Is Larry Holmes

It's best to rate fighters after their career is over.

Witherspoon > Page

C00ney > Coetzee

Thomas > M Spinks.

Switching Holmes's better title opponents around with those he did not fight would actually have made his overall resume a little weaker.

No one is saying Evangelista, Zannon and Rodriguez were good title opponents. they were not. Ali took many easy title matches too, and some think he lost to Evangelista.

At times, I think Holmes would have been better off if he didn't easily outclass Ali. Holmes was hated for it. The truth is Ali acted like a real jerk in the ring and called Holmes all sorts of names. If anything Holmes held back a bit on Ali

 

I wouldn't agree ****ey > Coetzee

****ey beat no top 10 guys who were near prime, except, arguably, Young, and that was on a cut. Hopefully, you do not consider Eddie Gregg a true top 10 contender, even if he may have technically been rated when he fought ****ey (not sure if he was, he had already lost to James Broad). Lyle, Norton were big names, but shells of their prime selves. Giving Holmes a good fight was nice, but still a ko loss.

Coetzee beat Dokes, gave Weaver hell before losing, should have gotten the decision over Snipes and drew with Thomas. He also stopped Leon Spinks in one round, which in hindsight, not overly impressive, was still the first guy to stop him and it was considered a huge upset. And all these opponents were at or close to prime when he fought them.

 

Agreed. While I'm not sure who wins head to head, the legacy points have to go to Coetzee over C00ney.

 

Cotezee lost when he stepped up ( Tate, Weaver, Snipes, Page Bruno ) He has one major win over Dokes.

C00ney was better, he hit harder and gave Holmes a tough fight for the first ten rounds which is better than any of Cotezee's losses.

C00ney dispatched Lyle, Norton and Young in six combined rounds, very impressive even if they were past their best. Gregg was decent enough.

Had team C00ney fought Weaver ( Weaver had a terrible defense I think C00ney would have won ) instead and waited 2 more years, he might have beaten a then past his prime Holmes. Alcohol and bad managements plagued C00ney's career, but when focused he was better than Cotezee.

 

Was Norton better than Tate in 79? Regardless, Holmes didn't beat either of them that year. That same year Tate beat Coetzee, Holmes' amateur nemesis Bobick and Knoetze. Tate beating Evangelista 50-50? Tate lost to Weaver and Berbick. The list of nobodies who beat or drew with Evangelista would take an hour to type. Was Holmes beating Evangelista, a then unheralded Weaver and Shavers so much more impressive?

This logic is all over the place. So Holmes was the best in 80-82 because Berbick beat Pinklon Thomas in 86? Did Larry have a crystal ball? It has no relevance to 80-82, when Holmes didn't meet Weaver, Dokes or Coetzee, three of the best challengers available in that timeframe, preferring less deserving, less dangerous challengers.

When did Holmes annihilate Berbick? He went 15 dull rounds with a guy who'd never been past ten before and who'd been KO'd in a round by Mercado.

Dokes drew with (and beat) Weaver who went life and death with Holmes. In 82-83, Holmes gave title shots to two men who had already lost to Dokes (Cobb and Rodriguez). If they were deserving, why not the guy who beat them, and was also undefeated, more talented, higher ranked, held a title etc? Dokes also KO'd yet another Holmes challenger in Ocasio and also beat Jimmy Young, a win that was sufficient to get Ocasio and C**ney a shot at Holmes. To say he was barely better than Rodriguez is absurd. Rodriguez managed to get KO'd three times by Evangelista! There's no question that Dokes was a better qualified challenger in that timeframe than the fights Holmes was taking, and that includes 15-0 Spoon and an untested C**ney. We can't pretend that Holmes knew Dokes would lose to Coetzee in late 83, or that Spoon would go on to be a world champion.

Witherspoon beat Page in 84, ten months after beating Holmes to many minds (or drawing at worst). If Spoon was better than Page, and had just given Holmes a very tough fight, why was Holmes fighting two clearly inferior fighters instead? The upshot is, Holmes left someone he'd just gone life and death with to tackle the #1 contender while he faced Frank and Frazier.

