Most shameless title defences of all time

No mention of the actual quality of these ranked fighters, & for good reason. If - if - Holmes turned pro & beat 1973 Frazier for the title, he’d have lost to prime Norton, after exactly one defense. That’s more likely than it is Foreman would fail to replicate Holmes’ title reign fighting comparative chumps like Ocasio, Shavers, etc.

 

Foreman doesn't have a great deal of quality either after Norton, Frazier, his resume is so-so.

Lyle was a solid contender but nothing special.

Penalta spent alot of his career at Light Heavyweight and never had one single notable win at Heavyweight.

Moorer is a good win in the context of Foreman's age but Moorer won the belt scrapping by a very under par Holyfield who was having health issues which we all know about.

When Foreman won the belt off of Moorer he didn't defend it against any top 10 ranked opposition and on fair scorecards he should've lost the belt in his first defense as the Schulz fight was a complete robbery.

As for Holmes's opposition ?

Witherspoon
Cooney Prime
Weaver
Williams
Berbick
Mercer
Shavers
Bonecrusher

Are better names than 90 percent of Foreman's wins.

 

I see Foreman’s pre-Frazier competition as inferior to Holmes’ title reign (as it should be for a developing fighter), but the margin is disturbingly narrow for Holmes. Cooney is probably the standout win of his career. That’s laughable, frankly. Thomas was publicly ducked, & the best names on his résumé are consistently the ones who gave him razor close shaves & were never given rematches…coincidentally.

 

Once again, broad statements of convince without the detail ... if one is fair with Holmes which you are not, his title reign should be divided between pre and post Cooney ... up till Cooney he was controlled by and robbed by King on a regular basis. Post Cooney he felt his oats and decided to start making his own decisions and that was based on risk / reward .... Holmes feared no one ... he'd fight today of someone offered $ but he was going to be in charge of his own destiny ...both Foreman and Holmes are great names in the divisions history for different reasons, both had monster moments and accomplishments and deserve respect as such.

 

If we start giving out passes for being victims of managerial handlers to fighters we’d be bogged down forever. Holmes was a grown man. That’s on him if he had problems with King.

Divide it if you wish, though…the consistent fact remains he never beat a single great fighter. In or out of his reign.

 

My way of seeing this is Holmes had little time to fight Pinklon or Tucker when he was still champ but during his comeback he had 5 years he could have fought anyone he didn't get around to as champ and chose not to.

 

Foreman has the best single wins over Frazier and Moorer but after that the wins for Foreman don't really standout in regards to Holmes's resume.

They both beat Norton ok Foreman beat a younger Norton and more impressively but they still both him and Norton was still in good form vs Holmes.

Lyle is not really much different to some of the top 10 80s contenders.

And then after that what else is there ?

Holmes had a far more consistent career against ranked fighters and didn't lose twice in his physical prime like Foreman did decisively.

Foreman also didn't fight Quarry, Shavers, in the 70s and there's a whole heap of fighters in the 90s he could've fought but didn't.

Don't get me wrong Holmes has his faults especially after Witherspoon fight I thought his opponent selection was questionable. But you can also say the samething about Foreman especially in his comeback.

 

Congrats ... the first Don King apologist I've ever come across ... more proof you're not a serious poster here. You have no game ...

 

Though they’ve been a long, somewhat accepted part of boxing in the main, I’m not a fan of gimmees and of the fans who do accept them in certain contexts, many can still agree as to when the concept of the gimme has been misused and abused.

I like Floyd and he certainly redeemed himself as an ex champ or, more specifically, when he returned to the status of contender himself - but unfortunately that didn’t erase his run as Champ or the everlasting, irreversible fact of the contenders who were denied their rightful shots during his reign.

I didn’t post a grievance re Larry. His fight vs Norton was as a contender. I will say though that it was reported that his injury was basically healed come the Norton fight - and there certainly didn’t appear to be anything wrong with the left - his left jab was working a treat, basically winning the first 6-7 rounds via that weapon alone.

Per his age as at the time of the Holmes fight, Norton could have been reasonably considered to be somewhat past prime but he held the belt (post the Ali robbery, robbery at least imo) and we have his material performance against Larry to behold - and it was a great performance.

For mine, it was two great fighters putting on a great fight - a real credit to Larry as a fighter, and Holmes himself said that all his other fights thereafter were relatively easy by comparison.

