Why is it not held against Holmes legacy more that he was never the undisputed HW champion of boxing

A couple of reaskns, I think:

1. There were two titles at the time he become champion - the WBC and WBA (IBF came later and WBO came post Holmes’s title reign). He beat Ken Norton who was mightily unlucky to lose to Ali in their rubber match and Ali retired. He then beat Ali in 1980 to confirm his lineal status as champion. Meanwhile, the WBA title bounced around from champion to champion, including guys Holmes had already beaten (e.g. Mike Wevaer).
2. Whenever a unification bout was touted (Big John Tate, Gerrie Coetzee) the WBA titlist would be upset by their next challenger. Tate-Holmes would have been a huge fight between undefeated titlists but Tate blew it by losing to Weaver. Meanwhile, Holmes just kept beating everyone who was put in front of him. It wasn’t until 1983 when the IBF formed and the titles were split further that Holmes caught some criticism as he was able to avoid some of his potentially tougher challengers by holding that title and giving up the WBC version.

 

Also I believe that Don King had a strong grip on the heavyweight division at the time. So maybe King only wanted a unification with a consistent champion and the WBA belt was being passed around between quite a few fighters. Unification did occur when Tyson came on the scene, and Holmes had already lost to Spinks by that time.

 

I think everyone knew who the heavyweight champion was.
Larry Holmes.

 

Because until Pinklon in August 1984 the title was usually being disputed by someone Holmes had beat or who had lost multiple times to guys Holmes had beat. The WBA title was mostly Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee and Tate having themselves an inconclusive round robin. It was not a serious disputation of the title.

The way a claimant puts pressure on the champ to fight them is by winning over and over and calling into question who the real champ is. This didn't happen. The WBA did not represent the consensus number 2 fighter in the division or even a top 5 fighter. It was just a belt held by someone else.

"Undisputed" was not an "institution" in the sport yet. There were 2 belts until the end of Holmes's reign. Either the holder of the 2nd belt was worth fighting or they weren't.

 

Larry Holmes was viewed as the undisputed even without the second belt. So it's not true he wasn't.

 

It is held against him but not by those who were around at the time.
But when you see the actual top contender s that Larry faced, it's not important.
Ken Norton
Earnie Shavers X2
Gerry Cooney
Tim Witherspoon
Mike Weaver
James Smith
Trevor Berbick
Carl Williams
Renaldo Snipes
Michael Spinks

The fight with Norton was seen as a fight between the best two heavyweight s of that time.

 

Good post this pretty much sums it up.

Norton was considered the best Heavyweight in the world after he beat Young.

Foreman had retired.

Ali was on his last legs and alot felt Norton won their 3rd fight.

So Holmes won the title off Norton who many perceived as the best Heavyweight at that time.

As for unification as you rightly said the other belt holders wouldn't hold on to their belts long enough averaging only 1 or 2 title defences at best.

So there was normally only a small window of opportunity for unification fights to happen. Because the fighters weren't consistent enough in regards to holding on to their belt to build it up.

That's not to say Holmes doesn't deserve some criticism though. I do think Holmes started to cherrypick more after the Witherspoon fight.

Not fighting Page when he was mandatory.

Not fighting Thomas when he was undefeated for 7 years and a very prominent fighter between 1984-1985.

 

I rate Wlad and Tyson above him mostly for this reason.

 

Wlad wasn't technically undisputed either tho. Both were undisputed realistically.

 

Wlad unifed titles, unlike Holmes, and it was a four belt era unlike Holmes’ era. And if you like pedantry, Wlad was the only champion for a period after Vitali retired and therefore undisputed.

 

Wlad had 4 titles to unify, Holmes only 1. Both came 1 short of a full unification. Holmes was the only champion for a period after Ali retired, so he was therefore undisputed too according to that logic.

 

Homes’ title reign included a three title era and Wlad did not fight in a five title era.

Holmes wasn’t lineal after Ali retired.

 

In my eyes being lineal is the critical test, even if being undisputed is a greater accomplishment.

 

But he was the only champion, you didn't mention anything about the linear