Do you hold it against Larry Holmes for not fighting Greg Page

Larry Holmes, back in '83 and '84 was quite open in his wish to avoid strong hard-punching fighters.
He told the press he didn't want to face any more Weavers and Witherspoons etc., and said he'd fight C00ney again but "only if the pay me $50 million".
He reckoned he'd paid his dues and was looking for easier opponents.


I don't think "ducking Greg Page" hurts his legacy.

 

Beating Carl Williams was the only thing Weaver had done since 1981. The rest of his record between 1981 to 1986 consisted of either beating mediocrities or losing to top fighters, on top of now being 35 years of age. Williams was a decent win but he was hardly viewed as a world beater outside of being another umpteen fight prospect who gave a decent fight to a fading Holmes.

We've covered this time and time again. If the argument is about who deserved their title shot more, Tyson vs Berbick or Smith vs Witherspoon, then Smith's eventual win over Witherspoon doesn't factor into the equation. About the only claim smith had prior to that point where Witherspoon is concerned was LOSING to him. Or if you prefer to constantly reference his win, then I'll now include Tyson's win over Berbick who had beaten a larger list of better opponents to that point.. Spoon vs Smith II is widely accepted as a fix anyway so I don't see what all the buzz is about.

Tyson was 26-0 and had beaten Marvis Frazier, Jesse Ferguson, Mitch Green, Jose Ribalta, and James Tillis.. More than adequate to get a shot at an alphabet strap in the mid 80's and was certainly more than Williams did to get a shot at Holmes. Hell Tyson was basically beating the same caliber of comp as Smith with the only two differences being that:

A. he was undefeated while smith was not

B. He was far more active than any heavyweight around.

C.. He even defeated one opponent who BEAT Smith within that same time frame.

You can continue to brush over these painfully obvious facts, but it won't deter me from repeating them.

He didn't improve. Within one year of losing to Marvis he captured an alphabet title from a discouraged champion who wanted to break his ties with Don KIng and threw the fight to do so.. Smith then clinched his way to the score cards against Tyson and never did anything of note again aside from living out the rest of his career as a journeyman with a name.

LOL.. you call Tyson the first "elite" guy that Marvis fought since Holmes, yet he BEAT the very man you're going through hell and high water to try and build a case for. And by the way Marvis and Bey's fights with Holmes were almost two years apart with Holmes only fighting once in between, so I take your comment about them facing the same version of Larry with a grain of salt.

The obvious contradiction with this argument is that you're awarding the sun and the moon to Smith for beating Weaver and Weaver for beating Williams while completely ignoring that Marvis beat Smith and Tyson beat Marvis. BTW, Smith wasn't even supposed to get a title shot against Witherspoon.. It was supposed to be a rematch between spoon and Tubbs, who pulled out at the last minute due to a shoulder injury. Smith was #9 by the WBA.. Tyson was #1 by the WBC when he fought Berbick and Marvis was ranked #9 by the WBC and #4 by the IBF when he fought Tyson..

And I'll ad a second difference between Tucker and Tyson's resume that year...Tyson had wins over Marvis Frazier, Jese Ferguson, Jose Ribalta, James Tillis, and Mitch Green... By year end, he would also ad Berbick to that list.. Tucker's "awesome" 34-0 record in 1986 consisted of James Broad... That's it.... Who would you say Tucker's second best win was? Was it a totally shot Jimmy Young? Bobby Crabtree perhaps? How about Walter Santemore or Otis Bates? Tyson had beaten a better list of opponents within a six month period than Tucker had beaten in six years !!!!To say that his resume was equal or greater than Tyson's is laughable at best and insulting at worst.

Bey beat Page in August of 1984 and fought Smith in August of 1986.. In the interim Bey was beaten by Holmes and Berbick ...By the time the two met, Bey was two years and two defeats removed from the only thing he ever did in boxing worth mentioning.. He had also only fought once within a fourteen month period prior to entering the ring with Smith and do you want to know what that fight was? A ten round split decision over a man with a 3-9-1 record.

EDIT: Sorry I just realized that this was about Douglas' win over Page and not Bey's. Nevertheless. Marvis Frazier still had more wins of noteworthy opposition than Douglas or Tucker did by 1986 and certainly far less damaging defeats than Buster.

 

Regarding the ongoing discussion, I think RING magazine's rankings at that time (1986) were quite credible (they were done on a polling system, a ratings panel of 'experts' across the globe).

If I remember rightly, Mike Tyson was #7 contender around September/October, before facing Berbick (who I believe was #1).
Smith was #6 I think.

 

I thought Tyson's pre-title opposition was fairly poor, as did most others, but he was busy and impressive in most of those fights.

 

I'd like to see the exact timing of those ratings and frankly I prefer to look at exactly what the fighters had done to that point in time. Tyson was undefeated, fighting more actively than anyone and had beaten men who were comparable and in some cases better than the ones smith was beating, including Marvis Frazier who beat smith

 

He did as much as anyone to earn a shot at an alphabet strap in the mid 80's. Look at the records of Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon, Greg Page, Pinklon Thomas, James Smith and Tony tucker prior to getting their first opportunities at an alphabet strap.. They for the most part weren't any better.. Many of them had fewer fights, were less active, less impressive and the comp level was either even or lesser.. Mike Weaver and Trevor Berbick are probably the only exceptions, and while they might have had more fights and better scalps, they also had a fair number of losses.

