Is Larry Holmes

Holmes beat the best active heavyweight in the world when he beat Ken Norton. When Tim Witherspoon beat Greg Page he was just beating the guy Berbick had beat.

Are you suggesting fat Greg had paid his dues in the division as much as Ken Norton had by 1978? being #1 in the WBC ratings when the title was undisputed in 1978 is an entirely different matter to the landscape in 1984. In no way was there a strong case for Greg being the most outstanding heavyweight of that year. It was too soon after his loss to Berbick for one thing. Why didn't Greg rematch Berbick? It's not like Berbick was so hard to beat was it? It must have been tough for the WBC searching for a #1 listing. These guys were all losing fights. Berbick beat Page then lost his next two fights. Page beat Snipes but lost his next two fights too.

"hand-picked participating contender of limited world level experience" describes ALL of the ABC belt holders too. Like I keep saying all those guys were the same level. Snipes, Tate, Witherspoon, Dokes, Tubbs, Bey, Thomas, Williams, Berbick. Its Apple's and oranges.

The only difference was the ones that only got to challenge Holmes never got to be called a champion but they would have if they only challenged for the alternative guy.

In fact it's just as well Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon and Smith all got a second chance at the lesser regarded holder after losing to Holmes!

Maybe if Occasio, Bey, Snipes, C00ney, Frazier, Williams had of bypassed Holmes initially and targeted only the other belt even more of them would have been champions too? Don't forget everybody who did that ended up being champion apart from Tillis.

 

I think it was a case of those two fights were on the table, their combined value was considered worth taking over one fight with Page. It was not the threat of Page. It's just money. If he was going to dump those fights he wanted compensated for it. Page was still going to be there afterwards. But afterwards of course Page was not there. Bey was. So he fought him.

The problem here is we have the premier champion wanting to stay busy. And the promoter wanting to build superfights between one champion who can beat Witherspoons and C00neys with another Champion with seperate mandatory demands who draws with a guy he knocked out.

Larry just beat C00ney and Witherspoon. Both were good enough to win the other belt. In other eras a champion could get exhibitions but Holmes was offered these fights in the TV era. What made Page #1 to anybody? He went to #1 with the WBC only because Berbick lost his next fight after beating Page and that was only with the WBC anyway. In reality Holmes' #1 was the WBA champion not who ever the WBC said was his #1 and he actively perused a fight with the WBA champion as soon as he had those fights out of the way. He signed for that fight. Took a drop in purse but the WBA champion wriggled out of it not Holmes. Pity the HBO tournament didn't start in 1979.

well Witherspoons rematches never worked out for him against Bonecrusher and Page. They both knocked Tim out! Witherspoon and Berbick had already cut their teeth at world level before fighting Holmes. As much as Tate had. That's what the world rated fighters were like then. Once the 1970s guys went off into the sunset a lot of very good young heavyweights came through who were all the same level and within very few fights were as good as they were ever going to be. Snipes, Tate, Berbick, Witherspoon, Frazier, Dokes, Tubbs, Page. Apple's and oranges together.

did Holmes have an aversion to rematches? He rematched Shavers didn't he? and as an old man larry rematched Smith and Weaver knocking both out. It's safe to say that if as a veteran he was prepared to rematch weaver he would have been just as prepared all along. It's just that boxing politics got in the way.

The Ring wanted unification fights just like we all did. That's the only reason these contenders were ever installed higher than Renaldo Snipes. It's not that they were better than Renaldo Snipes. it's just that The Ring wanted the contenders to Holmes with a belt to be allowed to face Holmes. This was The Ring putting pressure on the governing bodies but of course they never got the hint. They continued to install seperate top ten ratings without acknowledging rival championships at all. To look at the WBA ratings you would think Larry Holmes had never been born, and he beat their champion!

in 1989 the WBO was formed making a further two title fights involving Francisco Damiani. This made a total of four title fights that year. Governing bodies do not like unified titles. Sanctioning fees become tiny if all four belts are on the line for one fight.

when are you going to respond to my counter that Tysons "unifying" was only EVER possible because of the HBO tournament?

