Gerry Cooney vs Wilders opponents.

Cooney maybe could hold the spit bucket of Fury.
I am not even sure if Holmes would have beaten Fury

 

The problem for Fury is how Holmes' overhand rights tended to land best against opponents around his height or taller.

Holmes was never a big puncher (his most powerful punch was the right uppercut). But I don't see Fury evading that overhand for a whole fight, and its cumulative effect could be devastating. He also didn't have the kind of right hand power he'd need to keep Larry away. In the case of styles in fights, Wilder's right hand would prove more dangerous to Larry over the course of a fight (though of course I recognize Fury as at this point in the present a better fighter than Deontay).

Fury would probably get caught a whole bunch within six rounds and end up resorting to a lot of holding. He'd be a swole up, bumbling, stumbling mess in 11. Even odds he gets stopped in the 12th round.

 

I can't see Holmes stopping Fury,not even in a film. What i could see is a miracle very close decision win

 

In reply to this I shall quote an excellent post I once read written by @Dubblechin :


“Who should Holmes have fought in 1979 instead of the #3 contender Ossie Ocasio, who had just beaten the #2 contender Jimmy Young TWICE? I guess he could've rematched with Ken Norton or Earnie Shavers instead (his top two contenders). But they fought on the undercard and Shavers stopped Norton in one.

Who should Holmes have faced in 1980 instead of Muhammad Ali? Seriously? That's the dumbest comment on this thread. Holmes should've "avoided" Ali? Good Lord.

And Holmes should've ducked Cooney? Cooney was the biggest star at heavyweight. BIGGER than Holmes. (Cooney got $10 million for their fight, Holmes got a little more than $3 million.)

Greg Page fought 16 times between 1982 and 1987, and he went 9-7. This whole Greg Page nonsense needs to stop. Page was overhyped before he even turned pro. He never won anything as an amateur and he couldn't make a single defense of a paper title as a pro.

Page couldn't beat Bey and Berbick and Bugner and Wills and Tubbs and Douglas, but he beats Holmes?

And when in the world was Larry Holmes supposed to fight Tony Tubbs? When Tubbs beat Tom Trimm in his only fight in 1984?

When was this Holmes-Tubbs fight supposed to happen?

The only guy you could make an argument for "honestly" were Michael Dokes (in 1981 instead of Snipes or in 1982 instead of Tex Cobb) and Pinklon Thomas.

But Dokes was basically finished by 1983, and Thomas never really made a move until 1984, when he edged Witherspoon, the last full year Holmes reigned.

And Holmes spent practically all of 1984 trying to unify with Coetzee, before that finally fell apart due to financing. It was signed multiple times, only to fall apart when the payments didn't arrive.

So essentially two guys (Dokes and Thomas) that Holmes missed.

Not bad after roughly 22 or 23 title fights (from Norton to Spinks II).“

 

Like everyone else I would have liked to have seen a rematch with Witherspoon and a fight with Thomas. The Coetzee fight too. They are better fights than Cobb, Frank, Rodriguez and on paper Williams. Absolutely.

Without belts though, and without hindsight, how much more intresting would those guys have been than Frazier, Smith and Bey?

Without the glamour of a paper title Thomas is just a guy who drew with Coetzee who beat a challenger easier than Larry did. Coetzee without a belt is the guy who lost to a few guys Larry already beat. Witherspoon becomes just a rematch like Joe Louis vs Arturo Godoy.

And that’s not using hindsight. That’s just looking at them without a paper title at that time.

Norton being the forth best heavyweight in your opinion on the decade has nothing to do with Norton being regarded the best active heavyweight in the world once Ali lost to Leon Spinks in 1978. Just as Shavers losing to Ron Stander and others was years earlier.

At the time he beat Norton in one round he Shavers became Larrys leading contender.

I have always said Coetzee should have fought Larry in 1979.

Without the ABC interference they would have.

Larry was offered more money to fight Marvis than he was offered to fight Page, the guy who kept losing.

Larry Holmes was offered $3.1 million to fight Marvis Frazier, and he was told by Don King he was going to get $2.5 million to fight Greg Page.

He took the $3 million, left Don King and fought Frazier.

Then he was given the last chance of fighting Greg Page for $2.5 million, and he was offered $8 million to fight Coetzee (who would get $4 million) at Caesar's Palace. Both Holmes and Coetzee accepted. Then the fight was pushed back a number of times because the financing fell through.