 

The exact timing was after Tyson had KO'd Frazier and TKO'd Ribalta, (and perhaps Ratliff), but before Berbick.

At that particular time Smith deserved to be rated ahead of Tyson.
I haven't read your whole discussion but I tend to agree with what choklab is saying regarding Smith and Tyson in particular.

Smith's loss to Marvis Frazier was controversial, and rendered hardly relevant by Smith's follow up win over Weaver.
Tyson was kept away from the top-tier contenders before facing Berbick.

 

You didn't have to do much to get a shot at an alphabet strap because of the whole dilution of the championship being split three ways. Three top tens. Tyson did about as much as David Bey, less than Frank Bruno but more than Marvis did to fight Holmes.

 

Well, Tim Witherspoon and James Smith were lower-end of the top 10 when Holmes gave them their first shots at the title.
No one reckoned they were particularly deserving at that time, and Holmes probably took them on precisely because he expected them to be somewhat green.

Greg Page was actually a worthy contender in '83/'84, he had beaten Snipes who was coming off an impressive win over Berbick who had beaten Page ... a kind of merry-go-round affair, but these men were rated in the top 5 at the time.

Pinklon Thomas had a fair draw with Gerrie Coetzee before getting his first shot, again, Coetzee would have been top 5 or thereabouts at the time.

I'd agree with Tubbs but it is debatable, he'd easily outboxed Smith who had given Holmes trouble into the 12th round. It depends on whether we say Smith's rating went up by losing to Holmes, or down.

Tony Tucker, yeah, his resume was sh!t. :good

 

You can't just ignore losses because of what someone does next or because you personally deem them as contoversial. By that logic Smith won the WBA title in a fight that was thrown in the tank.. Tyson beat Marvis, Tillis, Ribalta, Green and Ferguson in the same year that Smith beat Bey, Ferguson, an old Weaver and LOST to marvis Frazier who Tyson beat in 30 seconds. In addition, Tyson had gone 27-0 in roughly the same 18 month time period that Smith had gone 4-3 and was far more impressive.. He was ranked #1 by both the WBC and WBA when he faced Berbick while Smith was #9 by the WBA only when he faced Witherspoon and was a last minute replacement for Tubbs.

 

I can agree with some of this... But Tony Tubbs had only 20 fights when he challenged Page for his shot at the WBA. His only win was over a 14-2 Smith.. Pretty thin resume if you ask me. Witherspoon was 17-1 when he beat Page for the vacant WBC. His legacy was a win over Tillis and Snipes and a gallant losing effort to Holmes. Not bad, but also not something that I'd say was head over heels better than what Tyson had done. Pinklon had drew with Coetzee and beaten Tillis.. and we already agree about Tucker. Tyson fought 27 times in roughly 18 months, wiping the floor with almost every opponent and had beaten Frazier, Tillis, Green, Ribalta and Ferguson... Not a spectacular resume but no worse than any of the previously mentioned names and if we're honest even better than some of them.

 

No you certainly didn't.. The vast majority of that lost generation proved that.

Common man.. Bey had 13 fights with one signature win over a man who had already been exposed. Frank Bruno had one win over a diminished Coetzee and a loss to Smith before fighting Witherspoon for the WBA. No way were these guys viewed as being on Tyson's level when he entered the ring against Berbick. The fact that Tyson was a 3-1 betting favorite while those other guys were underdogs should tell you something.

 

I agree. Tubbs was largely unknown/untested as a pro when he challenged Page in 1985.

I'd say the disputed 'loss' to a still-prime-ish Holmes is arguably better than anything Tyson ever did.
Definitely better than a pre-title Tyson.

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten about his win over Tillis. When Tillis was actually a credible contender.

Only if you're putting a lot of stock into his activity and keep-busy fights against bums.

None of those fighters, barring Marvis Frazier, were genuine top 10ers, they were fringe contenders, journeymen, or has-beens.

And Frazier, who might have been ranked #9 or #10, was something of a 'soft touch', stylistically made for Tyson.

 

You're mixing the arguments up here, maybe.
There's no doubt that Tyson was viewed as being of higher quality, and potentially a world-beater(which he proved to be for a few years) , but in actual terms of results it was rightly acknowledge that he hadn't faced anyone.
In fact, there was a considerable amount of doubt over his ability based on the fact that he had been carefully matched.

Of course, Berbick was viewed as a poor champion and wasn't expected to win. Known for his erratic performances, he was due to lose anyway.

 

That's one way to look at it. But if a controversial loss is the best thing his 17 fight resume has to offer than I'd say its still a pretty weak case.

So Tillis and a draw to Coetzee.

I think high level activity and decisive winning can certainly help a man's rating. Marvis was #4 by the IBF and #9 by I think the WBC or the WBA.. He had beaten James Smith, James Tillis, Joe Bugner, James Broad and a couple of halfway respectable prospects in Bernard Benton and Funso Banjo along with only having one defeat to Larry Holmes in only his 11th pro bout.. He lost in 30 seconds to Tyson... The rest were as you say fringe or journeyman but respectable at least and likewise beaten easily.. Again, no worse than what a lot of guys were doing to get their hands that precious alpha strap.