Is Larry Holmes

Spoon had had 15 pro fights and before that a handful of amateur fights. No one expected much of him beforehand. Before the fight, Holmes himself said Spoon didn't have the experience to beat him. Holmes had no interest in fighting him again when he was more experienced.

Spinks was a career light-heavy who hadn't had a single fight against a heavyweight (he barely squeaked past Eddie Davis!). That probably had a lot more to do with him being picked for Holmes' 49-0 fight than anything else.

 

Holmes had just beat ****ey who whether or not you think he deserved to be considered a leading contender he actually was by both the WBA and WBC. That means Holmes gets a voluntary defence. He had just taken two mandatory defences with C00ney and Snipes (who beat Coetzee for his shot) and if you remember, Tate picked Weaver for his voluntary defence and it went pear shaped for him. Same with Coetzee picking Page, page picking Tubbs etc etc..

But the point is Holmes defended his title three times the year he fought Weaver, a champion only has to fight one mandatory challenger per year and both Ocassio and Shavers qualified as Mandatory challengers on account of wins over Young and Norton.

The point is Holmes vs C00ney (right or wrong) was the fight the world wanted to see most. C00neys people actually wanted Weaver but Weaver took Tillis, a softer option.

****ey absolutely eclipsed Page at that time.

No, and more is the pity C00ney did not face Page, Berbick, Weaver or Dokes because seeing as each of them was destined to lose to the next half decent guy they each fought.

Dokes, Page, Tucker and Tubbs did not stop Jimmy Young. It was kind of a big deal when C00ney stopped Young who was in shape and had Eddie Futch in his corner. It was the kind of splash that neither Tucker, Tubbs and Dokes was able to make before challenging for titles. Neither made any kind of statement as a prospect at all. No wonder the wider public did not know who they were.

Holmes resorted to fighting Rodriguez when Weaver and Dokes were committed to a return fight, that was one lame defence, but within that year he beat Witherspoon who was rated by Ring Magazine out of beating Snipes. In fact every year after 1978 among Larry's three challengers or so he fought each year most were endorsed by Ring Magazine. Zannon, Occasio, Evangelista, Berbick, Spinks, Cobb, Snipes, ****ey, Witherspoon, Bey, Williams were currently rated by Ring Magazine.

why was this? Could it be because Shavers knocked him out and Larry fought him instead?

at any one time in the past, before governing bodies became irrational, the Ring Magazine ratings sufficed and looking at their Annual ratings Larry Holmes stayed in line with that old system. Each year, regardless of what nonsense the governing bodies did, Larry still beat a Ring Magazine rated contender, year in year out, and that's all any champion from before had to do.

He was recognised by both WBC and Ring Magazine that year. Yes, he had no real appeal and they tried like Mad to get Young to beat him in a return but at the end of the day they were left with Occasio who by the way drew with Dokes. Holmes toyed with him.

but at that point Shavers beat Norton in an eliminator. What was Holmes going to do?

And they were all independently recognised as real contenders apart from Ledoux and Jones and since they were not the only defences of those years Larry still defended his title legitimately.

I see your point. But what if when Holmes has made his way to that position and can't beat more than one rated guy without losing his next fight?

they were voluntary defences. Warm ups for fights that did or did not materialize between legitimate defences. Actually Snipes, Leon, Cobb and (believe it or not) Zannon were legitimate challengers anyway.

Page was well regarded until he lost to Berbick. After that he was unreliable. Dokes? He drew with Occasio and looked completely fragile winning against Cobb. Dokes win over Weaver was seen as a flash in the pan after he drew in their automatic rematch. Then Dokes lost to Coetzee who the last two champions beat.

yes I agree. I would have loved to have seen Larry fight both Dokes and Page but I understand why it did not happen. The fact both lost right after their best wins kind of says a lot about how they fare against a showdown with a consistent champion.

That's part of the story. The other part is that there really was not enough momentum behind Page to stage any more challenge to Holmes than Frazier. What difference did it make if he fight Frazier first? Did anyone strip Joe Louis for taking all those guys ahead of Max Schmeling?

no they just had to be rated and most of them were rated by Ring Magazine.

what made Tate a legit prime champion? Was he any better than Weaver or Dokes? What was Tates stand out win before facing Coetzee? How about Tubbs? Dokes?

yes but by the time Holmes went out and established himself even Ring Magazine rated him as the real champion by 1980.

