Larry Holmes failing to take on # 1 contenders

Still waiting on that IBF sheet to validate the statement in Pink. I know you heard John Thomas's statement, but only because I brought up the question. Before that, you only assumed that Thomas was a mandatory. John Thomas and I, have been at this subject long before it ever crossed your mind, and believe me, I've been well practiced at playing this argument. Even though the IBF promised Thomas a shot initially when they were setting up themselves as an organization, I have yet to see that he was ever a mandatory for their belt during the time that Holmes had it. As for the statement in blue, I'm not so sure. Did you see that fight? I'll admit that I didn't, but I never hear anyone talk about spoon taking a thrashing, only that he showed up in worse shape than in the Holmes fight, and still it was a majority decision.

 

I'm sarting to have some serious questions about this thread. All this crap about Holmes not facing top challengers isn't really being backed up here. The names that people are throwing out here were either:

A. Rated by the Ring mag, and not necessarily by the governing bodies.

B. Holding fragments of the belt, eliminating them from contention.

C. Never staying on top long enough for a title bout to materialize.

D. Never really held the public's interest.

The only valid argument I can see being made, is Holmes not fighting Greg Page, but even that fight may have been hindered through political circumstances that were the fault of multiple parties and not just Larry Holmes.

Pinklon Thomas was a very good challenger who probably would have made a good opponent for Holmes around 1984-85. But, he was not without faults. In 1983, He drew with Gerrie Coetzee who a few of his peers had already beaten. He defeated a lesser conditioned Tim Witherspoon, not long after Holmes did, and in no more impressive fashion. His opponent list other than Witherspoon between 1983 to 1986 consisted of wins over Alonzo Ratliff, Leroy Boone, Michael Greer, Bruce Grandham, an aging Mike Weaver, and a loss to Trevor Berbick. He was also notorious for his drug problems. In additon, I have yet to hear what his mandatory status was for Holmes' title, and how badly the public ( other than a few Holmes haters ) wanted it.

Michael Dokes barely defeated Tex Cobb who Holmes soon dominated, drew with Ossie Ocasio who Holmes destroyed, and never had a decisive win over Mike Weaver, who Holmes defeated. He was also Ko'd badly by Gerrie Coetzee and never had any long top rated standing in the division.

One poster mentioned John Tate, and frankly, I think Tate's run was rather short and not terribly impressive.

Holmes reigned for nearly 7 years, had 19 legitimate title defenses, and even defeated some foes who in turn, beat some of the fighters listed above. I know some of this has mixings with hindsite results, but hey, history IS Hindsite and we can't always manipulate it at points where it best suits our agenda. Holmes not fighting some of these flavor of the month types, is hardly worthy of discreditment.

 

Gerry Cooney was the guy everyone wanted him to fight and he beat him. Ken Norton was ranked #1 by everyone when holmes beat him, yet people try and write him off as old by looking at boxrec, not realizing that he didnt start his career until his late 20s.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Not entirely true. Holmes defeated Earnie Shavers while he was still in his contender days. Holmes later won the title, and in the meantime, Shavers put together a 5 fight win streak including a 1st round KO over Norton who had just gone life and death with Holmes. Larry soon laced it up again with the acorn, only this time with the stakes much higher as Larry was now holding the title. If that's not giving someone a second chance then I don't know what is. Perhaps you've worked for union jobs in your life and have been fired and rehired multiple times, explaining your very different view of "a second chance."

 

The window was big indeed. There was plenty of chance and plenty of public demand for Holmes vs Pink. They were definitely the two best heavyweights in the world for some time at one stage. Holmes out and out stated he would NEVER fight him. He said the same about a Witherspoon rematch. Strangley enough he always talked of giving Cooney a rematch, but Cooney was either not fighting or simply unable to win one.

 

I won't get too in depth here but hope to post some very pertinent quotes per this topic.

 

Right you are on points A, B, C and D. Suzy Q sometimes does not put things into context I asked him to compare how many ring rated fighters that Holmes fought to other all time greats. To say he fought more than Marciano, Frazier did, and Liston is a fact.

Regarding Page, be sure to check out John Thomas and I thread ( no posting there please ) on Holmes. I have some new points on why Page vs Holmes did not happen.

