Tim Witherspoon W 12 Greg Page 1984

Absolutely. Perhaps you can go on record and tell me who you thought out of your propaganda group defeats him and at what point . (See rest above)

 

Shavers who floored Holmes once should qualify. Only a handful of fighters gave Holmes a hard match.

Not sure if Dokes vs. Holmes could have been made due to the politics of the times.

I made a separate thread on this. Yes, but Page lost too many times to people Holmes beat to make it really matter. Do you feel the same with Say Lennox Lewis who gave up belts to not fight Chris Byrd, or John Ruiz?

Always? No, but champs with 20 title matches do not always fight 10 ten guys. While I'm too lazy to count right now, Holmes likely gave title shots to 10 men rated in the top ten.

I think so. The four best fighters in the 1980's in my opinion were Holmes, Tyson, Witherspoon, and Spinks. So Holmes fought the best three of the 1980's. In the late 70's, the best fighters were Norton, and Shavers, whom Holmes meet. If you want to argue if Holmes missed on out the 5th best man between 1978-1988, you can but I think the above data shows he did fight the best of his time.

 

very true

 

he Grant

Marciano fought the best 5# 1 contenders and 1 # 2 , I think it was better that
Marciano fought the better men and did not seek out the biggest who were eliminated by Moore, LaStarza and Charles

Should of he fought 6'3 Valdez who was bigger or Moore who beat him 2x, Should he have fought 6'2 Bob Baker who Moore KO'd or Moore

Should he have fought 6"3 Coley Wallace who Charles Ko'd or Charles

Should he have fought the 6'3 Dan Bucceroni or the guy that beat him Roland Lastarza

Marciano beat many big guys and his war against the 6"4 rugged Carmine Vingo showed that size was not an issue.

Marciano fought the best of his era, unfortunately Holmes did not

 

He did - about 30 years later.

In all seriousness, this would be my biggest criticism of him right here. I would've absolutely loved to see a rematch with Weaver, given that I always considered their first fight to be one of the very best HW fights I'd ever seen. And the stage was perfectly set for a rematch too, once Weaver won a title himself.

I agree he also should've rematched Witherspoon at some point - even though I'm in the apparent minority who thinks Holmes deservedly won the first fight.

This is a fair criticism as well, and coincides with what I said above. But to be fair, Holmes did spend most of '84 at least trying to make a big unification fight with Coetzee, which was ultimately shot dead by a court judge. Had the fight been made though, the WBA said beforehand that they would strip Coetzee, meaning that it ultimately wouldn't have been a unification fight by the time it got made. In other words, making a unification fight at that time wasn't exactly as easy as pie, either. There were a lot of bullsh!t political barriers to that as well.

But he gave up his title to chase the very sort of unification fight that you criticized him for not making earlier, which the WBC was dead set against. This is why THIS particular criticism of him really isn't fair - it conflicts with the other criticisms that you, others, and even myself have made of Holmes in this thread.

Ultimately, he actually did fight the best, but it happens it was before he or anyone else knew they were the best (ie: Weaver, Witherspoon).

If your question is whether he fought those who were rated as the best, that's a different question - and of course, a different answer.

 

Valdez was either the #1 or 2 contender from late '53 through early '55, decisively beat Charles, KO'd top 5 rated Heinz Neuheus, and won a designated eliminator with Tommy Jackson.

He probably should've gotten a title shot at least before Charles got a second shot, and definitely deserved a shot before Cockell did.

 

No he lost 4 in a row in 1953 to Billy Gillian, Bob Baker, Archie Moore,Harold Johnson....He started out well in 1954 but most felt he lost the fight in 2/20 1954 to Archie McBride. While he got the decision over Charles it was a close fight and Ezzard tried to get a rematch but Valdes declined.

Charles beat Valdez conqueror Billy Gilliam and then Valdes lost for the 2nd time to Moore in an elimination fight and then Valdez was badly beaten by Bob Satterfield and dropped in the last round. Moore KO'd Valdez conqueror Bob Baker and Moore TKO'd Harold Johnson.

Marciano had hoped Valdes would beat Bob Satterfield so that he would become somewhat marketable for win # 50 and KO # 44 but Valdes failed to defeat Bob Satterfield. Satterfield was KO'd by both Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore

 

As i said in the other thread - this point is 100% moot. He didn't give up his title because of any unification hopes whatsoever, Coetzee hadn't even won the title and he sure wasn't chasing Dokes at any point ever.

 

Does anyone else find the fact Holmes was shaped like a giant pear slightly unnerving?

 

:rofl

I have actually seen this mentioned before. I'm thinking it got worse as he got older and bigger

 

That is a serious problem for me when attempting to rate him. I go back as far as I can in his career, when he's supposedly in his best shape, and still he looks like an inverted coke-bottle. Based on that I can't think too highly of him.

 

That's not accurate - Coetzee won the title in September '83, Holmes gave up his title in December, and then signed for a June '84 match vs. Coetzee at Cesar's Palace (which was later cancelled).

Coetzee was already being talk up as an opponent for Holmes even heading into the Frazier fight in November '83 (a month before Holmes gave up his title).