I keep mentioning this and you never respond. Does anyone think Holmes could not have wiped the floor with his rival belt holders had the political process allowed it as it later did with the HBO tournament?

The tournament meant that each governing body would waive mandatory demands in favour of unification fights as a one off. This was never EVER the case before.

Tyson simply got to fight WBA Bonecrusher right after "BC" Berbick. This was unprecedented and only because of HBO.

The defence against Thomas was a brief interlude so that the IBF could create a champion (on the same bill) for Tyson to fight because they had already stripped Spinks.

Otherwise Tyson would have went straight into a IBF fight right after WBA and WBC back to back fights.

Having stripped Spinks the IBF could have simply "awarded" recognition to Tyson but then they would have missed out on the exclusive sanctioning bounty one last time before entering into the HBO. So they invented Douglas v Tucker. Two unrecognizable prospects at the time.

The Ring Magazine stayed with Michael Spinks. What is your opinion on that?

Spinks took C00ney just like Holmes took say Frazier as a money fight and also got penalised for it. Yet he maintains historical recognition.

 

Tubbs was horrible. He beat an accidental champion. Who would bet on Tubbs over Williams or Spinks? Clarance Hill decked him. Tony had skill enough to make rounds close fighting like a sparring partner because he was clever enough to prevent the tempo of an actual fight. And he was in no shape for an actual fight. Why was Tony ever regarded higher than Bonecrusher Smith? Losing to Holmes did not make Smith better or higher in the ratings did it? If Smith's no higher than Williams why is the WBA allowing their accidental champion defend against Tubbs who's only credentials is beating Smith!!

but beating Page equals Witherspoon. If Tubbs beating Smith equals Holmes beating Smith then Bey beating Page equals Witherspoons page win surely? Beating page is both Tubbs and Witherspoon finest fare at that point. Bey even beat Page before Tubbs anyway. Berbick before all of them.

Weaver in 84? He was comically knocked silly after the bell on the night Holmes fought Smith. His credibility was blown out of the water right there, but former WBA champion Weaver still (ludicrously) remains a WBC challenger on the back burner out of this key stone cops comedy?

Thomas equalled Coetzee in a draw. He matched one Larry Holmes result over Witherspoon. That's it. Then he fights the recently comically humiliated Weaver who Holmes beat years earlier.

Witherspoon, Thomas and Bey appear much one level on the strength of common opponents and results. Thomas might have beat Witherspoon but he can't beat Coetzee. Witherspoon can't beat Thomas but he can beat Page who can beat Coetzee. Bey can beat Page so he's up there too.

Dokes beat Weaver? He was awarded a premature stoppage so controversial that it enforced an automatic rematch he could not win!! Was he ever better than weaver? He took two attempts to beat Occasio for Pete's sake and he barely got past Tex Cobb. That was life and death. Beating Young on points matched Occasio, so let's celebrate this Ocassio level fighter. No wonder Coetzee could beat him.

was it though? Maybe Coetzee was being recognisable at losing at world level? Coetzee lost to Tate then gets knocked out by Weaver then loses a decision to Snipes who Holmes stopped..hmmm. I think Tim beating Snipes kind if put Tim ahead of Coetzee.

if Larry didn't think Witherspoon was ready or not Tim did 15 good rounds and never looked a better fighter. It remains his Tokyo Douglas night.

yes about half of Larry's defences were less familiar or celebrated challengers but let's not forget Larry was twice as active so he could afford this. He got round to beating enough better guys that would have absolutely won the other belt on the same night they lost to Larry. Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon, Smith proved this. Snipes, Williams and Bey could have too. We will never know. What we do no is there has never been such a bunch of unreliable, inexperienced title holders as those contenders that passed belts below Larry's throne.

not better just equal.

Occasio beat Young twice right after Norton only won a split verdict over Young. Nobody wanted him but technically this kid Occasio had somewhat of a logical case to challenge for the WBC title under their ruling. Can you dispute this?

