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

Absolutely, Universally.

 

It’s not just about who he didn’t face.

It’s also looking at the specific timelines, the viability and who he fought instead.


He fought like 5/6 undefeated fighters in a row, including Williams, Witherspoon, Bey and Spinks.

They were surely better than guys like Weaver, with 9 losses, or Tate who disappeared, or even Page, who’d lost to a number of guys who Larry beat, including Bey.


Again, he cannot be criticised for not having fought Weaver again, when he’d knocked him out and then went on to fight Berbick and Cooney etc afterwards.

Again, he tried to fight Coetzee.

A rematch with Witherspoon would have been nice. But you can’t criticise him too much.

Thomas was the biggest omission.


Again, unless you’d have expected him to have fought 5 times plus per year, then fighting those guys would have come at the expense of some of the others.

Some of the lesser fighters.

Some of the better fighters.

That’s 100% realistic.

Therefore, we’d be on this thread right now, looking at whoever those other guys were who he didn’t fight. And he’d be getting criticised for it.

 

Don't get your knickers in a bunch. I said there was a reason. The first fight was good, Weaver was nr 1 contender and WBA champion. Those are reasons for making a fight.

That there's a reason for a making a fight isn't the same as saying it's a duck by anyone that it didn't get made. That shouldn't too hard to understand.

But that seems to be your MO, and have to say that you're a bit of bore. Take yourself way too seriously, and has a childishly snarky tone in almost every post. I've grown tired of yoy without even debating you much. You don't bring enough that is wortwhile, I think, so you're going on my ignore.

And you might convince yourself that it's because your arguments are so extremely hard to refute, but the thing is that after a while in life you just don't see the point in wasting time on certain people.

 

My knickers are fine, but thanks.


Yes, a rematch with Weaver could have been possible.

But we have people questioning it and being critical of why it didn’t happen, despite the fact that he’d had 9 losses, he’d been knocked out by Larry, and Larry went and fought better people afterwards.


I don’t take things too seriously, this thread has amused me.

My tone entirely depends on the people I’m debating.

Guys like No Neck get certain tones, simply down to his own, where he’s unfairly criticised Larry, and then listed all of my facts as being excuses.


Unless there’s specific reasons why, every poster I converse with gets my respect.

I have responded to you in a respectful manner.


I’m being put on ignore?

Really?


Well, here’s some more of that sarky tone for you then:

I’m truly DEVASTATED, so I urge you to PLEASE reconsider.


I don’t have to convince myself of anything.

I’m educated on the subject.


I have said that he deserves criticism for Thomas, and that a rematch with Witherspoon would have been nice.

Most of what I’ve said has been factual, where I’ve also taken the time to give relevant examples of all of their timelines etc.


Now you can do what you want, but putting me on ignore, whilst praising JT’s post??

Really?


I have a lot of time for JT, he’s a great poster.

I also said to him that I respectfully disagreed with what he’d said.


But this is the kind of thing that you’ve praised:


Where he said:

“Post Witherspoon, he fought nobody with a pulse, where his opposition was diabolical”


Him questioning/being critical of, why he didn’t rematch guys like Weaver and Norton.

Despite the fact that Larry had knocked out Weaver for his 9th loss, before then pursuing better fighters whilst Weaver lost again.

Despite the fact that Norton was knocked out by Shavers the following year, before then retiring shortly afterwards.


As well as where he criticised him for not having fought Page, even though he’d lost to one of those so called diabolical opponents.


We’ll leave it there.

As of yet, you and nobody else has refuted what I’ve said.


Apart from Thomas, he shouldn’t garner much criticism.

And he certainly didn’t avoid those guys mentioned, in order to specifically fight lesser fighters instead.

 

So what would be the problem with nixing them in favor of better opponents? Like Page instead of Scott and Thomas instead of Bey

 

You don't need to keep rehashing my name and points to others, I'll be in here over the weekend defending every single thing i need to and then some. Bokaj is extremely well versed and educated on this particular topic.

 

Have you not followed the thread?

Have you not looked at the timelines?

The issue was, some of the better names weren’t always viable, and in many cases, he missed the 5 guys listed by most people, to either pursue or fight, better or equal opponents.

Yes, in a perfect world, he’d have fought those guys.

My argument is, he didn’t purposely avoid the 5 questioned, to pursue those weaker ones.

Again, he was fighting 3-4 fights per year on average.

I personally think that that was more than acceptable.

What did that mean?

It means that if he’d have fought the 5, he’d have missed out on some of the others.

Logically, some would have been bad, some would have been good.

So we’d now have a situation, where (as an example) we’d be saying things like:

He’d fought Page, but he never fought Witherspoon or Williams etc.

So he’d get heat from some guys on here, as they’d claim that he’d fought whoever, but missed out 2 young, undefeated fighters.

Again, that’s just an example.

