Modern Day Super-Heavys that defeat Holmes of 1978 ?

Yes, I agree.

I recently watched Holmes against the unbeaten Leroy Jones, a real 6'5" super heavyweight. Jones was quite seasoned and not the usual untested kind of challenger people tend to dismiss Larrys opponents as. The US national team coach left Amatuer boxing to groom jones into a professional champion. Today, I believe Jones would be a real handful and a major threat to the title. Yet Holmes really did a number on him.

I really don't think any Superheavyweight can beat Larry.

 

Just watched that fight again myself. Holmes was so good in there. Note not only that jab but also the defense..... subtle head movements followed by sidestepping to his right to always keep the opponents right hand at bey. I watched all of Holmes prime bouts live starting from 1976 right up to his final effort vs Spinks (which he won clearly). Even I forget just how good he was. Holmes would feast on the large, predictable European hwts we have seen the past ten or so years.

 

Comparing the likes of Leroy Jones and Roy Williams to the Klits, Bowe and Lewis is like comparing the Grand Canyon to a crack in the bedroom wall. I'm not even going to waste the time on reasons why as anyone with common sense and a lack of bias can see right thru it.

 

This is simply incorrect. The split decision over Norton involved just a one point difference on all three official cards. The AP scored it for Norton by a point. It was an extremely close fight and barely a punch in it.

 

His bout with Norton is a clear reason why Holmes is an all time great hwt champion. He took everything Norton, the leading contender, could throw and roared back with his own. Very few hwts have that level of fortitude.

 

Norton was the champion and also did the same in an excellent performance.

 

No one could have any real complaints if Norton had been awarded the split decision win instead of Holmes.It was so close there should have been a rematch.

 

Yes Norton blew his rematch in the eliminator with Shavers.

 

No Norton was not the "champion". Certainly was a great performance by Norton.

Ali was the worlds hwt champion until he retired.

No one can take away the worlds hwt boxing championship.

 

Norton was champion in name only. Perhaps he was regarded as the best heavyweight though. Norton did not decisively beat Young. But Ocasio did. And even a rematch with Ocasio could not erase that result for Young who lost out on a shot at Larry.

The way I see it with Ali out of the picture the top heavyweights were Norton, Shavers, Young. Holmes beat Shavers and Norton then Ocasio beats Young. Larry wipes the floor with Ocasio. Shavers wipes the floor with Norton..then Larry beats Shavers. Again.

So I believe there is a very strong case that the second win over Shavers really made Larrys claim as the worlds top heavyweight absolute. Everyone of any relevance had been eliminated by him alone.

The hogwash the WBA then pulled after Ali's retirement really never should have been relevant.

They plucked Tate out of nowhere...he wound up losing to Larry left overs in Weaver. All the WBA should have done was given their recognition to Whomever won out of Holmes v Coetzee in 1979 rather than Tate.

There was no need for the WBA to involve Tate. It was a clear case of deliberately disregarding the worlds most dominant heavyweight (Larry) in order to create a bogus parallel championship.

In the absence of a real champion, as in the real champion had retired, the next two best possible heavyweights must meet. In 1979 One of them is unquestionably Larry Holmes.

For the WBA to retain credibility they should have included Larry in a fight to decide their half of recognition since he has beaten Norton, Shavers and eliminated Young. In no way shape or form was Tate, a 19-0 kid, qualifying as next best to Holmes. Perhaps Coetzee had erned outstanding contender status with his win over lightly regarded former WBA champion Leon Spinks but not Tate.

 

VERY knowledgeable post by Choklab.

The way I see it is very similar. Holmes beat the No 1 contender in Norton. Then beat Shavers who was No 2 contender after beating Norton. To further solidify his championship he then beat the unretired Ali. A convenient place to put Holmes ascent to the championship is by beating Norton but in reality Ali was still the hwt champion.

The WBA tournament where none of the true leading contenders were included was complete hogwash. Tate and those that followed Tate were just contenders passing a paper title to one another.

 

Absolutely.

After beating Shavers there was absolutely nobody left who mattered since Ali. In his absence there was nothing more than anyone fighter could possibly have done than what Larry did.

Larry had cleaned out the house. I'm not sure it was even necessary to beat Ali at that point. Holmes had established himself against men Ali clearly could no longer beat. Since Larry did beat Ali too, it does tidy things up somewhat but I am not sure it was needed.

Like you say the WBA had eliminated itself from being considered a serious organisation. Those champions really were contenders passing a paper hat around. Looking back I struggle to see how we stood for it. Perhaps only the low public opinion of Larry enhanced their claim, but it really shouldn't have. It was a contender spot. Not a championship.

There was also the ludicrous moment where the WBA were going to strip their "champion" if he fought their own #1 contender rather than their #4 contender!

That WBA title really became the "second best to Larry title" since if you lost to Larry there was a good chance anyone could beat their guy. Pity Marvis Frazier never challenged for it. The only guy not to win it was Tillis. Every damn guy apart from quick Tillis to challenge for an alternative belt to Larry won it. Tate,Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Tubbs, Witherspoon, Smith. Then there was the guys passing around the other one after Larry switched allegiances. Witherspoon, Thomas, Berbick...


Nobody can tell me Page was worth a crack at Larry anymore than Berbick (who already beat Page) or Witherspoon (who beat Page) or Snipes who beat Berbick after he also beat Page. Especially whilst Larry spent a year signing and resigning fights falling through for a crappy WBA unification.

Let's not forget David Bey beat Page right before Page landed a fight with Coetzee. And then Bey lost hard to Larry just like all the other guys who beat Page and lost to Larry.

In an ideal world the WBA would have recognised Larry for beating Coetzee in 1979 all along and that way Larry as undisputed champion would have been forced to defend against Dokes, Tubbs and Thomas providing those guys could actually win an eliminatior. The way I see it their defending WBA recognition was only really eliminator status. Most of them blew that fight!

 

Perfect.

 

What if Ali never retired but just never fought again? Who do you consider to be the current world heavyweight champion?

 

I don't think you need an official champion. In the absence of governing bodies it's usually possible to locate who the best in the world is, or who at any particular moment which HW has the best wins or best run against good men.

All you have to ask yourself is was that guy ever John Tate?