Yes I think they are equal. In the absence of governing bodies waiving mandatory demands to allow unification fights I believe the credentials of Berbick and Snipes on paper equal Dokes and Weaver. Absolutely.

yes and like I said in this ideal world of one title what state would Thomas be in once he got to #1? There was only one perhaps two good level wins in Thomas. History tells us this. With the correct number of relevent wins to make #1, Thomas would challenge Holmes with his Berbick performance.

But what was Larry getting away with? Bey had the same credentials as Tony Tubbs. Williams was a warm up for Spinks that backfired. Williams would probably crucify Tubbs.

yup.

it showed that heavyweight unification at that time was almost impossible.

 

I just watched the tape of Page/Snipes last night

Page weighed 227 and was very sharp. His jab was the key. Snipes missed just about every home run right hand but Page easily absorbed the few that landed. If Page had fought Holmes that night he would have really troubled Holmes.

It's too bad Page came in 12.5 lbs. heavier for Witherspoon. If he had been in prime shape he could have moved more.

Such a waste of talent.

 

Some of your comments lead me to believe you are not a keen observer of boxing

Tubbs was not as you say "horrible"

When in shape, he was extremely slick, with a good, fast jab, smart movement, good body attack and could set traps while on the ropes

He was much more well rounded than Carl Williams, who had height, reach, and a very good jab. That was 80 percent of his offense

The Tubbs who easily oupointed Page was in shape at 229 lbs and was simply too crafty for Page.

Tubbs was also much better than the one dimensional David Bey, who had strength and a decent workrate, but little else.

Tubbs also gave Witherspoon a very close fight at a time when Witherspoon was the probably first or second best HW. And he was grossly out of shape for that fight.

Even at 33, Tubbs gave Bowe a very tough time. It wasn't so much Bowe being bad, as it was Tubbs being crafty and still possessing many of the skills that he had in his prime.

 

Tubbs fought like a sparring partner even in his prime. Good at keeping rounds close and keeping the pace lower than that of an actual fight. He was a snake charmer in that respect. He needed it that way because he was never in shape enough to go all out for real. I'm not sure he even cared if he won or lost even in his prime. There certainly is not a single win of his that could not have been matched or achieved by Marvis Frazier or Joe Bugner.

Tony was clever and crafty, he had fast hands but what did he do with it? What is his signature win?

 

Berbick was over two years before. By the same logic, Holmes eked out a win against the guy Foreman and Jose Garcia KO'd.

I'm suggesting that Page had paid his dues far more than Rodriguez, Marvis, Frank and Smith, all of whom Holmes fought in 83 and 84. Who was the outstanding heavyweight in 83 and 84? Whoever it was, Holmes didn't fight him. Perhaps they should have asked the WBC to rate them at #5 or lower, then they might have stood a chance of getting a shot at Holmes.

And of the above names Holmes actually fought, two beat him to many minds (and neither got a return bout) and one had him staggering around like a drunk. No wonder he didn't fight guys of that level more often, preferring that they fight each other while he fought a creampuff. What level were Zanon and the gang at? Because Holmes was more often fighting someone of that calibre.

It is just as well there was another title, because they had no hope of getting a rematch with Holmes once they'd given him a tough fight! Not when Larry had his Euro murderers' row ready and waiting.

Or more probably they wouldn't have since Snipes lost to Coetzee, Spoon and Page, Ocasio got KO'd by Dokes and Gardner, and eventually dropped to cruiser when he couldn't mix it at heavy, Williams got KO'd by Weaver, C**ney never showed he could beat a prime legit contender, Marvis was never in contention. and Bey lost ten of his next 15 fights after his Holmes challenge!

Of course it was the threat of Page. Do you think it was an accident he picked two set ups who were no threat whatsoever over a big prime #1 challenger who had the style, talent, chin, skill and handspeed to cause him lots of problems? Otherwise why not beat Page, collect an easy $2.5m, keep his title and some kudos, then cash in against Marvis? Holmes said he based his money demands based on how tough the fight was. That's why he didn't demand $5m for Marvis and Bey. As for Page not being there afterwards, well if you go off to fight two set ups leaving your top contender to take a harder fight, then chances are someone's going to knock them off, which is exactly what happened time and again with Holmes.