In 1984 Holmes beat Smith. Thomas beat Witherspoon, who in turn had beaten Page. You could argue that based on that Holmes was no better than #3 in the division. Certainly the other champs faced stiffer competition.

Since when are Williams and Bey a better win than Weaver? Weaver had better credentials than both and KO'd Williams the following year. Williams got the Holmes fight after beating Quick Tillis (who knocked him down twice), the same Tillis who you've dismissed constantly in this thread, and let's not forget that the decision for Holmes was very controversial. Then after getting the benefit of the doubt once again against Williams, Holmes picks a career light-heavy, who ends up beating him? Once again Holmes wasn't meeting the best fighters in the division while the other champs were, and finally lost to one of his soft touches after numerous other narrow escapes.

So why didn't Holmes challenge Page? Put to rest all those allegations that he ducked Page the previous year and face a fellow titlist who had just KO'd the guy Holmes had tried to arrange a fight with? Page was always open to fighting Holmes.

But he never beat them. He left someone else to beat them while he took on the lesser lights of the division. It would be like Joe Louis saying he didn't have to face Jersey Joe Walcott, because he already beat Abe Simon, who KO'd Walcott. Or Foreman saying he didn't have to face Ali, because he thrashed Norton and Frazier who beat Ali. Or Ali saying he didn't need to face Lyle or Patterson, because he already beat guys who beat them. Or Lewis saying he didn't have to face McCall, because he already beat Tucker who beat McCall, and Bruno, who would go on to beat McCall. True champions clean out their divisions. Holmes didn't.

Holmes didn't beat Thomas in 84-85 when Thomas had handled Spoon and Weaver easier than Holmes had and looked to be top dog in the division. He fought Smith, Bey, Williams (who'd had less than 50 pro fights combined!) and then a career light-heavy instead. He didn't beat Weaver when Weaver held 50% of the title and was beating top contenders, yet fought the likes of LeDoux, Cobb and an inexperienced Berbick. He didn't beat Dokes when he was the top contender, but was happy to tackle Dokes' sloppy seconds and let Dokes face Weaver instead! He didn't fight Page when he was the #1 contender, choosing to fight Marvis and Frank and leave Page to face the guy Holmes had just gone life and death with. And why did no one who gave Holmes a hard fight ever get a rematch? Compare that to Joe Louis, who always rematched his tough or disputed wins.

Writing off these guys because they lost to someone Holmes beat years earlier or years later (or lost to someone else who lost to someone Holmes beat) is flawed logic. It's simply a matter of record that when these guys held titles, were highly ranked, unbeaten and were considered risky fights for Holmes, he looked the other way and took fights against weaker, less deserving opposition while the WBA crew more often than not faced better opposition then him. It's like that absurd argument that because Wills lost to Sharkey, that proves Dempsey would have beaten Wills all along or that it was okay that Dempsey didn't face him in the previous six years.

 

Nice ****ysis. You've proved your case in my eyes, but I am one who agree Holmes cherry picked throughout his reign. If Choke doesn't get it by now, he never will.

 

I would say so yes.

1978 the top contenders were Spinks, Norton, Young, Holmes, shavers. Remind me, which of these did Tate beat to appear as the second best heavyweight in the world by 1979?

neither of them being called Holmes, Young, Norton, Shavers then?

exactly.

unheralded weaver was simply a warm up to shavers. As it turns out even he was better than Tate.

no, what I said was "weaver was better than Coetzee. Jones beat Weaver. Berbick beat the guy that knocked out Weaver and Holmes knocked out Snipes and annihilated Berbick and Jones So yes Holmes was the best over that period." I meant Berbick beating Tate (although he later beat Thomas iS also significant) must have made Berbick some kind of challenger since the WBA put him in a vacant title.

C00ney and Spinks were both ring #3, Ali ring #5. How far down the ratings did Weaver go to pick Tillis?

Berbick had beat a recent belt holder. You can't have it both ways. How many belt holders had Dokes or Tate beat before challenging?

maybe Weaver should have taken on better challengers than Tillis and Dokes? Maybe the public would have went wild for Holmes to rematch him had Weaver beat Ali, Spinks, C00ney?

isn't that like Tate facing a man Holmes already beat in weaver? Isn't that like Thomas facing men Holmes already beat when he went 2-1 with spoon, Berbick and Weaver? Isn't that like Witherspoon defending against Smith who Holmes beat?