Holmes was the man to beat. It was not the other way around. Tate was proberbly considered the fith or sixth best heavyweight in the world before he beat Coetzee and the guys who beat him and in turn took turns losing to each other never established themselves beyond anything too far above that kind of level did they?

but they were crucial to legitimizing Holmes legacy.

Tell that to Ring Magazine.

 

so that made Tate #2 to Holmes. The fact Tate then lost to the guy Holmes just knocked out (and by your own admission was nobody before that point and therefore still nobody) kind of loses his luster considerably.

in all likelihood Cobb might have beat Page. Why not? Bey did.

 

Thing is, Tate picked a guy who had nearly beaten Holmes. Weaver picked the #1 ranked contender. Coetzee picked a highly ranked contender whom Holmes had just ducked. Holmes picked Tex Cobb.

Making a mandatory defence doesn't mean you get carte blanche to fight whoever the hell you want next, however unqualified or undeserving they may be.

I agree it was the big money fight to be made and I don't blame Holmes. The problem is C**ney's main qualification was being a great white hope. His actual championship credentials were pretty weak.

In accomplishments?

And how many half decent prime contenders had C**ney beaten?

I never said they stopped Young. They all beat him. Dokes beat Young before C**ney. Beating Young was a rite of passage for up and coming 80s heavies. And again, it was on a cut, not a KO against a Young on a downward spiral.

But where were they ranked by the Ring? By my count Holmes fought no more than four men who were ranked in the top 3, going by the previous issue before the fight took place. He hardly ever tackled the #1 ranked guy in the division. The champ constantly fighting the #8, #9 or #10 guy isn't that impressive.

The point is, why did Norton have to go through Shavers at all? Holmes beat Norton in June 78. Norton lost to Shavers in March 79. By that point Holmes was already on his second title defence. Why would Holmes be fighting Ossie Ocasio when he could have been having a much more lucrative and challenging rematch with Norton?

As noted above, Holmes generally wasn't beating the higher ranked Ring contenders. The WBA champs were invariably #1 or #2, so he wasn't meeting them. A lot of his defences were against guys ranked #6 or lower. You can say he was facing Ring ranked fighters, but it's not that impressive when higher ranked guys are being ignored. Compare to Joe Louis and how often he took care of the #1 guys.

No real appeal, and no real threat. Given how his heavyweight career fizzled out quickly after Holmes, I'd say the Young results said more about Young than Ocasio. Just seems to me a case of Holmes quickly picking a non-threatening opponent who had just picked off a bigger name, like he did with Bey.

I agree. I can understand Shavers after he beat Norton.

Define real contender. No one was calling for those fights or thought these guys a serious threat, even if they did make it to #9 in the Ring's ratings one year.

Depends who he was fighting though. If Holmes was constantly fighting guys ranked in the top three or four, he'd have probably been less consistent. If Spoon had won the title and instead of tackling a dangerous unbeaten contender like Thomas, made a lot of defences against Zanon/LeDoux level opponents, he could have dragged out his reign a lot longer.

Snipes got his shot based on his robbery over Coetzee. Not sure the others could ever be described as "legitimate".

Page came back to beat up Tillis pretty well and then handled Snipes easily. He got to be Holmes' mandatory after Berbick and Holmes looked to easier fights.

Dokes did KO Ocasio in the rematch and if we're going by rankings, Dokes was rated #4, #3, #1 and #3 by the Ring from 80-83. Who did Holmes face who was higher ranked in that time frame?

A consistent champion who always struggled against his best opponents, including a few who were expected to be soft touches. You'd have to make Holmes the favourite, though not a massive one and if Dokes/Page were on, they'd be very tough for him.

Page was a highly rated and experienced contender, Marvis was not. Page was Holmes' mandatory. Marvis was not. Holmes knew the fight was a gimme and pushed for it regardless. He couldn't even get it sanctioned as a title fight. Of course Holmes could have taken the money for beating Marvis, beat Page as well and kept his title. Going the route he did makes it look like he just didn't want to fight Page and only wanted the easier fight.

Joe Louis isn't really a valid comparison since while he did have a few soft touches, he always took care of the #1 and #2 men in timely fashion. The same can't be said of Holmes.

He was a top contender who beat another top contender for a vacant title. That's not much different to what Holmes did against Norton. He'd got some decent scalps in Knoetze, Bobick and Mercado, which was probably more impressive than anything Holmes did prior to beating Shavers.