By the time the fight was finally canceled, Greg Page had lost back to back fights to both Tim Witherspoon and David Bey.

Like I have said all along the one thing that makes it possible for anyone to assume Larry was able to look good and stay unbeaten because he ignores the best competition by leaving them to fight each other was the governing bodies themselves. Without belts-each of them would have had to have had similar fights to earn a shot at the title.

 

You keep saying paper title, yet what were Holmes' titles if not made of paper? He never won a world title from someone who won that title in the ring. He won his WBC belt from Norton, who was literally handed that belt when it was stripped from Spinks/Ali. Then the Ring handed him their belt after a fight Holmes wasn't even involved in (Weaver-Tate). Later on Holmes himself was literally handed another belt by the IBF after he defected to them because he didnt want to fight his WBC mandatories.

If Holmes wins a title from a paper champ, then moves to another ABC because he doesn't want to fight his top contenders, then proceeds to defend it against as many soft touches as possible (and he openly stated that's what he was doing), then frankly that's the very definition of a paper champ.

His whole claim to legitmacy as the man rests on him beating an old Ali coming out of retirement. Yet if Ali doesn't come back, then he can't be the man. Also, Ali very nearly fought Tate or Weaver instead. Presumably, if they'd got to Ali first, they'd have been the "real" champ. That's how tenuous it all is.

What's wrong with fighting both? He could have fought Marvis and collected his millions, then beaten up his top contender Page and collected another easy $2.5m. Instead he dumped his belt and left #1 ranked Page to fight #2 ranked Witherspoon while he tackled Marvis, a bout so derided he couldn't even get it sanctioned as a title fight. However you spin it, that doesn't reflect well on Holmes as a champion.

It's easy to blame the ABCs, yet they also gave Holmes plenty of help sanctioning his soft touch defences and allowing him to ignore his top contenders for years. In a one-belt era, Holmes would have found it a lot harder to get away with loads of defences against Zanon, Cobb, Evangelista, Rodriguez etc and ignore Thomas, Page, Dokes, Weaver, Spoon and Coetzee when they were high in the rankings and clamouring for a shot at him and had no alternative WBA belt to distract them. He also doesn't get to toss away his belt and move to a rival ABC because he can't get one of his mismatches sanctioned.

 

I have a hard time putting Fury over a top 3 ATG. Or any of the top 10 ATGs. All he ever really did was beat Wilder once. Beating up old man Klitschko doesn't count in my book.

But hey, all respect to your opinion. Fury imo hasn't even cracked the top 15 ATGs imo. Who has he beat that was even as good as prime Riddick Bowe? Nobody.

 

And that is certainly a case that was made at certain points of Larry Holmes championship career when it was happening. But it isn’t quite the full story is it? Once the dust settled we look back we can see Larry beat more than enough notable fighters over his term didn't he?

Here is one example

Ring Ratings.
Larry Holmes, Champion

1. Michael Dokes
2. Mike Weaver
3. Gerrie Coetzee
4. Renaldo Snipes
5. Trevor Berbick
6. Greg Page
7. Gerry Cooney
8. Pinklon Thomas
9. Randall (Tex) Cobb
10. Tim Witherspoon

Look at that top ten. Start of 1983 who is Larry going to fight? #10 Witherspoon beat #4 Snipes before Larry could fight him. So technically 1983 was not such a bad year for Larry. Tim was Ring Magazine #4 by the time they met. There was nobody higher ranked available.

Larry already beat #2, larry already beat #4, larry already beat #5, larry already beat #7,larry already beat #9 and larry beat #10 too. The #1 and #3 are going to figh each other. That only leaves #6 and #8 that he could fight.

And that year those guys fought nobody. In 1983, Greg Page beat Larry Frazier, Renaldo Snipes and journeyman Rick Keller.
In 1983, Pinklon Thomas drew with Coetzee and beat cruiserweights Alfonso Ratliff and Michael Greer.

since Holmes blew out Marvis, people look back and say WHAT A TERRIBLE opponent. Holmes should've fought "that other guy."
But the "other guys" weren't doing any more than Marvis had that year.

Marvis beat Tubbs and Witherspoon in the amateurs. He was considered a brighter prospect when they all turned pro.