 

I have been following your debate with John Thomas, and look forward to its conclusion. Both of you have done a nice job thus far.

 

The word BIG DEE used was "never." This was incorrect, and if you're going to repond to a post of mine, especially one that was directed at another member, kindly review the conversation so that you can fully understand it's context before responding.

Yours faithfully,

-Magoo-

 

Holmes seemed content to hold a fragment of the championship.

He was never undisputed champion. Did he ever demand a unification to erase the doubts ? I dont think he did.

It's fair to say "some of those 'RING' mag number 1s were rival 'champs' and therefore not eligible to be challengers" .... but that's just admitting some sort of parity, equality between Holmes and the rival champions. If they aren't ordinary "contenders" to Holmes's REAL crown, if they aren't just pretender champions, then Holmes's status is somewhat in doubt.

Obviously Holmes was the most dominant heavyweight of the era, but he seems to hide within the mess of splintered titles, rather than beat everyone else and sort out the mess.

 

You made some valid points but I think the alphabet soup picture of the 80's was a bit more complicated.

 

Good Post


I was very disapointed with Holmes who I considered to have some of the best tools, well at least the best conditioned of all. Holmes gave Snipes a title fight after a win over Coetzee but Coetzee dropped Snipes 2 times and everyone felt Coetzee won that fight. Thomas(before he went back on smack) was a Strong challenge to Holmes for unification and it was not a smart fight for Holmes (so it was smart to avoid him) Page and Dokes were inconsistant with training but for a Fight vs Holmes they would have been in top form and dangerous. Weaver was a 19-8 trail horse who almost upset Holmes(the Holmes fight gave him the confidence to be a top fighter(Weaver then won a title but Holmes avoided the rematch(smart move). Coetzee may have been one dimentional but had great right hand power AND WAS A BETTER CHALLENGE THAN Leon SPINKS (WHO COETZEE ko'D IN 1). Big John Tate would have been a solid unification fight and Holmes avoided him like the Plauge, so lets see....Weaver,Dokes,Thomas,Coetzee,Page,Tate thats 6 solid guys that were either #1 contenders or Co-Champs and that is not to mention Witherspoon and WiLLIAMS REMATCHES THAT WERE AVOIDED. I am and was a Holmes fan but I was also a big Boxing fan at the time and was fustrated that Larry (or his management)avoided these guys

 

How many times does it need to be repeated on this forum that Holmes signed to fight Coetzee, but the fight fell through because COETZEE's people NOT HOLMES', backed out of the deal? Bill1234 has shown us the marketing poster for that fight what, like 15 times now?? Its also discussed in his biography.

John Tate was briefly a hot commodity between 1979-1980, and there was in fact talk about a Holmes-Tate match in the works before Big John was lamblasted in back to back matches by Mike Weaver ( who holmes had already beaten ), then by a 14-1 Trevor Berbick ( who Holmes would beat a year later ). After this point, Tate's life fell apart and so did hos standing as a world class fighter. I would certainly like to hear how you feel that this was about Holmes " avoiding him like the plague. "

Mike Weaver gave Holmes a better fight than most predicted, but its not like the outcome was conrtroversial. He got his ass kicked. Afterwards, he received a shot at John " the plague carrier " Tate, and needed a miracle in the closing rounds to win. Bewtween 1981 to late 1982, Weaver would take a substantial amount of time off, before losing to Dokes.

I could go on about the others, but I think I'll stop there. For now, here's the ad for Holmes-Coetzee.

Enjoy!!!!

This content is protected

 

In 82 Holmes was 33,out of the top 10 he fought and beat 6.
In 83 he fought and beat 4.aged 34.
In 84 he fought and beat 5.aged 35.
The consensus best heavyweight around is Wlad,he has just turned 32 ,how many ranked contenders has he beat?.Holmes ,as he said in his famous faux pas concerning Marciano",Rocky was a young guy fighting old men ,Im an old guy fighting young men,"I beleive there is some truth in that.Holmes wanted to fight Coetzee,finances fell through .Page ,possibly the most gifted of the young lions was very inconsistant.Holmes should have fought one or two of them but he was aging and wanted to build up his bank balance,money didnt talk to Holmes it shouted,as he said once "I was black once ,when I was poor",he was determined not to be poor again.Holmes ,for me is a great champion,the best since Ali.