Larry Holmes...did he miss out on Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas?

That’s a wonderfully explained post. It exactly describes the situation as I understood it apart from some extra details I had forgotten like Ron Lyle getting arrested.

I am still not sure Tates lineage was at all credible since the guy he beat (knoteze) was behind all the relevant men of the time (Norton/Holmes, Young/Ocasio, Shavers, Lyle) even with all the name guys (Norton, Shavers, Young) being beat knoteze was not one of them. So Tate was kind of dug up. His credentials don’t add up for a vacant title.

Had Ali continued after beating Leon, his next defence would have been either Holmes or ocasio. Not Tate. So Ali retiring never needed to include anyone but Larry/spinks for a vacant fight for undisputed honours since Holmes already replaced Norton before Ali beat Spinks.

But with the title already being disputed, Coetzee beating Leon was huge. It was the kind of decisive emphatic win that absolutely deserved consideration. Tate? No way. Too far out.

Without the promotional shenanigans and manipulation of governing bodies the most logical thing for the WBA to do (in spite of who was in Arums stable) would have been putting WBC Larry and Coetzee together for their recognition. For the good of boxing, When their own champion retired Why disregard the other champion?

The selection of Tate was the silliest thing the WBA could ever have done. Once Tate beat Coetzee it relegated that line of “champions” to the value of a ring Magazine rating of wherever Knoteze had been rated before Ali retired. Probably #7. Even worse, with two champions sharing contenders to fight it just meant prospects were getting getting into the ranks too quickly. It ruined everything until the HBO Money finally enforced a proper unification series 8 years later. I blame the Tate factor.

 

Had Ali continued fighting after regaining the WBA title from Leon Spinks, the number-one WBA contender at the start of 1979 was Kallie Knoetze. (Earnie Shavers was #2 in the WBA.)

It wouldn't have been Holmes. Ali's WBA mandatory wouldn't have been the WBC champ.

Ali's mandatory would've been the white police officer who shot a black man and paralyzed him during riots in South Africa. (That shooting was why Knoetze's fight in the U.S. in early 1979 was protested and CBS nearly called off it's telecast of that fight - against Sharkey).

Had Ali lost to Knoetze that would've been MASSIVE ... similar to Max Schmeling beating Joe Louis. The pro-Apartheid government in South Africa would've made Knoetze a national hero.

 

Tate knocked out Knoetze (the WBA's #1 contender) in South Africa to qualify for the vacant title fight with Coetzee (who had knocked out the former champ Spinks in one round).

Certainly, the 80,000 people who showed up for the Coetzee-Tate fight did so because they thought Coetzee would win.

Coetzee had been a top amateur and was considered a top pick to win a medal in the 1972 Olympics before South Africa was barred due to Apartheid.

Again, had Ali come out of retirement and fought Tate in 1980 (like he had planned before Weaver scored the upset of Tate) and Tate beat Ali, Holmes would've had zero claim to the title.

If Ali had kept the title after decisioning Spinks, Holmes had no legit claim to the title.

Whoever beat Ali was going to be the champ.

Holmes got there first. If Tate had gotten their first (or Knoetze) and won, they'd have been considered the legit champ.

Tate had beaten Bernardo Mercado. He'd beaten Knoetze. He'd beaten Coetzee. Had he won that 15-round decision over Weaver (who Tate dominated through 14 rounds) and beaten Ali ... while Holmes is fighting Norton and Shavers and basically a handful of Evangelistas and Zanons, Larry becomes an also-ran.

Just another paper champ.

The Weaver left hook that felled Tate frankly changed the entire course of Holmes' career.