The problem is he wanted more stay busy fights than actual competitive bouts against legit challengers. And how many stay busy fights did he need? Cobb and Rodriguez back to back? Frank and Marvis back to back? 14-1 Smith followed by 13-0 Bey followed by 16-0 Williams followed by a 175lber?

Spoon turned out to be good enough but no one knew that at the time. C**ney never showed he could have beaten the tougher, more seasoned WBA guys. Page got to #1 by winning an eliminator against Snipes who had beaten the then highly ranked Berbick. Did Holmes beat Spoon? Many thought not and Holmes didn't want to find out if he was better than Spoon by giving him a rematch.

Actually, Holmes' #1 was the WBC's #1. He held the WBC title and was obligated to fight their contenders. Yeah after five years of ignoring the WBA champs, he suddenly decided he wanted to fight one of them even though, according to you, unification was completely out of the question anyway. If the WBA champ was Holmes' real #1, then by definition Holmes ducked five #1s in Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Page and Tubbs! Funny how Coetzee is suddenly the #1 fight out there for Holmes when Holmes wants to fight him when you've dismissed Coetzee constantly in this thread! Coetzee never wriggled out of it by the way. The fight didn't happen because the money fell through.

Holmes' rematch with Spinks didn't work out too well either. Spoon had had 15 fights going into his Holmes challenge. Are you seriously going to tell me he peaked in his 16th bout? Was the 15-0 Holmes the best version of him? How about the 15-0 Ali, the 15-0 Marciano or the 15-0 Lewis? It's ridiculous. After Spoon gave Holmes a real scare, and when he was a world champ with more experience, Holmes ignored him.

Sure Larry rematched a guy he'd already pitched a shut out against. Oh and he gave a rematch to the inactive 49 year old Weaver, which is obviously as good as fighting a prime Weaver in 1981!

The Ring rated Snipes at #10 because where they rated him. Page, Dokes etc were rated higher even when they didn't hold a title because that's where the Ring rated them. Actually, the WBA did rate Holmes, he was Coetzee's #1 contender in 1984.

Nobody cared about the WBO back then.

I did respond. I said this didn't stop the lower divisions being unified. You said this was because they only cared about having separate heavyweight champs, yet this was a time when the biggest names and biggest money in boxing were in the lower divisions. Sugar Ray Leonard could make more for one fight than Holmes could for five defences against Lorenzo Zanon. And if unification was impossible, what Holmes doing with Coetzee? Was he just pretending he wanted to face him? And why did the belts stay unified for five years and four champs until Bowe dumped the WBC belt? The will had to be there from the fighters too. Why do you think King said there wouldn't be an undisputed champ until after Holmes left the scene?

 

Tubbs was never "horrible". He was a good fighter. He beat Bonecrusher when Smith had some championship experience and he beat the guy Holmes ducked. He also did a number on a young Rid**** Bowe years later. It's funny you laying into Page, Tubbs etc when they were easily better than a lot of the men Holmes defended against and it's a matter of record that when Holmes was being pressed about fighting these guys, he ditched his title belt, demanded exorbitant purses, made comments about only fighting little guys he could beat up without getting hurt, and fought novices and guys on the fringes instead, before trying to chase Rocky's record against a light-heavy who hadn't beaten a single heavyweight. At least Conn and Moore had beaten a few heavyweights before they got their shot at Louis and Rocky.

Witherspoon also beat Holmes to many minds, and rather than have a rematch the champ preferred to fight two turkeys and leave Spoon to fight the #1 contender. Spoon beat Page first, in a title fight. Bey won a close decision that could have gone the other way. Did you see Bey's face at the end?