How about weaver facing the man above Tillis and Dokes in Gerry C00ney? Larry fought Gerry in 82. C00ney was above Dokes in the ratings when Weaver gave him a shot. Why did Weaver duck C00ney? Was it the WBA making a nuisance of themselves again?

Spinks, Ali, Snipes, C00ney were all higher profile than Dokes was as a mere contender going life and death with Cobb. If Witherspoon and Weaver were merely "unheralded" for Holmes so too was Dokes after beating John L Gardener.

we dont have to. Dokes already drew with Ocassio and Weaver and went life and death with Cobb. It was just a matter of time until he lost. And it turned out that way too.

we dont have to know Tim would later go on to be a "kind of" champion. Witherspoon already beat Snipes before fighting Holmes. surely Tim was as worthy then as Page was beating Snipes? Supposedly that was worthy of #1? Larry can beat Snipes and he beat guys who could beat Snipes too.

how do we know Holmes was only beating unworthy guys like Marvis and Frank waiting for Page to raise his profile? After all he can't beat Berbick but he can beat Tillis. Everybody beat Tillis Marvis Frazier included. Page beat Snipes. So what! Even Frank drew with Snipes. Of course Page might be better but until he could draw a crowd why can't Holmes take fights that can make the Same money? It's not like Larry was not active.

Witherspoon was good enough for a rematch for sure. But Tim is given the option of a vacant title fight within ten months. I dont remember Tim making a stand and preferring to chase Holmes for a rematch once he got that offer. The vacant belt is a carrot dangled under his nose.

on that year Thomas equalised his claim with Holmes. He could surpass Holmes if he beat Holmes. They both beat Witherspoon. They both beat Weaver. Holmes did not draw with Coetzee, then Larry beat Bey who was Ring Magazine #3 and Thomas lost to Berbick. It's history repeating itself.

because Weaver looked lousy against Tony Anthony on the Holmes v Bonecrusher undercard.

we did not have that Crystal ball to know that did we?

Holmes was at the end of the road by then. I think Thomas v Williams could have spelled disaster for Thomas he only had two decent names on his win list himself. Without that belt Thomas is just a solid contender. Among the weaker challengers Holmes beat plenty enough solid challengers.

Holmes was not fighting the best guys all of the time. Of course he wasn't. How could he? 50% of the best contenders had other options. Other titles. Other mandatorys. But he fought the best Half of the time. Was the last man standing. And when all is said and done recorded by far the better record, held far more wins over of the best of the division including all the key figures at the start of the period and by the end of the period.

no it's not like that. Louis had one belt. His contenders had no option but challenge only him. Contenders fought among themselves eliminating one another so the whole thing was a lot clearer to understand. No alternative route. The undisputed champions still had to take easier fights from time to time just to keep busy. Often it was unclear who the logical contender was. One such case was Patterson taking Roy Harris because Folley and Machen drew their eliminator. Folley and Machen would have challenged the rival champion had it been the 1980s

 

In 79 Norton lost to Shavers and drew with LeDoux. Young lost to Ocasio and Dokes. Spinks got KO'd by Coetzee. Tate was clearly above them.

While Evangelista lost and drew with...

So unheralded Weaver, hot on the heels of Evangelista and Ocasio. How many unheralded fighters did Holmes need? Weaver turning out to be better than Tate is irrelevant.

Who else did Berbick beat that KO'd Weaver? He beat Tate who already lost to Weaver. Snipes was coming off a "win" against Coetzee that nearly everyone thought he lost.

And where were Weaver, Dokes and Coetzee ranked by the Ring? Tillis was the WBA's #3 contender, and Weaver was ordered to face him.

You said Holmes "annihilated" Berbick. He didn't. Berbick was 18-1. How many boxers were at their best after 20 bouts?

Better than the #1 and #3 challengers? Holmes hardly ever fought men ranked that high. You think Weaver beating a decrepit Ali or Neon Leon would have had the public going wild? Did they go wild when Holmes beat them?