But unless he’d have had more fights and fought everyone, including them and guys like Tubbs etc, then there’d always be people saying he’d missed guys.


Again, look at some of the criticisms:

He didn’t rematch Norton?

So what?

Norton was knocked out by Shavers, then he retired.


He didn’t rematch Weaver?

So what?

Weaver was knocked out, and then he went onto lose again for the 9th or 10th time, whilst Larry went and fought better opponents.


He didn’t fight Dokes?

So what?

Dokes lost, and Larry went on to pursue better fighters.


Again, in a perfect world, he’d have fought the 5 questioned.

But on many occasions, they were missed due to certain circumstances, and where Larry went with better options.

He didn’t avoid those guys.

And again, he certainly didn’t avoid them to specifically fight lesser opposition.

If you follow the timelines and look at the circumstances, he can only really garner criticism for having missed out on Pinklon Thomas.

 

No problem.

I mentioned you specifically in order to defend my position.

I used you as an example, to highlight where I believe that Bokaj hasn’t been objective.

I’ve been respectful.

If you or him want to have a friendly, objective debate, then that would be great.

I’ll be back soon.

Have a great weekend.

 

If I can weigh in on this conversation because I'm a big Holmes fan but I will still be honest.

I have no real issues Holmes title reign up until the Witherspoon fight. That's when you started to see examples of more cherrypicking starting to happen.

Holmes should've fought Page after the Witherspoon fight and I don't see any real excuses for Holmes avoiding his mandatory there.

Instead Holmes fought 2 very undeserving challengers in Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier. The Frazier fight was considered such a poor title defence, that the WBC didn't sanction it as Frazier wasn't in their top 10 rankings.

Holmes also fought fighters like Bonecrusher, Williams, who were relative novices at that stage in their professional careers and hardly looked impressive at that time.

Bonecrusher got his shot after losing every single round against a green Bruno and just about rescued the situation with a last round stoppage.

Williams had been decked twice vs Tillis and was known to have a bit of a shaky chin.

Now I'm not saying these are bad fighters and Bonecrusher did end up having a nice little run after losing to Holmes.

And I'm also fan of Williams I like his skills and jab work underrated fighter IMO.

But my point is that Holmes didn't perceive them as big threats at that time. That's why he chose the lowest ranked top 10 Heavyweights he thought would be very winnable fights for him.

Even Spinks was a bit of a cherrypick got wrong a smaller Light Heavyweight moving up in a weight who Holmes underestimated.

Again during this period Thomas should've been getting his shot who had been undefeated for 7 years. And was coming off a very convincing win over Witherspoon beating him more convincingly than Holmes did.

And of course the 1 punch KO of Weaver.

So to answer the question I have no real issues with Holmes’s reign from 1978-1983 up until the Witherspoon fight.

It's between 1983-1985 where you can objectively criticise Holmes’s reign.

 

Further to your post, in the past I broke down 2 tales of Holmes' reign: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-2-tales-of-larry-holmes-reign.735099/

 

This is a fair post.

He should definitely have found a way to have fought Thomas.

Page depends on how you view the circumstances at the time, with his relationship with King, as well as the IBF coming on board.

So he deserves criticism for one guy, and possibly the other, depending on your views.

Yes, he was winding down trying to surpass Rocky’s record, where he openly admitted that he’d paid his dues.

Like you’ve said, the first 5 years of his reign can’t really be criticised.

My main argument, is that he didn’t duck the 5 guys, to specifically fight lesser guys instead.

Yet when I bring up the timelines etc, people are saying that they’re excuses etc.

 

That was a great thread.

It deserved a lot more posts.

It was well broken down.

Again, the consensus is the missing fights against Page and Thomas.

Again, he tried to fight Coetzee.

That left Dokes and Tubbs.

I don’t think Dokes was a big omission.

I also don’t think you can be too critical of a 35 year old, for having fought Bey, Smith, Williams and Spinks, even if he thought they were easier touches.

They were mostly young, hungry, undefeated fighters.

And it’s not like the guys mentioned were great fighters who he ran from.

 

I suppose we're debating two points here:

1. Was Holmes cherry picking somewhat for the last half of his reign? I have a hard time seeing how he wasn't. After beating Bey he said himself that he was (quoted earlier in this thread) so that shouldn't be up for debate. But even before that, his in hindsight best defence, Witherspoon, wasn't highly ranked or thought to be a threat at the time. If you only fight one top 5 contender during three years, you are certainly not looking for challenges. Yes, he wanted Coetzee, but for unrealistic money (10 mil, I think it was).

2. Does this make any difference to his ranking? Depends on where you have him, of course, but in any case, Ali and Louis are some way above the rest, so it takes a lot to catch them. If he had beaten every top contender between up until he lost to Spinks, I do think maybe a case could be made for him to join that select group. As it is now, I think we're all in agreement that he doesn't belong there.

 

Good and respectable thread.

 

Great post mate.