You mean when Anthony punched him from behind when Weaver was walking back to his corner well after the bell? You may think being sucker punched whilst defenceless and facing the other way destroyed Weaver's credibility, but no one else did, which is why it didn't affect Weaver's standing. If you want someone being knocked silly by a non-foul blow, watch the seventh round of Holmes-Snipes. A lot of refs (like Lewis-McCall) wave that one off without a moment's hesitation.

Thomas beat Spoon and Weaver easier than Holmes, and he actually beat them when they were highly ranked championship level fighters, not attempted cherry picks that almost backfired spectacularly like when Holmes fought them.

Whereas we don't know if Holmes could beat Page, Thomas or Coetzee because he never fought them, and his win against an inexperienced Spoon was disputed. We know he could beat Bey though, so whoopee do for that.

Thomas beat Spoon, Weaver, Tillis and drew with Coetzee. Bey didn't. Spoon beat Snipes, Page, Smith, Tubbs and Tillis. Bey lucked into a disinterested Page who was coming off a loss to Spoon in a more important fight, and even then Page still rearranged his features, rocked him throughout the fight and could have easily got the decision.

Speaking of premature stoppages, Holmes got a couple of those against Weaver and Snipes, fights where he was hurt just as bad and allowed to continue. File them alongside the disputed Norton, Williams and Spoon decisions. At least Dokes gave Weaver a rematch. As I said before, Dokes was a 21 year old 17-0 prospect when he fought Ocasio in Ocasio's home country, and still KO'd him in the rematch. Remind me what Holmes was doing at the same point in his career.

Which gave Coetzee considerably more world level experience and exposure than baby Spoon, whose top level experience amounted to ten rounds against Snipes. Coetzee beat Snipes at least as well as well as Spoon did and knocked him down twice, he just lost a political decision which caused outrage among the public and press.

Right, so Spoon who'd had half a dozen amateur fights and one ten rounder against a recognisable contender, went on to have 60+ fights, win two world titles and fight a who's who of his era peaked in his 16th pro fight. Beating Holmes was a string to his bow, I admit, as was fighting the guys Holmes ducked in Page and Thomas.

He didn't get round to the better guys nearly enough. About half Holmes' challengers were Zanon/Cobb level, and another six had had 16 or fewer pro bouts. That doesn't leave many prime, experienced top contenders. In seven years he fought four men ranked in the Ring's top three. FOUR in seven years, just six in the top five, and several who were not ranked at all. He fares little better if go you by the WBC/IBF rankings.

Ocasio beating Young made him the WBC's #3 or #4. The Ring had him at #5. He wasn't a mandatory and he wasn't better or higher ranked the Norton. I don't see any case for him being above Norton in the pecking order. As for Evangelista, let's not even go there.

Berbick and Snipes better than Weaver in 81? Not a chance. They had one significant win each. Berbick KO'd Tate but Tate had already been KO'd by Weaver in a title fight. Snipes won a hotly disputed decision against Coetzee, but again Weaver had already KO'd Coetzee in much more impressive fashion in a title fight. Weaver also KO'd Mercado who had KO'd Berbick in a round. In addition Weaver had already given Holmes a very hard fight, and held 50% of the title. That was the fight to be made and it hurts Holmes' legacy that he missed a chance both to unify the title, and have a rematch with one of his toughest opponents.

If we're going by how history panned out, Holmes would have fought Thomas with his Spinks/Williams performance. In this ideal world, what state would Holmes be in had he been forced to grant title shots to his #1 contenders and give rematches to tough opponents? He might not have even been champ by the time Thomas arrived on the scene to challenge him.

Why do you keep comparing Tubbs to Bey? I said Tubbs wasn't a factor in the division when Holmes fought Bey. Spoon, Weaver and Thomas were certainly better and more proven than Bey (and Williams/Spinks) at the time of those fights and Holmes didn't fight them.

It showed the opposite. It only didn't happen because the promotion's finances collapsed at the eleventh hour.

 

He was maddeningly inconsistent, but when Page was on, he was very good, and he was in some entertaining wars. His chin was a rock, which was probably his undoing in the end. He was excellent against Coetzee too.

 

Holmes was the hwt champion because he beat the No 1 contender Norton and then solidified his claim by beating Ali and then the former champion Spinks.

