Pinklon Thomas vs Larry Holmes why didn't it happen and who would have won? 1985

I understand where you are coming from. Pinklon did look like the best fighter at that time -providing he could sustain what he showed against Witherspoon and Weave. But he didn’t.

It is fair to say Thomas handled Witherspoon much better than Larry did. Going off that it is reasonable to make a strong case for Pinklon.

 

Holmes won the re-match vs. Spinks. Spinks wasn't a small guy, he had some height and reach and correctly put on the weight to scale over 200 pounds.

Spinks and Thomas were different fighters. Thomas had a mediocre right hand, the best punch to land on Holmes and wasn't as hard to solve as Spinks could be.

It would be close. Key factors. 1 ) Is Pinky off the drugs? 2 ) What type of shape is Holmes in?


Who wins? Do you really want to know? Whomever Don King wants as he would be picking the judges. Until then I'm voting draw. My hunch is Holmes would win a narrow decision on the cards as you have " to beat the champion " and he'd be better in the later rounds.

 

No he does not

 

This..

 

His jab had more power but it wasnt as versatile as Holmes. Holmes Jab was way more active and still quicker. It flowed more naturally. He used it so well defensively also. Chins I'll rate evenly. I honestly cant see a Pink victory here.
But again opinions are what this forum is all about.

 

This is truth too

 

Thomas sure looked a strong contender for “top champ” with his wins over Spoon and Weaver, but that’s not to say he would beat guys like Frazier, Smith Bey, Williams or Spinks is it? The guys Larry fought from 83-86 make a longer resume than Thomas had in his entire career. At that point all Thomas has is a win over Witherspoon. Even Weaver, impressive as that was isn’t an elite type guy. In his previous fight Weaver was knocked out by Tony Anthony. At that point Page and Bey were regarded higher than Weaver.

On paper yes, Thomas was more legit but those guys wound up being better than considered. Would Thomas necessarily beat Williams? I think Marvis, Smith, Bey and Williams were all better than 99.9% of the guys Thomas had fought.

 

I’m referring to your saying in 82/83 he was the top gunner for Holmes.

He had one quality win and one quality draw by the end of 1983.

Others had better resumes than him in 82/83. Did Pinklon ultimately prove better than Frazier, Bey, Williams or Spinks? I’d argue that he proved better than two of the three. But in 1982/83 he was no more deserving than those guys were at the time Larry fought them.

There have always been more deserving challengers than SOME contenders fought by every champion in history. No one has ever fought the No. 1 guy in every single defense. It doesn’t mean they’re being ducked. How long did Pinklon actually maintain his run as the top guy outside of Holmes? Is Larry obligated to pick him in the exact 6-month period within which he can make that claim? No, he’s not, Pinklon had a brief run near the top but did not sustain it.

Pinklon maybe showed better against Weaver and Witherspoon than Holmes did. Trevor Berbick? Not so much. After Weaver, did he ever have another quality win?

 

Spinks, clearly.

His two wins over Holmes, plus Cooney, are better in his short heavyweight run than Pinklon’s entire resume.

Michael’s worst (and only) loss at heavy was to the best version of Tyson there ever was. Pinklon has several losses that were dubious.

I’d say The Truth has a ledger that is comparable to Pinklon’s.

 

yes. With the performance Thomas had against Witherspoon, if he used this Tokyo Douglas night again and again, Pinklon might have busted up Marvis, Smith, Bey and Williams. But it’s only might.

Williams the way he fought Larry was a mighty fine boxer that night. Probably better than the Coetzee Thomas drew with.

So there are no real certainties unless we use the same performance over and over in a way Thomas was unable to duplicate in real life. Larry, whilst fading at least had that championship ruggedness to pull out wins in a more reliable way.

Thomas for one, maybe two fights did look as good as a champion calibre fighter. But so do some top contenders for one or two fights. We did not see him sustain that form before he fought Witherspoon or after it.

how do we know? Spinks didn’t fight that many did he?

apart from Witherspoon who had Thomas fought? Tillis? Didn’t Marvis beat him too? Thomas did not beat Coetzee did he? That was a draw.

And Bey beat the guy who flattened Coetzee for the title so (on paper) how far away was Bey from Thomas?

Thomas did look good though. I always respected his tools. On a good night.

no, they were not world beaters either. Thomas wasn’t really either. His belt was like a top contender spot rather than a real championship. That’s what it really represented. In past times a number one contender can have one win better than the champion has - then lose his position in his next fight. Which is kind of what happened here. Along came Berbick. It could have been along came Williams, along came Bey. You never know with Thomas.

yes, this is true, but with one busy champion and another two title holders the challengers were fast tracked into the ratings. With three champs most of the ratings would be made up of guys Larry could not fight because of ABC soup politics or guys he already beat. The alternative holders were sometimes just as inexperienced when challenging the other holder. Dokes, Tate And Tubbs were as inexperienced as Williams, Bey etc were when they challenged and won belts. The only challenger to any alternative champion who did not win a belt during Larrys reign is quick Tillis. Every other man to contest the alternative belts won their challenge.

I certainly agree with you. However, without Weaver and Witherspoon we would say the same about Thomas too. Larry beat guys like Snipes who on paper had a similar kind of resume.