Not really, because Holmes gave title shots to two undeserving fringe journeymen ahead of better fighters. Spoon was the reigning champ, Weaver was an ex-champ still highly ranked.

C**ney-Weaver only didn't happen because Tillis was his mandatory. C**ney actually considered Weaver a tougher fight than Holmes. It also refutes your claim that the WBA belt was bogus, since C**ney and his people were keen to challenge for it. C**ney was only the Ring's #3 challenger when Holmes actually fought him.

Ali and Spinks were out of the picture after 81. The argument about needing a high profile is moot, since Holmes fought loads of fighters with no profile. In any event, Dokes wasn't unheralded. He was considered the next big thing in the division.

Holmes already went life and death with Weaver, was one point from losing to Norton, one point from drawing with a neophyte Witherspoon, badly hurt in several fights and lucky to escape with wins in others. It was only a matter of time before he lost, which is why his title defences were so risk averse. Most of his tough fights were by accident.

If Spoon was a "kind of" champ then so was Holmes. He won a title that Holmes vacated because he refused to face his top challengers. Larry went life and death with one guy who beat Snipes and ducked another who beat Snipes. Frazier/Frank didn't even beat Snipes, or anyone else of any importance.

How do we know Holmes wasn't just taking two easier fights? That's more likely, and he was quite open about it at the time. Frazier and Frank were inferior fighters to Spoon and Page. That's undeniable. Holmes' choice couldn't be clearer. Now Page has to be a draw? Were Frank and Frazier a big draw? How big a crowd could Rodriguez, Zanon and Cobb pull in?

A rematch wasn't on the table because Holmes wasn't interested. Spoon beat #1 Page for the title and then fought #1 Thomas. Clearly he wasn't avoiding the tough ones. Holmes followed up Spoon with Frank and Frazier then a 13-1 Smith. Draw your own conclusions.

He couldn't beat Holmes if Holmes wouldn't fight him. In 84-85, Holmes fought Smith, Bey, Williams and Spinks, none of whom was better, higher ranked or a tougher fight than Thomas. Thomas beating Spoon and Weaver trumps Holmes in that timeframe. As I said before, Thomas losing to someone (after Holmes had already lost to a light-heavy) who lost to Holmes five years earlier doesn't prove anything. Holmes wouldn't have fought Berbick or Thomas in 86.

Holmes didn't look too special that night either. Life and death with yet another rookie with a 13-1 record! He looked even lousier against Truth, whom Weaver KO'd and Tillis knocked down twice.

We did see Williams' previous fight though, when he was knocked down twice by Tillis, which according to you was a meaningless win anyway. Take away Tillis and Williams' best win before Holmes was either David Jaco or Michael Greer.

Without his paper IBF belt what was Holmes? He hadn't beaten a mandatory since C**ney back in June 82 and it was pretty obvious he was picking as many soft touches as he could to chase Rocky and Louis' records.

That's the point. Holmes hardly ever fought the best in the division. Quite often the "bogus" WBA champ was fighting someone better. Thomas, Dokes, Page and Coetzee were "key figures" active during Holmes' reign. He didn't fight them. He never gave rematches to men who gave him tough fights. Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Jones, LeDoux, Spinks, Snipes, Cobb, Rodriguez, Frank, Frazier, Bey, Smith, Williams and Spinks were not the best in the division. That's 15 of Holmes' defences. Spoon, Berbick and Weaver are better wins in hindsight because of what they achieved later, but at the time they were inexperienced and seen as mismatches. Which leaves who, Norton and C**ney?

Of course Holmes is going to be the last man standing if he ignores the best fighters and leaves them to face each other. He did it time and again. The WBA guys would have reigned for years too if they'd ignored each other and fought loads of Frank/LeDoux/Zanon level opponents. Instead their records suffer for being willing to take on the best fighters while Holmes gets credit for lasting years feasting on weak challengers.

So Holmes benefited from the multi-belt era, as it kept the best heavies occupied when in a one title era they'd have been focused on him. He'd have a harder time getting away with Cobb/Rodriguez when Dokes/Weaver were waiting in the wings. He wouldn't have been able to just vacate his title and shack up with another ABC because he didn't fancy meeting his mandatories.