The hwt division was NEVER more splintered than this time period. Each sanctioning body did their best to milk their champions. Can't blame Holmes for this.

 

Did Tubbs ever beat anybody you would not back Joe Bugner to beat?

so much mileage with this one...It's became legendary but the reality was Tony was then a journeyman, this was an entirely low profile learning fight. it was a game of patty cake, like a sparring session. Bowe was hoodwinked because he was young, confused and lazy himself. It was only close because it was such a very gentle paced fight. No excuses for Bowe but Tubbs did not win this learning fight as the opponent.

yes Page and Tubbs were better than Zannon, Frank, Evangelista perhaps Leroy Jones but no more than equal to anybody else. Apple's and oranges. Each one lost when they were supposed to win. Accidental champions or one hit wonders.

Bob Foster certainly didn't.

rather than have a rematch inside ten months? Did Frazier rematch Ali inside ten months? The WBA on the other hand are ok with Weaver taking one fight between October 1980 and December 1983!

Let's be fair here. After Frazier beat Ali Frazier fought Stander and Daniels.

Tim was offered the Page fight for a title within months of losing to Larry, why would he rematch Holmes instead?

Then after losing twice in back to back fights Page is served up to fight Coetzee and is the accidental winner having lost two in a row.

Don't forget, Coetzee did not defend his title for a whole year and two months. How come the WBA are okay with Weaver having one defence in two years and two months?

Yet Holmes is expected to rematch guys and take on extra challengers when he was always twice as busy?

but it was worth mentioning because you have such a problem with Williams, Smith or Bey getting fights with Larry when Weaver gets a fight with Thomas out of that key stone cops comically disastrous disqualification win over Tony Anthony?

Let's never forget that Coetzee got his second shot at the title (against weaver) out of beating somebody called "Mike Karonicki". Dokes got his shot at Weaver from beating John L Gardener and Coetzee got his third shot at the WBA holder Dokes from a draw with Thomas!

I agree Larry was in trouble that one moment but he was winning that fight hands down for every second until then. If you listen to the commentary of that fight Howard Cosell was calling it a terrible mismatch that Snipes was taking a beating already. It would have been a terrible call to jump in and give it to Snipes after that don't you think?

were they really cherry picks though? Weaver had been beaten by Leroy Jones, the Bobick brothers but was on something of a KO run. His fights with Stan ward and Mercado was exciting enough for him to be selected as a NewYork debut come warm up for the Ernie Shavers fight.

Witherspoon was a talented kid with a good win under his belt over Snipes. As I keep saying, a Snipes win was enough AFTER Tim beat him to make Page some kind of outstanding contender later on so it's certainly good enough here.

Tim also knocked out unbeaten Alfonso Ratliff and had serious team of respected fight people behind him. Holmes knew of him and knew to be in shape that's for sure.

I agree that it would have been nice to have seen Larry fight Page, Coetzee and Thomas but these guys were Apple's and oranges together. They were Apple's and oranges among guys Larry beat. Albeit the best guys. unlike Holmes who could win at this level the forgotten generation could not stay winning long enough could they?

oh so Bey lucked into a disinterested Page? Tubbs must have luked into a disinterested Page as well? Didn't Berbick luck into a disinterested Page? And Witherspoon certainly must have lucked into a disinterested Page? That's a lot of disinterested Greg Pages!

Perhaps Page was disinterested at world level full stop? After all didn't Coetzee luck into a disinterested Mike Dokes? Dokes in turn lucked into a disinterested Weaver and of course Weaver himself lucked into disinterested Big John Tate right at the start of the WBA becoming disinterested in recognising the winner of Holmes v Noron as a worthy candidate for their half of the title way back when?

but as I keep saying #3 was as good as #1 what with The Ring putting all these kids who won and lost titles from the "disinterested" belt holder/contenders below Larry Holmes' throne as #1 and #2 in their ratings.

These rival guys were a lot less active.

Nobody stopped them from taking on Zannons and Frank's between fights.

