The "second best heavyweight in the world" belt

Frank matched Snipes who was as good as anyone. The two most important fights Scott Frank had were Holmes and Snipes, on paper Frank is a weak and undeserving challenger but the Snipes fight at least showed he could compete for one fight. Many challengers to both halves of the title had no more than this going for them.

Witherspoon had a very long career. He paid his dues despite his ups and downs, so yes he was the better fighter. We never saw Frank see his career out.

I was really asking "how far from Frank was witherspoon based on both of them facing Snipes before each fought Holmes.

Going into the Holmes fight, on paper, how much more did Witherspoon have going for him than Scott Frank had? At that point Tim was a kid who had proved to be no better than Snipes when they fought. Frank had been no better than Snipes either before facing Holmes. At that point, were they that much further apart?

My point is of the two halves of the title the same kind of guys were challenging for both halves. It's just with one half everybody but quick Tillis who fought for it eventually wound up with a belt!

Even Half the guys who failed against Holmes wound up with a belt, that's why I believe history should only remember this half if the belt as a spot in the ratings rather than a championship. It's like they failed against the real champ then they could pick up a spot in the ratings that gave you a belt.

After all this "half" only traces back to a bad decision on behalf of the WBA in not including Holmes in their plans for their vacancy when Ali retired.

 

That's true of any champion. The point is Larry did not lose those fights. The alternative belt holders/contenders would have. That's why they were only winning a spot in the ratings. They got a belt for that spot but they nearly all lost their next fight.

Leon made a splash with that win and people began to take him seriously for the first time, who was a bigger mainstream name in 1981? C00ney and Weaver? Holmes beat both.

Nobody expected Weaver to do as well, this is correct. Holmes fight with him was little more than a NewYork show case to overshadow the retiring Ali, it was among three fights Holmes had in 1979 while the other half of the title was not contested at all. Occasio beat Young to challenge Holmes and Shavers beat Norton. You could say Holmes was the only champion that year.

Again, like Weaver, Witherspoons record was not that worthy of a championship fight when he fought for and lost for one against Holmes. Then they give Tim a fight with #1 Page in 1984 on the strength of his close fight with Holmes for a vacant WBC belt. But all Page had done to earn #1 was beat Renaldo Snipes who Larry had already made mince meat of 17 months earlier. This after Page losing to Berbick right after Holmes gave Berbick a beating. So yes, I would prefer Holmes rematch Witherspoon but he didn't instead Tim won his fight with Page but lost his next one. Maybe if he won the next one he could have been a more outstanding contender to Holmes?

I'm not making excuses for Holmes here. But without a belt, without anyone having a belt Larry is still the only heavyweight in the ratings who had paid his dues with wins over world class contenders. Jack Dempsey and Jim Braddock remained inactive for years whilst their challengers fought it out, nobody gave those contenders an alternative belt. They stayed undisputed.

Bonecrushers win over Bruno was higher profile than say Dokes win over John L Gardener that awarded him a title fight with Weaver. If Bonecrusher was so no good a contender, Tubbs got a shot at Page out of beating Bonecrusher when bones was coming off a loss to Larry Holmes, was Holmes supposed to defend his title to Tubbs from that?

As for Snipes getting that robbery win over Coetzee was that Larry's fault? The WBA is to blame for not asking Holmes to face Coetzee in 1979 for the recognition of their half of the title instead of ludicrously chosing Tate fight Coetzee.

In 1979 Holmes had beat Occasio (who beat Young, the guy Norton beat in an elimination that awarded him WBC recognition) Shavers and Norton but the WBA decided in their wisdom that John Tate had better credentials for their vacant title than Larry Holmes.

.

Marvis was a total cherry pick, I grant you that, but even Marvis if that time was the kind of guy the other champs were losing to. Marvis did beat Bonecrusher. Even Marvis.

what credentials did Thomas have going into the Witherspoon fight? What credentials did Weaver have going into the Thomas fight? Weaver was knocked out in one round by Tony Anthony after the bell. This DQ win got him a shot at Thomas. It works both ways.

and its about the same as Dokes, page, Tubbs, Thomas, Weaver and co when they challenged for the belt they got. It's almost bogus.

And it worked both ways. How deserving or legitimate was the alternative to Holmes when this legitimacy is based on losing to Holmes? Or beating someone who lost to Holmes? Weaver was only legitimate once he lost to Holmes. Page was a legitimate challenger for a vacant title because he beat Snipes who lost to Holmes? Tubbs was a legitimate challenger to Page because he beat Smith who lost to Holmes?

Ali was ancient and Sick. But not as sick as the politics that allowed him to contest for their title. Holmes could beat who ever they said he could beat for their title. If Norton made Holmes a paper champion what did it make Tate? What did it make weaver after he'd lost to Holmes?

I've already said the Coetzee fight was almost made. Dokes before him was not a leading contender until he beat Weaver. Holmes already beat Weaver. I'll hazard a guess that Holmes would beat these guys because there was barely one world level win in any of them. If Holmes was forced to fight them he fights them after they were somebody. Its the night they lost anyway. Dokes the night he lost to Coetzee? Coetzee the night he lost to Tate? Witherspoon the night he lost to Thomas? Page the night he lost to Tubbs? These guys all sucked in their next fight.