 

Yes and that win over Dokes comprehensively eclipses anything that C00ney ever accomplished.

I think I am right in saying that Dokes was the #1 contender?

 

Dokes (like all of the WBA belt holders) only inherited Ring #1 contender status to Holmes on account of being a belt holder. The thing is you can trace the lineage back to Tate at the conception of the second champion and neither one were a Ring Magazine #1 before getting the belt.

Ring #1 in those days was an inherited spot that came with the belt. Tate only beat Bobick. how did that put 19-0 Tate above Holmes, shavers or Norton when he fought Coetzee for Ali's title?

Weaver beat Tate coming off a loss to Holmes. Where was Weaver rated at that point? He's the second champion not to achieve leading contender status.

Dokes beat John L Gardener to get his shot at Weaver. How high was Gardener rated? This makes Dokes (who was behind C00ney as a contender) the third WBA champion to beat a WBA champion who had not first achieved independent leading contender status.

Coetzee was a big money spinner for the WBA so he preserved a high-ranking with the WBA and he got three chances to win it. Gerrie got a crack at Weaver when all he'd done was had one fight outside of world class since losing to Tate. But where did the Ring rate Coetzee ahead of that Weaver fight? It was not #1. So Coetzee is the forth WBA champion/contender to Holmes to not be such an outstanding contender in the traditional sense before challenging the opposite champion.

Page won the belt from Coetzee right after two losses. In reality David Bey was ahead of page at the time.

Tony Tubbs and David Bey both beat Page but only Tubbs got to call himself a WBA champion. Is that fair?

These guys are just regular contenders with a belt by now. There is no difference between Bey and Tubbs.

These alternate champions to Holmes might of been good contenders in their own right and better than some of the challengers Holmes fought - but not all of them.

They passed that ranking with the belt because the ranking came with the belt. The #1 ranking was never achieved on beating anybody before winning the belt.

 

no that puts Shavers above all of them. That would make it #1 Shavers, #2 Occasio, #3 Coetzee. Proberbly even ledoux goes ahead of 19-0 Tate.

Dwayne Bobick is not in the top 4.

But don't you see, Occasio inherited a high rating twice beating the WBC #2 Jimmy Young. Shavers scored a stunning win over Norton (recent champion) who had gave Holmes his closest fight and was unbeaten since that late 1978 championship fight.

It's like Trevor Berbick knocking out Tate. He deserved a shot for that too. Instead Weaver fought Tillis.

So it's not ok that Weaver had not registered a single wotrthwhile win before challenging Holmes, but it is ok that Weaver still has not scored a worthwhile win after losing to Holmes challenging Tate?

It is ok that Coetzee get a second chance at the WBA belt without scoring a worthwhile win since losing to Tate but not OK for Snipes to challenge Holmes after he beat Coetzee?

The WBA having Tillis as their #3 was very silly. Nearly as silly as choosing 19-0 Tate instead of Holmes to fight Coetzee for their recognition in the first place. As stated before C00ney was always rated above Dokes as a contender and Weaver was behind a lot of contenders fighting Tate, a fast tracked Olympian (like Leon Spinks) who hardly paid his dues in the division.

John Tate.

neither did the alphabet champs hardly beat better than #3. Page was a loser challenging Coetzee. He was behind Bey. Nobody rated Smith, Tillis or Weaver the future of the division. And with good reason. After all Joe Bugner would beat Tillis and Page and Bey back to back proving these guys were one level.

if Wever landed fights with Ali or Leon (no guarantee he could win, he lost to Leroy Jones after all) and Weaver manage to beat Leon and Ali then Larry would have looked more of a pretender and demand to unify would be greater than it was when it was the other way around.

nothing fringe about Bey.

and what made Tillis mandatory?

The WBA champion was a bogus champion because it's vacant title selection was bogus but the belt itself was worth something towards being champion.

yes Holmes fought low profile guys to stay busy. Let's seperate them into groups. High profile, worthy and "no profile". Shavers, Ali, Spinks, ****ey were "high profile". Witherspoon, Berbick, Bey, Ocassio, Williams, Snipes were as "worthy" as anything contesting for the WBA. And yes, there were others less worthy.

Please take this into context.