 

yes, but I was talking in a “without the promotional shenanigans and political manipulations” sense. So I’m talking in a ring Magazine sense. Champ at the top and a top ten that existed because each guy replaced other guys (by fighting them) who descended from a bunch of logical contenders in 1923. The WBA guys, because they were Arums stable, were not legit anyway. It was bogus. You can say the same about the WBC being Kings stable but at least Shavers, Norton, Lyle, Holmes and Young had also paid their dues and fought their way into the ranks the old fashioned way as recognised for decades.

it would have been under the laws of tradition. If Norton was an outstanding logical contender since his disputed challenge to Ali, the next guy to beat him becomes that logical contender. Not some 19 fight kid promoted by bob Arum called John Tate.

oh yes I agree. But what was this fascination the WBA had with South Africa other than huge crowds? In a logical sense Beating Duane Bobick should not launch anyone above Ken Norton and jimmy Young.

it certainly would have cast a shadow on Ali if he then refused to beat the man who cleaned out the division. Larry Holmes. By then he had beat Shavers twice, Ocasio, Norton and Weaver.

agreed. But Larry would also be as big of a contender to him as Cooney was to Holmes. He could not ignore Larry for too long.

these guys are just names from the bottom end of a real top ten that existed because each guy replaced other guys (by fighting them) who descended from a bunch of logical contenders in 1923 rather than simply joining a rival promotional stable. Coming up with a top ten and calling it the WBA top ten isn’t legit.

the Weaver left hook showed up the WBA and their ridiculous decision to promote Tate in the first place. and a decision by the WBA to base their top ten on bob Arums stable at the expense of real contenders.

 

I agree to a point.

But, if Tate had beaten Weaver than defended against Ali, experts would have just said "Look, he beat a shot Ali." Just like what they said when Holmes beat Ali.

I think BOTH the WBA and WBC HW titles were "paper" titles when Holmes won the WBC title and when Tate won the WBA title.

But, Holmes did eventually become the "true" champion simply by reigning for many years and making a ton of defenses.

Still, he missed out on fighting a lot of guys especially after the Witherspoon scare in '83 and his undefeated streak could have ended a bit earlier if he was facing the best available competition - which he clearly wasn't.

 

I know what you're saying.

But you shouldn't look at Ring Annual Ratings when trying to come up with who was someone's "mandatory" or who they "would've" fought next in hypothetical situations.

The Ring ratings have nothing to do with anything when it comes to who is going to fight whom next. It's always been a magazine with no authority in the sport. The sanctioning bodies tell fighters who to fight, regardless of whether you like their ratings or not.

I also think you're looking back with hindsight.

AT THE TIME, in 1979, NOBODY had thought Larry Holmes had "cleaned out the division."

On the contrary, most people had just heard of Holmes the year before and I remember people saying Larry Holmes by 1979 had "lost his legs."

In 1979, he didn't dance like he did against Norton in 1978. And the fact that he wasn't moving allowed Mike Weaver - who was a total club fighter who had lost to Duane Bobick, and his brother, and Leroy Jones and Stan Ward and everyone else - pound him.

The fact that Larry Holmes engaged in a war with Weaver and needed a quickie stoppage by the ref to get out of there didn't lead anyone to believe he was a guy headed for the Hall of Fame.

And then Earnie Shavers nearly stopped him.

Beating Mike Weaver in 1979 wasn't a marker that you'd cleaned out the division. Eight guys in 20-some fights had already beaten Weaver.

The Weaver fight became a BIGGER win after Weaver beat Tate. In 1979, the Holmes-Weaver fight was considered one of Holmes' 'worst' performances against a guy he was expected to stop in two or three rounds.

Also,, Ali had already beaten Norton (twice) and Shavers before Holmes ever fought them.

So, had Ali decided to continue fighting in 1979, the fact that Holmes had barely edged Norton and then had to get off the floor to beat Shavers (and struggled with journeyman Weaver) wouldn't have set Larry up as the "man"
to beat.

If anything, Gerrie Coetzee knocking out Spinks in a round would've likely made viewed as "the man" for Ali to beat, moreso than Holmes.

It certainly wouldn't have made Holmes the dangerous opponent Cooney was viewed as when he challenged Holmes. Cooney wasn't squeaking out decisions over Holmes' former opponents (like Larry was over former Ali opponents) or getting floored and having to get off the floor to come back to win. Cooney was blowing people out in a round.