They took turns losing to each other while Holmes mostly ignored them all and padded his record with lower tier fighters unless it looked like there was a soft touch in it for him, like a Bey for instance. Do you think Holmes would have been so consistent if he'd had to face Tate, Dokes, Page, Thomas, Coetzee, Tubbs, plus have rematches with Norton, Weaver, Spoon and Williams. All the above were better, higher ranked and posed a bigger threat than the Leons, LeDouxs, Evangelistas and Cobbs who account for so many of Holmes' defences.

That doesn't say much for Holmes' legacy.

The Ring isn't, and has never been, the final word in boxing.

 

Anytime mate.

 

no Coetzee did not pick the guy who Holmes had just ducked at all. Coetzee picked the guy who was coming off back to back defeats with Witherspoon and David Bay. Holmes never defended against a guy who was 0-2 in his last two fights.

no they still have to be rated.

in demand. C00ney was exciting. Nobody else was.

more than Tony Tubbs and Micheal Dokes.

but nobody cared because it was not as early or as impressive as when ****ey did it.

The #1 spot was locked on whoever was the other champion. The "second best to Larry championship" and the sanctioning body gave each guy a mandatory first so they could get another 100% fee before it's champion might land a unification (that would represent only a 50% or 33% fee) that they would lose. They were happy with that system until the TV companies were on to it and demanded the unification serries in 1985. If they could ever get past a defence maybe a unification might have happened? I know Weaver Did but that was in the middle of the C00ney fight and Ali comeback.
.

maybe because Norton wanted time off for reflection? Maybe the WBC insisted on the elimination this time with Shavers after they were embarrassed over Norton being their only champion never to win a title fight?

But don't you see they were rated #1 only because they had a belt. The governing body that took the sanctioning fee from the promotion the night the belt holder won his position did not have to share this fee with the opposing governing body because they recognised somebody else. and that's exactly how they wanted it.

No it's not a case of that at all. Larry wanted Ali and in the meantime the WBA and Ali did not want him. Norton,Young and Shavers were the last real names left in the division and Larry wanted to legitimize and establish his claim by being busy. Ocassio beat Young twice, shavers beat Norton so Holmes rounded up the pair of them and beat them. It was better than anything that kid Tate did but on Ali's retirement they chose Tate not Larry to face Coetzee for Ali's vacant belt.

then why downgrade Cobb, C00ney and Snipes?

the fights people were calling for was unification. You are absolutely right. There was C00ney and the comeback Ali and the fact that the seperate governing bodies put seperate mandatory demands on each champion. They did not want unification. The way Holmes saw it, he was there first. It was up to him to out do the other champion until they could challenge him once they could ever get past their governing bodies mandatory. But they kept losing.

I think your too set on this belief that Holmes did that but check out the time line, the credentials of challengers to both belts. The situation was a #9 guy could fight #2 (who had a belt) win and that made him #2. The #1 guy fights #10 beats him then the loser beats #2. It wont make #2 into #1.

being legitimately rated by the governing body was all Dokes had to be. It was all Tubbs had to be. It was all weaver had to be. Snipes was as qualified. And Snipes was just one guy.

but if Ocassio is so ludicrous what was Dokes doing drawing with him in the first place?? Dokes was behind C00ney in the ratings 80', 81', in 82 Dokes was #1 to Holmes but was tied to an automatic Weaver rematch so he could not fight Holmes anyway. 83 was his last legs, he lost to Coetzee. When was the WBA going to allow Dokes to fight Larry? What made Coetzee in 1983 a better contender than Tim Witherspoon?

when Dokes and Page were on they still did not beat anyone as good as Holmes had. Page best win was Snipes. Dokes best win was Weaver. Nothing Holmes had not done.

It makes it look like it for sure but Holmes had paid his dues by then is it so outrageous that a busy champ take one challenger before the other. Patterson took London before Ingo. Louis took Harry Thomas before Schmeling. Foreman fought Jose Roman. What screaming, "automatic title shot worthy win" did fat Greg have before Marvis went ahead of him?

his #1 contender was Schmeling because Schmeling was #1contender over Louis when he fought Braddock. With no governing bodies in conflict Joe fought three other guys ahead of Max who had been in the dark for two years. With no governing bodies in conflict that fight did eventually happen. Greg Page did not happen because there was conflicting titles and his case was no way as strong as the Max Schmeling case for a title fight. Not in a million years. His case was he could lose to Berbick and outpoint Snipes? Then had fat Greg beat Witherspoon there might have been enough outrage to create a Holmes fight but we all know what fat Greg did with that golden opportunity. Why would he turned up for Holmes.