Before he was completely shot, anyone who couldn’t knock Norton out was likely to catch hell - even when Ken was past his own prime.

 

The bicep thing has become stuff of legend. He had trouble leading up to the fight with it but by fight time it was actually sorted out and a non entity during the fight.

What was your sparring and preparation like for Ken Norton?
“My left arm went out [during training]. I got hit [in sparring], I don’t remember the name of the guy, but I got hit, and it pulled a muscle.

“My doctor, Keith Kleven, rubbed my arm down and fixed it up. I seen him practically every day. He was in my corner. I had the doctor [at the fight], watching, and I worked that left hand like there was no tomorrow.

“I overcame [the injury.]”

 

Holmes 9 fight "defense" run is the grand daddy of them all regarding a prolonged period. Shameless most certainly with the sheer lack of top 5 opponents being the pinnacle of cherry picking. Actually i'd give him Cobb as he was fringe top 10 and following an immense event (Cooney). Wilder is in the mix too, how many top 5 fighters did he face in his entire reign? Or was it top 10? Three?

But the thread is more about single defenses. My personal stance, and we can see how personal stances differ inside this thread, is that after an immense defense the champ is indeed entitled to an easy defense, or maybe two depending on context. Joe Louis for example defended his title something like 19 times in 5 years. You are going to get some fluff in such an incredibly active reign and fighting that often isn't conducive to having top shelf opponents in front of you every time out on so many levels.

Ray Mancini was another to cop heat in the 80's. We had a hot and incredibly shiny lightweight division with half a dozen or more glittering names for Mancini to fight in big dollar outings yet we got a non title fight and then Romero, then a non title fight again against a guy 12-11-0 and an old Chacon moving up. I can understand a bit of a rest after the death of Kim but really. Bramble was yet another cherry pick but it went dreadfully wrong as he was upset in front of a despairing Hector Camacho and Aaron Pryor. Guys like Rosario, Pryor, Camacho, Roger Mayweather, Boza and many many more were queuing up for a shot against the media darling in Mancini. There were shiny guys like Crawley, Arroyo and Blake on the edges too.

The WBA forcing Hagler to rematch Obelmejias was terrible and that's a point to consider - sometimes the governing bodies, the WBA in particular in my day pushed thru some disgraceful names as number 1 contenders.

 

The manner of victory over Norton could hardly be further apart. Foreman utterly destroyed peak Norton (coming off back to back Ali fights) while Norton and Holmes ended up going life and death by the end of 15. While Norton put on a fine display it definitely wasn't early 74 Norton. Holmes did improve a little post Norton.

 

Due to its common practice, I think we’ve been indoctrinated somewhat into accepting gimme defences in boxing as opposed to a reasonable rationale (aside from easy making of $$$) being supplied for same.

There has often been a curious measure of autonomy afforded to those who finally manage to ascend the throne.

Moving from that platform and accepting gimmes, then context is the next port of call.

IF other far more eligible contenders are not sidestepped and ultimately still given their due chance, then that’s when a softie might be most acceptable.

The irony remains that many far more eligible contenders will never be afforded the wild card softie (including the associated $$$ that comes with same) that other fighters are fortunate enough to receive - contenders who are too good for their own good, so to speak, being left out in the cold.

To avert justification of the “tune up” concept, it could be argued that reasonably active Champs should always be tuned up via their gym work and actual title defences - though there could be an argument for setting up the interest and gate for an upcoming fight between the Champ and his top contender via two “lead in” softies for both combatants before they lock horns.

I’m wondering what might be analogous to the “soft defence” or purely $$$ based match ups in other sports?

There may be some examples but suffice to say, the boxing infrastructure operates in a way quite unique to itself - including economic motives meant to justify certain matches as opposed to said fights being duly based on merit/order of merit.

As JT said, opinions will differ and are somewhat equally arguable from both sides. Definitely not a completely black and white subject.

Very good point by JT also re the governing bodies fiddling with the ratings in order to dignify and accomodate otherwise undeserved shots at the title - so even when the numbers seem to “fit”, it still may not be all that it seems.

 

NO excuse from a Sporting point of view, that Champions should be meeting THE TOP Contender,

however Money and 'Invested' Ownership has Denied BOXING, the Fans and 'it's' History, to say nothing of the Contenders themselves, of the Truth!

 

If they were ranked contenders that satisfies all criteria.
As to Holmes never beating a great fighter in his prime, which ones could he have fought but didn't?