It's fun to look back and try to imagine what would've happened if this guy had made this move or another guy would've done this.

But the bottom line is if Ali had come back in 1979, his WBA mandatory was Knoetze.

And when Ali DID decide to return in 1980, his manager had already negotiated a match where Ali would fight John Tate in Brazil. All Tate had to do was beat Weaver in a tuneup. When Tate lost, Ali even considered fighting Weaver first. But then the WBA said Weaver had to fight his mandatory Coetzee.

Holmes was literally the third or FOURTH guy being considered. It could've easily gone really south for Holmes if Ali had chosen ANYONE else to fight.

Because, with hindsight, we know Ali had virtually nothing left at that point.

 

I always felt that Holmes from the time King bribed John Ort of ring magazine to elevate a Holmes opponent Tom Prator in the tournament to his navagation around too many of the better fighters of the era & avoiding tough rematches & unifications had taken the avoidence lane.

We can blame it on WBC policy or Don King but for me when Tyson came crashing in fighting everyone it was a breathe of fresh air. I really believe Holmes would have lost to someone earlier had he fought the best. The fact that the "Other guys kept losing to each other dose not mean they couldn't have beaten Holmes. Larry took the path of least resisitance.

Now had Larry fought the better men of his era he may have done well but we can only guess.

Right now I like Joshua & he has already been in with better men than Wilder, Wilder looks great offensivly but we really dont know how he deals with a Povetkin?, a Joshua, a Klitscko, or a Parker

Now it looks like Joshua is going to fight the deserving Povetkin (who may be able to beat Wilder) I as a fan have to appreciate Joshua like I did Tyson,Marciano,Joe Louis fighting the best. Wilder better step up.

 

Bingo.

 

Perfect post. This is EXACTLY how it was right at that time. So much revisionist history from those obviously not well versed within the period.

 

That post you agreed with was revisionist history.

Who should Holmes have fought in 1979 instead of the #3 contender Ossie Ocasio, who had just beaten the #2 contender Jimmy Young TWICE? I guess he could've rematched with Ken Norton or Earnie Shavers instead (his top two contenders). But they fought on the undercard and Shavers stopped Norton in one.

Who should Holmes have faced in 1980 instead of Muhammad Ali? Seriously? That's the dumbest comment on this thread. Holmes should've "avoided" Ali? Good Lord.

And Holmes should've ducked Cooney? Cooney was the biggest star at heavyweight. BIGGER than Holmes. (Cooney got $10 million for their fight, Holmes got a little more than $3 million.)

Greg Page fought 16 times between 1982 and 1987, and he went 9-7. This whole Greg Page nonsense needs to stop. Page was overhyped before he even turned pro. He never won anything as an amateur and he couldn't make a single defense of a paper title as a pro.

Page couldn't beat Bey and Berbick and Bugner and Wills and Tubbs and Douglas, but he beats Holmes?

And when in the world was Larry Holmes supposed to fight Tony Tubbs? When Tubbs beat Tom Trimm in his only fight in 1984?

When was this Holmes-Tubbs fight supposed to happen?

The only guy you could make an argument for "honestly" were Michael Dokes (in 1981 instead of Snipes or in 1982 instead of Tex Cobb) and Pinklon Thomas.

But Dokes was basically finished by 1983, and Thomas never really made a move until 1984, when he edged Witherspoon, the last full year Holmes reigned.

And Holmes spent practically all of 1984 trying to unify with Coetzee, before that finally fell apart due to financing. It was signed multiple times, only to fall apart when the payments didn't arrive.

So essentially two guys (Dokes and Thomas) that Holmes missed.

Not bad after roughly 22 or 23 title fights (from Norton to Spinks II).

 

It aint revisionist history

Yes, Ocasio may have deserved a shot.

But, it was obvious Young fought like crap against Ocasio and that Ocasio would not trouble Holmes.

Holmes' 1980 schedule other than Ali is indefensible.