Frazier was 50-1 as an amateur, the lone loss coming against Tubbs, who he beat in a return bout, when he lost his final amateur bout to James Broad. (Who Frazier beat as a pro in 1983.)

The only guys Frazier faced as an amateur or pro who he never scored a win over were Holmes and Tyson. That's it.

If Larry wanted to stay as busy as he did, In a one belt era Holmes might still have had to take much of the easier challengers that he did while Thomas, Page, Dokes, Witherspoon and Coetzee fought each other to determine who was the logical contender. It’s not much different. Contenders are supposed to fight one another.

without a belt it could have been exactly the same.
In 1983, Marvis Frazier beat the undefeated Olympian James Broad and he beat the veteran Joe Bugner.
In 1983, Tony Tubbs beat journeyman Larry Givens, Jimmy Young and Gordie Racette.
In 1983, Greg Page beat Larry Frazier, Renaldo Snipes and journeyman Rick Keller.
In 1983, Pinklon Thomas drew with Coetzee and beat cruiserweights Alfonso Ratliff and Michael Greer.

None of those wins was demonstrably better than the others.

And out of that group, in late 1983, Holmes got offered fights with Frazier and Page. The Frazier fight paid the most. So he took that one.
With one belt it’s the same thing.

 

H2h is very different than legacy. Marciano is leagues above guys like David Tua and i can't see marciano winning this fight h2h.
Tyson Fury h2h would be a hell for any great

 

disagree. wholeheartedly.

first off, how long did it take someone else to come along and sign contracts to fight all the other organizations champions?

the other thing is you must give the same free pass to the John Ruiz title defenses, don't you? Lots of potential matches but what did we get?

Same with the Wilder defenses. not a lot of #1 ranked contenders on that opponent list. lots of soft touches.

 

In 1983, Holmes fought:

Lucien Rodriguez
Tim Witherspoon
Scott Frank
Marvis Frazier

And you think that's "not such a bad year"??? For a supposed dominant champ and Hall of Fame legend, it's downright pitiful.

Even Witherspoon only looks a better win in hindsight because Tim went on to win a piece of the title and beat some good contenders. At the time, he was just 15-0 and something like a 6-1 underdog.

Meanwhile Dokes the WBA champion fought #2 followed by #3! That's right, one champion fought his two top contenders, and the other fought three no hopers and a novice with 15 pro bouts. Who was the real champ again?

How long can Holmes live off a win he had over Weaver four years earlier? Never mind that that fight went tooth and nail, and Weaver only got that fight in the first place because he was some unknown club fighter who no one expected would be a threat. When Weaver was actually highly rated, held a title, and was beating top contenders, Holmes looked elsewhere.

I'm amazed at the somersaults people will do to justify Holmes' crappy matchmaking.

Marvis Frazier? It doesn't matter if he was 500-1 as an amateur. That's a different sport. As a pro, he was 10-0, beat a novice James Broad and a past-it Joe Bugner, neither of whom was rated, and in your eyes that was worth a title shot. Let me guess, if Bugner had beaten Marvis, would Holmes have fought him next? Actually, he probably would have.

People regarded the fight as a joke. Holmes was derided for it. Even the WBC wouldn't sanction it.

If you're happy with Holmes fighting Marvis, then you really aren't in a position to criticise anything Deontay Wilder has done.

Heck, if Tyson Fury had been around in Holmes' time, Holmes would have left him to scrap it out with the others for the WBA belt while he scheduled a fight with Lorenzo Zanon instead.

And champions are supposed to meet the best contenders. In 1983, Holmes fought two men ranked #10 by the Ring, and two others not even in the top 10, That's not meeting the best contenders.

In 1982, he fought Cooney (who was Ring #3 but WBA/WBC #1) and Tex Cobb. Obviously he couldn't turn down a rich megafight, but let's not pretend Cooney got that fight thanks to his tremendous boxing record. Cobb?? That's not meeting the best contenders.

In 1984, he did try to fight Coetzee (after four years of ignoring Coetzee and every other WBA champ...), but that fell through and he ended up with Bonecrusher (Ring #9, IBF #11). Again, not meeting the best contenders.

In a one-belt era, those guys are still going to be the top contenders, since they were typically #1, #2, #3, #4 whether you go by the Ring or the ABCs. Only Holmes freezing them out of title opportunities would look a lot more egregious.