. Well as legit as any similar length championship run. Dokes was committed to a rematch with Weaver so Larry took Cobb and Witherspoon who were qualified enough at that point. A lot of these guys were a much of a muchness. Berbick beat Page. Snipes beat Berbick. Scott Frank drew with Snipes and Larry had beat both Berbick and Snipes already. So Larry fought Frank. what else was he going to do? Fight page for less money than Marvis? Coetzee beat Dokes, but he’d already lost to weaver and Snipes. Larry beat both. Then Larry tried to make a fight with Coetzee. You can’t knock him that much. meanwhile, Page loses to Witherspoon and David Bey. Then Larry Beats Bonecrusher when the Coetzee fight falls through. Then Coetzee loses to Page so Larry Beats Bey, the last man to beat Page. Before the loss to Bey, when Page had lost to Witherspoon, Tim won a vacant belt which he promptly passed to Thomas who then passed it to Berbick.
Not really. While Holmes reign from 1978-1982 was respectable he still fought a lot of second raters like evangelista, Ledoux, zanon and Cobb. And the fact that some of those other challengers/alpha title holders were beating each other doesn’t excuse Holmes for not fighting them WHEN they were first in line to fight HIM. Taking one example out of your post - Page losing to Bey and Witherspoon happened AFTER Holmes had dumped his title instead of fighting him. And the Marvis Frazier fight wasn’t worth more than fighting Page... Larry was offered 3.5 million for that match and not to mention a chance to retain his title. while I don’t exclusively blame Holmes for some of those fights not being made, he definitely contributed plenty to the title being divided.
Yet, until Spinks 1, Holmes was still considered easily the Only Heavyweight Champion (and by many even after...I personally considered him Champ again after he beat Spinks in the rematch). To be blunt, I seriously doubt Thomas, Witherspoon, Tubbs, or Page would have beat him (even in, say, 1984). But that's just me...I'm biased lol. I think Thomas had the best chance.
we can surmise all we want about the hypothetical outcomes of those fights. At the end of the day it’s irrelevant. He was a defending champion. Defending champions are obligated to face mandatories or they aren’t champions anymore . simple..
That’s certainly one way of looking at it. But when Tate looked to duplicate Larrys win over Weaver, he lost. Then Weaver passed his title to Dokes on a one round blow out. Dokes had not beat anyone. It took Dokes two fights to beat Ossie Ocasio. Larry had outclassed Ocasio. Dokes went life and death with Tex Cobb. What else had Dokes done? while I’d had loved Dokes to have fought Larry, the WBA wanted him to rematch Weaver. We have the WBA to blame for that fight not happening. Once Coetzee beat Dokes (who had already lost to two Holmes victims) Larry was ready to fight him. But it fell through financially. And when it did, and Coetzee lost to Page, Larry was eager to beat the man who had last beat Page. whilst Page had earlier run up a respectable resume while Larry was champion Greg was always eclipsed by Cooney. And King was wise to put Page on the card when Larry fought Cooney in order to make Page an automatic challenger to Larry after Cooney. However, what happens there? Page blew it by losing to a Larry victim, in Trevor Berbick. Page had to rebuild and Larry had to defend. Yes Larry fought Cobb, Witherspoon and Rodriguez whist Page started over, but nothing else was happening in the WBA twilight zone to eclipse those tithe bouts either.