If you seperate the "high profile" challengers and merely "worthy" challengers from those that contested for rival championships to Holmes there is nobody high profile. Only "worthy" challengers. Holmes might have fought some with no profile at all but he beat plenty with "high profile" and plenty of the merely "worthy" too. The belt holding contenders had one "worthy" win apiece. They might not have defended against "no profile" but never beat "high profile" and all lost to "worthy".

Every WBA champion won and lost the belt by accident. Do you think 19-0 Tate was meant to beat Coetzee in front of 81,000 south African fans? Weaver meant to beat Tate in his hometown? Was Dokes meant to draw with Weaver? Was Page Meant to beat Coetzee in South Africa? Clearly Smith was not supposed to beat Witherspoon.

Holmes did not want to fight Page perhaps because he did not represent much of a payday? Let's face it, page was supposed to beat Berbick the night Holmes beat C00ney but he blew that and had not rose above anybody in profile Holmes fought in the meantime. Witherspoon beat both opponents Page had since won against and Larry beat one of the opponents himself plus Witherspoon.

yes those two were inferior in fistic prowess to Page but not necessarily inferior selections financially. These were just two quickies. Weeks apart. Fighting those two would be unforgivable only if Page had one unique win that made a huge splash against a top serious contender but he did not. He lost to Berbick and later Bey, Witherspoon and Joe Bugner.

same crowd as Page. That's the problem.

So Witherspoon defends against Thomas who had a draw against Coetzee when Larry already beat Snipes who beat Coetzee?

Tim fought Page knowing his best win was Snipes also, what's tough about that?

You keep rating these contenders after their title win in order to condemn Holmes but it's as contenders that they are most relevent. And as contenders, all of them, each last one of them was Renaldo Snipes level. Same record too.

Holmes fought Berbick for free in a car park, he was not scared if these contenders.

but would Thomas beat Williams using the form he had against Berbick?

And neither did the pretenders to the thrown. Bey and Tubbs beat the same guy Page. -jones and Dokes beat the same guy -weaver. Snipes and Page beat the same guy-coetzee. Berbick and Weaver beat the same guy -Tate.

no. They were the same as the more worthy contenders Holmes did fight. No better.

weaver, Berbick, Smith and Williams were not expected to be so good but it works both ways. those guys that wound up with a belt were not expected to be good enough to win either. They were as qualified.

 

Holmes fought enough guys that qualified as worthy contenders like Snipes, Ocassio, Witherspoon, Bey, Berbick, C00ney, Shavers who on paper represented the same thing as the guys that the other champions lost to like Weaver, Coetzee, Dokes and Page. Difference Holmes could beat more than one of them.

"kept the best occupied"? After all Was Page the best when he was losing back to back to Bey and Witherspoon? Was Weaver considered the best when he beat Tate and Coetzee? Was Tubbs ever considered the best contender out there? Or Tate? We know C00ney eclipsed Dokes as a contender.

 

And Shavers then lost to Holmes

Nor was Evangelista.

Ocasio was 13-0 (seriously, how many times did Holmes fight someone who'd had more than 30 pro fights?), beat a fat, disinterested Young and Young got jobbed in Ocasio's home town in the rematch, given Ocasio mounted zero credible offense for most of the bout. That same year Dokes beat Young and the following year he KO'd Ocasio, so why wasn't he qualified then?

Berbick deserved a fight with Weaver for KO'ing a guy Weaver had just KO'd?

But now he was a former title challenger who had just given Holmes a very tough fight. He was a better qualified challenger than when Holmes plucked him from obscurity.

Snipes' win over Coetzee was a robbery. Coetzee knocked him down twice and almost everyone thought he won. So Holmes fought a guy who was inferior to Coetzee, based on their fight.

Nevertheless, Tillis was a fight Weaver was ordered to take. As stated before, C**ney was the Ring's #3 when he finally fought Holmes.

Holmes would have fought him if no one had heard of him.

Yes they did. Weaver beat the Ring's #2, Dokes beat the Ring's #1, Coetzee beat the Ring's #1, Page beat the Ring's #1, and so on.

