Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

belt or no belt. The point is that from 1983 to 1985 Larry Holmes was not facing the best challengers in the world. And there’s no amount of arguing, justifying or repackaging of the facts that can change that one painfully obviously point.

 

You could argue that Holmes was not facing the best challengers in the world all you want. However, Thomas was not the best challenger in the world from 83-84 until after he fought witherspoon and that is not up for debate. He was ranked #7 and his best win was TILLIS. There is no getting around this fact. Until he had beaten Witherspoon for a vacant belt Holmes had literally just given up, his resume did not mean much and neither did his world ranking. Thomas had done absolutely nothing to be in a position to demand a shot at Holmes prior to this.

I already admitted that after winning the WBC belt he had a leg to stand on and if Holmes wanted to clear out the division he should have pursued it instead of guys like Bey and Williams.

Let's look at who were the active top guys from 83-85:

-Coetzee: was brutally KO'd by Weaver and lost to Snipes previously, two guys Holmes had beaten. In 83, he drew with Thomas, Ko'd Dokes, then got KO'd by Page. In other words, his career was all over the place like a roller coaster getting some good wins, then losses, and couldn't maintain a win streak. By 85 his only noteworthy win was Tillis. The only time this fight would have made sense was in 83 after beating Dokes and winning the WBA title. Holmes could have fought Coetzee instead of the green Marvis Frazier, I agree. But this was a very, very limited window. And the Frazier fight was for a whopping $3 million dollars, what sane man would turn that down?

-Page: in 83 Page's only noteworthy win was Snipes, a man Holmes had already beaten. He had also lost to Berbick in 82, a man Holmes had already beaten. In other words, he didn't do much to separate himself from the rest of the crowd but someone had a top 3 ranking but we'll just accept that. In 84, he fought Witherspoon and lost, then lost to Bey in his very next match, TWO men Holmes had beaten. Again i ask, wtf did Page accomplish in 84 to demand a fight with Holmes after 2 back to back losses to men Holmes had beaten??? He did beat coetzee in december of 84 but Holmes had literally just beaten Smith in november of 84. In his very next fight, Page lost to Tubbs. Yet another guy who couldn't put together a string of good wins and failed to separate himself from the rest of the crowd. And in regards to the WBC dispute, it was because Holmes was getting paid more to fight guys that were way less dangerous. They should have paid Holmes more. It made no sense.

-Weaver: Holmes had already beaten him. In 83 he had a draw with Dokes and beat Ward. He did nothing of note in 84. In 85 he was stopped by Thomas.

Are you noticing a pattern? It is not Holmes' fault these guys kept getting on drugs and couldn't hold onto their belts for 5 minutes and kept losing to guys he had already beaten!

 

Ring magazine YEAR END ratings only show one part of the big picture. And believe me I’m well aware of the events and the dynamics highlighted in your argument and in years past And even used the SAME arguments to defend Holmes cherry picking, but eventually woke up and realized exactly what he was doing. The only thing your comments attempt to bolster is that Lucien Rodriguez, Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, Bonecrusher, Carl Williams, David Bey and Michael spinks were MORE qualified to challenge for lineage than Pinklon Thomas,Greg Page or a resurgent Witherspoon. To anyone with a nice balance of knowledge AND honesty this argument wouldn’t fly...

Now imagine Tyson Fury passing up Anthony Joshua, Deontay Wilder and Andy Ruiz to fight someone like say Junior Fa.... this is exactly what Holmes did and something tells me you’d be one of the first people to give him shlt for it....

 

Thanks JT. No words of praise for the childish double entendre or use of the word 'matron', then?

 

Dr. Kenneth Tinkle, I presume?

 

Prefer to think of myself as the more dashing Dr Kilmore.

 

Excellent post, spot own accurate and one the ignorant and / or revisionists can't argue against ...

 

Yet they will.

 

Like me Dad once said to me, "NoNeck probably has no brain."

 

Alot of this might be true.

Nevertheless, that doesn´t add up going 48-0 AND (in most eyes) winning the lineal rematch with Spinks too. Plus Holmes had a career after that as well. It just doesn´t add up, whatever true facts your stating in that opening.
Good discussion though.

Regarding all the rambling about Greg Page: You guys noticed that Page in fact lost to 13-0 David Bey in Aug. 84? Guess who fought him next bout in March 85...

He also fought young Witherspoon, James Smith and Carl Williams.

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

Ok....

In my opinion a better comparison would be Joe Louis career vs Larry Holmes.

 

Difference is Anthony Joshua is not a dominant champion in his late 30's with nearly 20 title defenses.

How did you feel about Mayweather taking a few light touches towards the end of his career? Do you hold it against him that he didn't fight guys like Keith Thurman, Shawn Porter, Kell Brook, etc?

 

Yes this is an excellent observation about ol Greg Page.

I have been trying to point this out to these guys for at least a week. So many of the boxers people are claiming Holmes ducked did in fact lose to guys he would end up facing (and beating!). And in some cases they lost to guys Holmes had already beaten (such as Thomas losing to Berbick).

The elephant in the room is that many of the 80's boxers were inconsistent and couldn't put together a string of wins long enough to hold onto their rankings/belts etc. Yo yo careers.

Another example would be James Smith knocking out the up and coming prime Frank Bruno who was 21-0 with 21 knockouts. Not only that, Holmes was coming off of a hemorrhoid operation just weeks prior. And that's why the Bruno fight didn't happen.

But back to Page, it's fairly similar to how Antonio Margarito got his ass kicked by Shane Mosley and then, and then Floyd fought Mosley in Mosley's very next fight. Yet to this day people crucify Floyd for not fighting Margarito. Make that make sense.

 

You're just repeating yourself.

Holmes wasn't getting the big fights because he was high risk low reward. Don King and his trainers were presented with the Foreman fight for example, but they turned it down. He just wasn't a big enough name and his style wasn't all that exciting. Holmes was still learning and gaining experience, he didn't have a glamorous amateur career like Ali or Frazier.

Tyson lost to Douglas and was a 42-1 favorite. You really want to start comparing losses?

Page lost to Bey and then Holmes beat Bey but I notice you give him zero credit for that. I wonder why?

Page lost his belt in his very first defense. Like the other 80's era guys, he couldn't stay consistent in the rankings. He also happened to lose to Berbick and Witherspoon as well, two guys Holmes beat.

Yes you called Smith a cherry pick. It was a dumb point to make considering Smith had just knocked out 21-0 Bruno who was ranked #9.