 

No. You make excelent points until this one. Tate was no way as qualified as Holmes to fight for the vacant WBA recognition. It's an outrageous statement. Tate was a kid. Hand picked.

The governing bodies wanted to create conflict with each other and take sanctioning fees exclusively from seperate promotions without having to share it with the other. 50% of 20% of a title fight is less than 100% of 20% for a title fight the other body can't sanction. That's all it was about.

did Holmes ignore them or did he just accept the situation? He screamed for a fight with Ali in 1978 to unify the championship before he retired. But Ali retired. That's not ignoring the rival championship. After that both champions set out to outdo the other but the rival championship was the second best because they just kept losing whilst Holmes did establish himself enough to be regarded as the real guy. He beat Ali, Spinks, Norton the three guys involved in the breakdown of the undisputed championship. Then the guys he beat wound up winning the alternative belt on the rebound. It's obvious guys like Frazier, C00ney, Williams, Cobb (that you ridicule for not being called Greg Page, Dokes or Tubbs) had identical credentials and stood 50-50 chance against the rival championship to Holmes. Everybody who fought for the WBA belt became a champion. Why not Frazuer, Williams, Bey and Snipes??

Larry can't help that the world governing bodies, perhaps TV and its leading promoter actually wanted a multi champion situation. There was deliberate conflict just to keep it that way.

No but it's ratings are an excelent over view of history and timeline. Nobody could reasonably dispute any of its decisions in rating a champion as the real champion rather than stating that the title is vacant as it did when there was dispute or confusions. This importance Ring Magazine has continued to put on history is also crucial to making comparative decisions among champions. It is significant that Ring Magazine accepted the whole ABC situation for what it was and recognised HOlmes as the actual champion whilst rating the belt holders only as contenders.

And that is all they were. Like any point in history a #1 contender is a spot in the ratings that can be a revolving door of guys losing to each other before getting a chance to face the real champ. If the #1 dosnt get to fight a champion imediatley he often loses his position to the next contender. And that's all the "second best to Larry championship" was.

 

When did they do that ?
On the strength of his win over Ali ?

 

Year ending 1980 Larry was installed as "champion" in Ring Magazine annual ratings. Previously the title was "vacant" with Holmes as #1 contender.

 

He picked Page, whom Holmes had just ditched his title rather than face in favour of fighting two set-ups instead.

But when you pick what is basically a journeyman or novice fighter who s****ed in at #10 one year, that's stretching credibility.

In demand is not the same as being top quality or deserving.

C**ney hadn't beaten any!

Nobody cared because they weren't great white hopes beating a washed up but well known 70s contender.

How could they be second best to Holmes when he wouldn't even fight them?

Or maybe Holmes just wanted two easier fights rather than rematch a guy he beat by one point.

If you hold a belt, then generally you're one of the best in a division. As a case in point, on the rare occasions Holmes actually fought one of the WBA crew, they gave him hell. You can't have it both ways with the rankings. You can't build up guys Holmes beat because they snuck into the Ring's top ten, but dismiss the WBA guys when they were regularly ranked #1, #2 and #3.

Ocasio was clearly a case of opportunism. He was 13-0 and undersized, beat a disinterested Young who never contended for anything again, and Holmes quickly fought him. As I said above, a Norton rematch would have had more meaning, but then a Norton rematch would likely have been a lot trickier than Ocasio.

Because Cobb hadn't done anything to warrant a title shot, C**ney hadn't beaten one prime viable contender, and Snipes' title shot was based on his robbery of Coetzee.

They kept losing because the WBA champs were facing other highly ranked fighters. Weaver lost to #1 ranked Dokes. Dokes lost to #3 ranked Coetzee. Coetzee lost to #2 ranked Page. Page lost to #3 ranked Spoon. How many times did Holmes fight someone rated #3 or higher?

How many times did that actually happen? Who were the top rated guys that Cobb, Zanon etc beat? More often than not a journeymen crept into the Ring's ten one year, and then disappeared without trace again.

Then surely Page being legitimately ranked #1 was sufficient for him.

Remember we're talking about a 21 year old 17-0 Dokes fighting in Ocasio's backyard. What was Holmes doing at age 21 and in his 17th pro fight? He did KO Ocasio second time around.

