Should Larry Holmes be given a pass for missing out on Page, Thomas, Dokes, Coetzee?

meh he would have beaten all those guys

 

It's a good debate. He should of faced at least two of those guys. He was the best fighter but that doesn't exempt you from missing out on multiple top challengers.

 

So, we just assign him 4 more victories over championship fighters because he schooled Scott Frank?

 

I think he gets a pass on those guys on ESB but I think a rematch with Weaver would have been nice as well after the tough fight Weaver gave him and Weavers 2 good wins vs Tate & Coetzee. Vlad Klitschko has already shown a better record at fighting the best available even though his brother knocked off a few ....some would have loved to see a rematch with Witherspoon and Williams but Holmes was slipping and they were 16 fight guys still Larry defended against 10 fight guys 2X and 14 fight guys 2x and a 13 fight guy once.....I like Wlads toughest opponents better Haye, Povetkin,Ibragimov, Byrd,Chagaev, Thompson,Etc. Holmes had Cooney, Shavers the rest were a Calvary Charge or too inexperienced and not yet at their best

 

It totally effects his legacy. He's maybe top 3 all time head to head, but he's much lower in terms of accomplishments because of his ducking.

 

Yes he missed out on those 4 very good contenders. He almost lost to Witherspoon (IMO he did lose) so it's totally possible that he could have lost to Thomas or Page.. He would've beat up Dokes and Coetzee though, and I don't think those 2 were as good as Thomas or Page.

 

I don't like to blame any fighter for outright ducking because usually a fighter will take the biggest fight and quite often the window closed and the challenger took another option. In the case of Holmes those guys had another option, the alternative belt, they took that but they could not win another fight to build a Holmes match. Holmes seemed to take easier fights while these guys built up a case but they all blew their titles before any demand reached real fever pitch. It was not like mayweather v Pac man.

This might sound like an excuse but I really don't want it to look like one. If Thomas beat Berbick a Holmes fight should have happened. He beat weaver but could not beat Berbick. Holmes beat both.

I think Holmes agreed to fight Coetzee but he blew the page fight. Holmes took Cooney over Page because that was the bigger fight. If Page had beat Witherspoon Holmes should have fought Page then. but Page could not beat Witherspoon and Tim lost to Thomas straight away.

Holmes might have stayed busy waiting for one of those guys to pan out but they kept losing. It's political as much as anything.

 

I don't like to blame any fighter for outright ducking because usually a fighter will take the biggest fight and quite often the window closed and the challenger took another option. In the case of Holmes those guys had another option, the alternative belt, they took that but they could not win another fight to build a Holmes match. Holmes seemed to take easier fights while these guys built up a case but they all blew their titles before any demand reached real fever pitch. It was not like mayweather v Pac man.

This might sound like an excuse but I really don't want it to look like one. If Thomas beat Berbick a Holmes fight should have happened. He beat weaver but could not beat Berbick. Holmes beat both.

I think Holmes agreed to fight Coetzee but he blew the page fight. Holmes took Cooney over Page because that was the bigger fight. If Page had beat Witherspoon Holmes should have fought Page then. but Page could not beat Witherspoon and Tim lost to Thomas straight away.

Holmes might have stayed busy waiting for one of those guys to pan out but they kept losing. It's political as much as anything.

 

Agree with both your previous posts!

 

Ovid***ile said it succinctly and correctly. In terms of ability, I think Holmes might have beaten any champ in history, but it's hard to fully assess that when he didn't even beat some of the better guys of his era. I found the Holmes reign very frustrating. It was outrageous to see him fight the guys he did, people who in any non-corrupt person's eyes, were barely top 20, if that.

 

No. You never give a champion a pass for failure to meet the best available opponents. How much does it hurt his legacy? Depends. Some of the men mentioned weren't ranked at the top for very long, lost to either past or future Holmes victims, or simply were not lined up for a title shot for political reasons. Michael Dokes for example was managed under the same umbrella of Don King productions, therefore he and Larry never met for the same reasons that Norton and Frazier never did. Coetzee and Holmes signed to fight one another but Coetzee backed out due to an injury if I recall. I would have much rather seen Holmes fight Greg Page than to just relinquish is WBC crown. That just doesn't look on anyone no matter how you cut it. A meeting with Pinklon would have helped him too. Asside from that I have no real problems with the guy. He reached 48-0, had some 19 title defenses and beat good men in Norton, Weaver, Shavers, Cooney, Snipes, Berbick and Witherspoon.

 

As an older fighter Holmes fought Witherpsoon, Spinks, and Williams.

Page was only an option for a 1-2 years, then he lost to Bey, who Holmes fought. Dokes was the other alphabet champion, and politics would make this match difficult to make.

 

You could give him a pass for Coetzee I think, since the politics of the day were totally against that fight. Neither man's fault.
But ALL these guys? No. Holmes ought to have faced either Thomas or Page, preferably both.

Larry was the best of his era, but just suppose, he met a highly motivated and fully fit Page? Or a Pink who was in the right mood...history may have been a bit different.