A lot is written about Holmes's struggles with the some of the lost generation of 80's heavyweights, known by and far for their laziness and shortcomings. How he struggled with some and was even knocked down by a select few of them. To that, well, I say this... A massive majority of these fighters, who would LATER become lazy underachievers, were undefeated, in shape and unbelievably movitvated when given their title shot against Holmes, hence the sole reason they gave him hell. Holme's had maybe the biggest pricetag/bullseye on his head since Jack Johnson. He was disliked and even hated during his reign as champion, he was a long reigning one, and undefeated at the high level of 48-0. The then 16-0 Carl Williams would never look better than he did against Holmes that night. His potentially Holmes plus jab would never reach those heights again. Two years later he'd be 15 pounds past where he was here and being knocked out in two due to being careless against Mike Weaver. Renaldo Snipes would stay more consistent than most, but that doesn't change the fact that he'd go on a losing streak post Holmes and that he would never again be as motivated as he was when he gave Holmes hell and floored him. The Gerry Cooney that would later become a corpse on two legs due to drugs, weight gain and inactivity was many things the night he fought Holmes, none of them bad. He could of been a great, and he showed it... But only that night against Holmes. The young 15-0 Tim Witherspoon who Larry barely outpointed? His weight would increase over the next handful of years, his career would become filled with majority decisions, and the greatness many saw in him was as close to being achieved as it ever would be against Holmes. All things considered, the Holmes fight very well might of been Ken Norton's shining performance, as opposed to the far more tame and measured Ali fights, full of late round flurrying, running, and in general smoke and mirrors. Does anyone have any idea what I'm saying?
Also, Larry Holmes faced more undefeated fighters than any other fighter that comes to mind with the longtivity of Holmes.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl I don't buy it. some were in top shape(witherspoon), but most of them were all very green. The more experienced prime Alpha champs never got shots vs holmes. no pinklon thomas # 1 consensous heavyweight in 84-85? tony tubbs? michael dokes? throw away the belt rather than fight greg page? Gerrie Coetzee? Holmes was on top 7 years, did he unify at least 1 of the 3 titles in 7 years? tyson unified all 3 belts in a one year span. there were plenty of top alhpa champs out there for holmes to fight. how bout rematches in his close controversial fights(witherspoon, norton, williams, weaver)........louis and marciano gave them.
Tyson was paid 20 million something dollars to unify with Spinks. Holmes biggest paydays, which involved half that much against Coatzee, fell through. Is it really that surprising?
Tyson unified with thomas, tucker, and bonecrusher. all in 1 year span. who did holmes unify with? Tubbs was out there, # 1 rated WBC champion pinklon thomas(who beat spoon worse than holmes did) in 84-85 was out there, dokes was out there, coatzee was out there, greg page mandatory # 1 was out there
Tyson was one of the largest sports figures in years. It was EASY to get the sanctioning bodies to want to unify with him bringing in crowds, among other things. Unifications isn't always that simple. The relationships between the WBC, WBO, IBF and so on have changed over the years.
I get the gist of the post. Ironically enough, I recently heard Teddy Atlas mention how many fighters have one great effort in their career. A defining moment when they focus all their drive and talent, usually against a great fighter or for a championship belt. Fighting Holmes did seem to bring out the best in his opposition. I think many really did not like him and felt that if they got past his jab they could beat him. They all had that blueprint yet during his reign none could manage to dethrone him.