Coetzee was a lot more experienced than Spoon in 83, a two-time former title challenger, and much like with C**ney, facing him was lucrative.

They were also better than most of the guys Holmes actually defended against. A then completely unknown Weaver with no championship experience went life and death with Holmes. Dokes stopped Weaver in one round. A rookie Spoon pushed Holmes to a very close split. Thomas handled Spoon easier than Holmes did. Snipes almost KO'd Holmes. Page handled Snipes easier than Holmes. The very limited and one dimensional Shavers almost KO'd him. A 16-0 Williams busted Holmes up with his jab and probably should have left the ring as champion. Weaver flattened Williams in two rounds. Why couldn't more experienced and formidable fighters do better?

I don't agree that because a champ has "paid his dues" (which is arguable in Holmes' case), he has the right to basically milk the title by picking weak challengers. If Holmes had fought Marvis and then tackled his #1 contender, it would be more justifiable but he didn't do that. Louis fought Thomas then Schmeling. Foreman fought Roman then Norton. Holmes fought Frank, then Marvis and followed up with... 13-1 Bonecrusher. Not quite the same thing.

Again, the trouble with this argument is when you apply it to the men Holmes did fight. If Page was undeserving because he lost to Berbick, why was Holmes happy to fight Cobb, who had recently been beaten by Dokes, or Spinks, who had already been KO'd by Coetzee, or his Euro murderers' row Zanon, Evangelista and Rodriguez, who had all lost to all kinds of fighters before Holmes ever got to them. Conflicting titles was not an issue since Page didn't even hold a title when he was named Holmes' mandatory.

 

What had Holmes done to warrant a title shot prior to beating Shavers in 78?

10-0 undersized Marvis with no meaningful wins to his name clearly did not have identical credentials to Dokes, Page and co. Nor did Cobb whose sole claim to fame was his ability to take a beating. He went 0-2 against Dokes. How could C**ney be on a par? The WBA guys were exactly the type of fighters he was steered away from.

I think it suited Holmes that there was an alternate title belt out there to distract the best fighters in the division, which made it easier to avoid them.

The Ring is not infallible. They were caught rigging their ratings back in the 70s and more recently they handed their championship belt to Roy Jones when by all rights it should have been Dariusz. Recognising Holmes as the 'real' champ on the basis of Weaver beating Tate was completely arbitrary and doesn't in any way give him more legitimacy. Presumably if Tate had won, their title would have stayed vacant. Under their new championship policy, Holmes would not have been recognised as the Ring's real champ because he would have had to unify or beat their #1 contender.

Except Holmes didn't fight the next #1, or the one after that. He preferred to face fringe guys who might have been ranked #10 one year but whom no one considered a serious threat. Count the number of times Holmes actually fought the #1, #2 or #3 ranked man in the division. You won't need two hands. The argument that they weren't around long enough or were beating each other doesn't really tally, as Joe Louis rapidly took care of #1 contender after another.

 

On the strength of his win over Ali ?
I'm not sure that's to the RING's credit at all.

 

I don't think that's even what happened.
The RING magazine recognized Holmes as champion for beating up the remains of Muhammad Ali, who had officially retired a year earlier, hadn't fought in 2 years, hadn't convincingly beat a good contender in many many years, and was clearly slurring his words and suffering from something that we know now was Parkinsonsism .

Recognizing Holmes after Weaver beats Tate would be better.
Personally, I think Holmes-Shavers 2 was a legitimate opportunity to crown a new lineal champ, since I believe Shavers deserved to be ranked #2 at that time, and Holmes #1.

 

I think the WBA deliberately wanted to keep the title split after Ali retired because they realised how much better off they were when they were not sharing fees with the WBC after they broke away to recognise Norton.

Holmes had beat Norton, Shavers and the guy who beat Young. He had done everything he could in the absence of a lineer champion. There was nobody else left to beat so Holmes was clearly the #1 and that's how The Ring saw it too.

All it would have took once Ali retired was for the two bodies to agree on who the logical #2 behind Holmes was at that point and match them together.

The WBA installing Tate rather than Holmes to fight Coetzee for their recognition was a deliberate snub. I can see how Coetzee was a legitimate #2 after sensationally beating Leon Spinks in one round but Tate over Larry was ludicrous.

Had Coetzee v Holmes happened in 1979 for WBA recognition we would have had an undisputed champion then.

You can only blame WBA for backing the wrong horse out of greed.

 

It was the Bob Arum v Don King power struggle.