I would have no problem if Weaver took Frank (or anybody) within the year he took off or if Coetzee took on Marvis Frazuer during the year he took off.

it's Apple's and oranges. I actually said equal rather than better.

 

Timing is very important in boxing.

You can write a book on this topic if you wish, but you have yet to get around one flaw in your logic, and you never will.

In 1983, when Larry Holmes fought Marvis Frazier AFTER being told he needed to fight the #1 contender (Page had been #1 since June), Marvis Frazier was at best a top 20 heavyweight. I have already dismissed your absurd claim that Joe Bugner and James Broad were top 10 contenders in 1983, when Frazier edged them.

You have tried to get around this hole in your argument by trying to degrade Page and Tubbs, while elevating Frazier.

It is true that Frazier improved somewhat in 1985 and 1986 and had some decent wins. He eventually became a top 10 heavyweight - until Tyson blew him away.

Yes, the Frazier that Tyson beat was more accomplished and respected than the novice that Larry Holmes beat.

Larry Holmes was stripped (or gave up) the WBC title in late '83 because he would no longer fight the best available competition.

 

That's really about what it all comes down to.. By the other guy's logic, these contenders were all supposed to be equals by reasoning of a connect the dots game, " Holmes beat snipes, snipes beat Berbick, Berbick beat Page = no reason for Holmes to fight Page." This thought process doesn't justify much of anything.. And even if it did, those contenders and fellow title holders whom Holmes never faced were still better than literally two thirds of the men Holmes DID fight.. To try and claim that John Tate, Gerrie Coetzee, Greg Page, Pinklon Thomas and rematches with Spoon and Weaver weren't better substitutes than Lucian Rodriguez, Alfredo Evangelista, Ossie Ocasio, Tex Cobb, David Bey, Scott Frank, Lorenzo Zannon or Marvis Frazier is ludicrous to say the least. Especially considering that Holmes even dropped a title and settled for less money to avoid one of them.. About the only one I'll give him a reasonable pass for not fighting was Michael Dokes given that they were both being promoted by the king family and Michael was being groomed to be Larry's eventual replacement, creating the likelihood that match was never going to happen... But in any case, I certainly hope that Chocolab's views about Bowe dumping his WBC title in the trash to avoid Lewis is consistent with his opinion's on Holmes' dropping HIS WBC title..

 

It was fair to list Holmes as #1 at the end of 1980.

And the reason is not that Holmes beat Ali, who was shot, but because Holmes held a win over Weaver, who was the WBA champ. at the end of 1980.

By this time, Weaver had improved his stock greatly since the very competitive Holmes fight.

This is when King and Arum should have put aside their differences.

Holmes/Weaver II in early 1981 would have been a natural.

I am not sure Holmes pushed for it, however. He had already had a very tough time with Weaver.

I think Weaver deserved such a fight, though because not only had he previously given Holmes all the could handle, but he had beaten better competiton then Holmes had since they fought.

Holmes beat very easy opposition in 1980, including a shot Ali, while Weaver beat Tate and Coetzee.

What many forget, is that the miracle last seconds KO of Tate by Weaver may have actually helped Holmes

If Tate had finished the Weaver fight, many would have pushed for a Holmes/Tate fight. Until the ending, Tate had actually looked more impressive against Weaver than Holmes had.

But, Weaver miraculously beat Tate after being outboxed the whole fight. Holmes could say he had already beaten Weaver, so he could claim #1 at the end of the year.

Instead of fighting Weaver in early 1981, Holmes fought Berbick, who had beaten a damaged goods fighter in Tate, who obviously did not recover from the Weaver KO.

Then, he fought Spinks, who had a big name based on the Ali upset years earlier, but had since been destroyed by Coetzee, who then lost to Tate and Weaver.

Weaver was obviously the guy for Holmes to fight in 1981 to solidify his claim to #1, but it never happened.

Holmes really had a knack for picking the right opponent at the right time.

 

Check out his fight with Marty Monroe. 225-218 would've been the ideal weight for Greg.