How good/bad were Holmes's title challengers?

Norton was 2-1 on fair scorecards vs Ali, and hurt Ali worse than Frazier did. Witherspoon a 3-time champion. Norton is in the hall of fame. Witherspoon will be someday. Holmes beat both of them on their best nights.

 

Good:

Shavers
Weaver
Smith
****ey
Witherspoon
Berbick
Williams
Snipes

Decent:

Evangelista
Ocassio
Zanon
Bey
Neon Leon (had just beaten Mercado)
Frazier (underrated)

Bad:

Frank
Rodriguez
Jones
Cobb
LeDoux


Unrated: Ali (Holmes didn't really have a choice)

 

Depends on the ATG in question, but I could imagine matchups where Witherspoon, Norton, and even Williams and Weaver prevail over certain smaller, older fighters.

 

I think Norton and Witherspoon would have been great match-ups with many of the greats, especially Witherspoon who had a dependable beard.

2 fighters that may have gone down as greats if they competed in another era, although Witherspoon had a questionable work ethic.

 

I never said Norton was a bad fighter, just not what I'd call an all-time great. His resume is pretty thin outside of Ali, and he got KO'd easily by Foreman and Shavers. Witherspoon had only had 15 fights going into his Holmes challenge.

 

Definitely well below average.

Norton, Shavers, and Ali were over the hill.
Smith, Frazier, Witherspoon, and Williams were under the hill, still just prospects, really.

And then the long, pathetic list of journeymen. The Holmes reign was so boring. I always liked Michael Spinks, but he became a true folk hero to me the night(s) he finally got rid of Holmes.

 

"How good was Larry's challengers" is a fair question.

How good were the 1980s heavyweights? Potentially the 1980s heavyweights were an incredible bunch. The problem was, once Norton, Young, Shavers and Ali rode off into the sunset there really was so many prospects and they were all so close in age and in the same stage of professional devopment. It was like too much of the old guard went away without passing on the torch.

Imagine a top ten made up almost entirely of prospects at the same 10-0 or 15-0 stage together in one decade and there was two or three separate titles to aim for, Because I think that's what was like.

Challenging for titles John Tate was 20-0, Coetzee was 22-0, Tubbs was 20-0, Dokes was 23-0-1, Pinklon Thomas was 24-0-1, even page was 23-3 ...these are not the records of seasoned Contenders. None of them had met more than two rated fighters and this accounts for the draws and split decisions these guys had going into title fights. and This is supposedly the guys Larry ducked!!

If you look at the ratings, with the extra belts, virtually every annually rated contender got a shot at a title and won a belt. This means the ratings were full of champion material or guys no better than each other.

On paper 50% of Larrys challengers were at least as good as Page, Coetzee, Tubbs,Tate and Dokes..But what does that say? Does it say he should have fought 100% worth of guys as good (and fought half as often) or does it say the ratings were full of kids still on a learning curve? that they were no better than each other and half of them wound up being champs anyway?

So how good were Larry's challengers? Ten of them were good enough to be belt holders. Statistically most of them stood a 50-50 chance against the other champion at the time Larry fought them because the alternative champions could not beat more than one rated guy anyway. Only two of Larry's challengers were unrated, so that gives most of the others a good shot at the other champion. four of Larry's challengers won belts on the rebound after fighting Larry.

 

I think Tex Cobb is underrated.....his style & speed just doesn't match up well with Holmes.

Floyd Patterson was kinda in the same situation against Ali. Floyd would never have done well against Ali.

 

Going by the Ring's rankings, only six of his 21 defences were against men ranked in the top 5 at the time of the fight. Six were ranked #9 or #10, and four were ranked outside the top ten.

 

Only two of Larry's challengers were unrated by Ring Magazine at the time he faced them. That's the bottom line.

Many times, from fights that could be made, the ratings were full of contenders Larry already beat.

The alternative champions were far less active than Larry Holmes too.

It's difficult to find a top ten during Larry's reign that does not contain a fighter who did not get the opportunity to challenge for a title. There was almost too much oppertunties for rated contenders.

 

I count four outside the top ten. Rodriguez, Frank and Spinks were unrated (Spinks was not in their heavyweight ten) and Williams was #12. The bottom line is most of them were rated at the bottom end of the top ten, a good indication that Holmes was not meeting what the Ring considered the best challengers in the division.

 

I see Norton on a lot of lists but he wasn't a Title challenger?

 

Norton (who was awarded the title for his victory over Young), defended against the young Holmes.

 

Exactly. Norton wasn't a Holmes title challenger.