Snipes was green

Cooney was overhyped - a lot of boxing people could see it at the time. The average blue collar white casual fan thought he was great - they supported Holmes/Cooney with their $$$$. The fact that Cooney was a star was based on him being a "white hope (hype).

I agree it was the right fight to take.

However, Cobb posed no threat and everyone knew it.

Few thought Frazier and Frank were threats and nobody wanted to see those fights other than some casuals who recognized the "Frazier" name or wanted to see another "White Hope" get a chance.

Page/Holmes was a fight that was seen as much more competitive and warranted than Holmes/Frazier or Holmes Frank.

It is laughable that you post that Page didn't deserve a shot at Holmes in 1983. You are looking back from today and seeing that Page lost to Bey. That is irrelevant. Page would have fought Holmes instead of fighting Witherspoon. Bey wouldn't have been in the picture.

I am sorry, but you are seeing Holmes through a subjective lense and, at the same time, are guilty of practicing revisionist history yourself.

Bottom line:

He could have agreed to fight Page and kept. the WBC title.

You ask when could he have fought Thomas and Tubbs?

If he beat Page, he could have given Witherspoon a rematch or defended against the likes of Thomas or Tony Tubbs.

He chose to take the easier route and allow the WBC to strip him, then allowed the IBF to name him its champion without having to engage in a fight. Then, he hand picked his opposition until losing to Spinks

 

The best of the Don King controlled HW's who (4 out of 5) fought a series of bouts against one another and held a version of the HW title at some time.

Tim Witherspoon
Greg Page
Michael Dokes
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tubbs

Number of the above that Holmes faced: 1

Holmes scaled back the quality of his opposition after barely beating #1 in a fight in which he was badly hurt. Kudos to Holmes for surviving to win that fight. He showed tremendous heart. But, what happened afterward cannon be objectively disputed.

 

A lot of fighters fight like crap and lose their ranking to a guy who replaces them. They shouldn’t fight like crap. It’s kind of how Thomas lost to Berbick. How Witherspoon lost to Thomas. How Dokes lost to Coetzee. All these guys were the same. Marvis was about as strong as those guys.

what was the schedule of Mike Weaver that year?

he was green but had been awarded a decision over Coetzee. He was not plucked from nowhere. In fact Witherspoon was lucky to get a decision over Snipes.

The WBA and the WBC both ranked Cooney #1. If there was an undisputed champ at that time, who ever it was, that undisputed champ would have had to fight Cooney.

Coetzee was a bigger fish to fry. Chasing the man who beat Dokes rather than the man who beat Snipes? It was not Larrys fault Theur unification fell through.

where are Berbick, Leon, Muhammad, Norton, Smith and weaver on that list? They were paper champions too. If their was no alternative champion to face those paper champs Larry missed out (Dokes, Page, Tubbs, Coetzee, Thomas and Tate) would all have to challenge Larry. In order to get a crack at Larry they could lose to guys they did lose to anyway. Without challenging a weaker guy (who descended from a ring Magazine #7 guy the WBA made into a champion) there is no way of knowing any of them could have become outstanding challengers. Page actually had to get past Berbick but blew it anyway. Then there was Bey etc. Who was Coetzee going to get past? He couldn’t get past Tate in the first place. Tate? In the real world he would have had to have beaten Norton, Young or Shavers to challenge Larry like Ocasio did. Thomas drew with Coetzee. Tubbs?? That guy never looked better than anyone at any time. Just a run of the mill contender who lucked upon an unlikely paperchamp. Dokes went life and death with Cobb. He did beat Weaver but once Larry was done with him, if there was no WBA title that would make his Tate a win no different than the win he later had over Carl Williams. Dokes beating Weaver as a non champ just makes it irrelevant. He’s not challenging Larry not after a draw.

 

I think it will be worth your while reading Dubblechins post. He really knows his stuff.

 

In the three plus years between Cooney and Spinks - which challenger did he take on that at the time (not in hindsight) truly deserved a shot at the lineal champion? Bey seems the closest one, and that is on account of doing what 'Spoon had done just previously - beating the former mandatory Larry wouldn't face, Page.