Weaver lost to Leroy Jones back in 1978. It was ten years before anyone else that lowly beat him. Remember that loss was a lot closer when Holmes chose to fight Weaver. Weaver had clearly improved by 1980. Leon couldn't last a round with Coetzee and made Holmes look like George Foreman. He's not beating Weaver. And a shot Ali, who barely managed to throw a punch in ten rounds against Holmes. He's not beating Weaver either. What would Weaver beating them in 81 have proved?

We're talking about Cobb and Rodriguez (or is it Marvis and Frank?). Holmes gave title shots to so many undeserving fringe contenders it's easy to mix them up.

The WBA.

No more bogus than the WBC handing its belt to a guy who didn't win it in the ring.

Shavers, Ali, Spinks and C**ney. Four high profile challengers in seven years, and let's face it only two of those were any kind of threat. Ali had a name and nothing else and Spinks was only known for beating a shot Ali years earlier. Even then, Shavers was losing and drawing before Holmes ever got to him and C**ney was untested.

Holmes' "worthy" opponents had records of 15-0, 18-1, 14-0, 13-0, 16-0 and 22-0. Did Larry have an aversion to fighting anyone with experience?

Try it this way. Who was the best fighter out there that Holmes could have faced at a particular point in his reign, in terms of ranking, standing, record, holding a title etc. How often did he actually fight that individual? Who was worthier in 78-79, Norton rematch or Evangelista/Ocasio? Weaver/Dokes 80-83 or Jones/LeDoux/Berbick/Spinks/Cobb/Rodriguez? Page/Spoon rematch in 83 or Frank/Frazier. Bey/Williams/Spinks or Thomas in 85?

Accidents will happen when you fight champions/top contenders. Tate was fighting the Ring's #3 in his home town. Dokes was fighting the former champ, Page was fighting the current champ. How often did Holmes do that? Holmes was having accidents against men he was expected to beat easily.

Holmes was offered $2.5million to face Page, which is hardly peanuts. You say Page lost to Berbick and had only beaten Tillis/Snipes. Berbick was better than Frank and Frazier and they hadn't beaten Tillis, Snipes or anyone else. Page was undoubtedly the harder fight for Holmes. Why was Page required to make a "huge splash" when they weren't? Why not beat Page, collect his millions for that, keep his title and then take the money against Frank/Frazier? Going about it the way he did makes it look like he just wanted the easier fights.

It didn't stop any of them getting a fight.

Witherspoon who Holmes struggled massively with defended against a top contender Holmes never fought who drew with a top contender Holmes never fought who was robbed against a guy who almost knocked out Holmes.

Tim fought the #1 contender, whom Holmes vacated his title rather than face/

I'm rating them based on how they were ranked at the time. Renaldo Snipes level was losing to Coetzee (in the ring), Page and Witherspoon. How could he be on a par with them?

Is that why his last two challengers were an unranked 16-0 novice followed by a guy who weighed 175lbs three months earlier?

Based on styles I think it would be a tricky fight for Thomas, for the same reasons Holmes struggled against Truth. Regardless, Thomas in 84-85 was a much bigger threat than Williams.

Weaver lost to the #1 contender. Dokes lost to the #3 contender. Spoon beat the #1 contender and lost to the #1 contender. Count the number of Zanons, LeDouxs and Franks on all their title records. That level of opponent was a non-title ten rounder for them. Not title fights like Holmes was giving them.

While Weaver was fighting Dokes, Holmes was fighting Cobb/Rodriguez. While Dokes was fighting Coetzee, Holmes was fighting Frank/Frazier and had just left Spoon to fight Page. Who had the tougher fight? While Holmes was fighting Bey/Williams/Spinks, Thomas was fighting Spoon and Weaver. Who had the tougher fight?

The guys that wound up with a belt were already among the top guys in the division.

 

Yes kept the best fighters occupied. If Weaver, Coetzee, Thomas, Dokes and Page were not the best, who was? Zanon? Frazier? LeDoux? Frank? Cobb? Evangelista? Spinks? Rodriguez? Were any of them ever rated as high as Page was? C**ney never eclipsed Dokes. His biggest asset was the fact that he was a white hope. C**ney's best win was an old Young whom Dokes had already beaten. He had no win to compare to Dokes beating Weaver.