Was the 80's heavyweight division really that bad?

I always saw the 80s as Larry Holmes as champ and all the other belt holders as the contenders, as you would in the 60s and 70s. While Larry did miss off meeting the guys mentioned I don't feel he missed anyone he couldn't have beaten and secondly most of them had a very brief window of focus and discipline and then lost fights they should have won and faded from the scene.

None of the WBA champs exactly dazzled when they won the that title, to the extent where you went "wow I wish that guy would fight Larry Holmes, gee what a fight!". I never remember anyone losing sleep over the fact Larry did not fight Tate, Coetzee etc. I am being harsh but it just seemed like a bunch of lazy fat coke fiends passing round the trinket like a hot potato (which they probably then ate) while Larry always looked good, kept in shape and kept winning. I think only Weaver managed more than one defense, followed by Witherspoon (looking like a blimp against Bruno) and Dokes (struggling to a draw vs Weaver).

As far as the 80s being weak, as others have said the talent was there but other than Holmes, Tyson and Spinks I feel most of the top ten fighters of the time paled compared to the earlier contenders as far as discipline, hunger and consistency. It felt like they could look good against tomato cans going up, put together a one or two fight good run against other rated fighters and then blow it and become a journey man. Dokes and Witherspoon are probably the only ones who put together good runs after their championship days, although there were a few good individual showings like Tubbs vs Bowe. Having said that Tubbs for me really sums up the era, that huge wobbling belly showed zero respect for his body or for the sport. Boxing wasn't life and death for these guys as it was in the 70s.

Yes they had talent but they only had themselves to blame (and maybe Don King). I may have been a bit harsh, after all the 80s was rubbish for most people with it's over consumption culture and easy access to drugs and credit. For most young guys coming into money and fame for the first time it was probably overwhelming.

 

A motivated Page in 83 who was Holmes's mandatory, and Thomas during 84-85 would've had a good chance at beating a faded Holmes. Which is why Holmes chose the easier route towards the end of his title reign.

I'm sorry I like Holmes but you can't really defend fighting the likes of Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank. Holmes was also happy fighting other novice fighters Carl Williams, Bonecrusher Smith, rather than Pinklon Thomas who was undefeated for 7 years.

I think Holmes title reign would've looked significantly better with Thomas, Page, Dokes, on his resume. That's why Tyson's reign in 80s was better than Holmes, he actually cleaned out the division and left no doubt who was the best. I don't really feel like Holmes did the same to be honest atleast after 82.

 

Fair points as always! And yes I would have preferred him to unify and frankly if he had wanted to move out of Ali's shadow and establish himself more quickly with the general public this would have helped him.

 

I wasn't born during that era but I know there was alot of politics going around, so it wasn't always the easiest to get unification. I know a possible Holmes/Coetzee fight fell through because of complications. But I still feel like Holmes should've unified at some point, and maybe fought one of the dangerous contenders instead of the likes of Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, and the other novices he fought.

I don't really have a big issue with Holmes's reign during the first 4 years. It's the final 2 or 3 years where Holmes started to pick easier opposition, rather than fighting the most dangerous opponents at that time.

Like I said a rematch vs Weaver, Dokes, Page, Thomas, etc. Even fighting 2 out of the possible 4 and Holmes's reign would've been more appreciated looking back. I think Holmes is a great champion but he does deserve some stick for not fighting Page, Thomas. And choosing some other questionable opposition in the last few years of his title reign.

 

The talent was fine its just that Tyson n Holmes were dominant. As well as the majority of contenders/champs losing the battle to drugs it wasn't called the cocaine 80s for nothing. My condolences to those who were decent men no longer here and wish the ones still here best health.

Personally, it is my fav era of heavyweights to watch outside of the 50s, 60s, 70s n 90s. Depending on the fight n mood I'm in sometimes moreso.

 

Yes, it was.

 

Tyson cleaned up a bunch of leftovers. They were past it, if they ever were it. He also managed to miss Page and Witherspoon (who Larry didn’t), etc.

I think you summed it up best with ‘a motivated Page in ‘83’ … because by March of 1984 I guess he had lost all motivation and lost three of his next four fights. The only win was squirrelly as he won it like 4 minutes into the round and never gave Coetzee a rematch.

The windows were so narrow of anyone laying claim to anything that there was never enough interest/hue and cry for a unification. “Hey you should fight the WBA champ … oops, he lost it. Fight this WBA champ … oops, him too.” Unifications come at a high price — fighters demand more money for those and there wasn’t enough demand for those fights to make it.

Holmes-Tate likely happens if John doesn’t lose to Weaver in his first defense. Maybe Page gets his shot if he doesn’t lose to Bey. Etc.

What you have in the 1980s aside from Holmes at the front end and Tyson at the back end of the decade is a lot of wasted talent. Collectively you can say ‘there’s some good fighters there who had some really good performances’ but there’s not any consistency among any of them to step up to say ‘I’m the head of the class’ and make something happen. It’s musical chairs and someone is always left standing … almost always the guy who just won the belt immediately losing it.

 

Page was no longer prominent when Tyson was champion, he was washed up after 85 losing to the likes of Mark Wills in 86. And Witherspoon would've fought Tyson had he beat Bonecrusher but got blown away in 1 round. So i don't really see how Tyson missed out on fighting any of them.

Whether or not they were slightly faded is irrelevant, the fact is Tyson unified and left no doubt who was the best at that time. And that's why Tyson's reign is far more impressive than Holmes's reign in the 80s.

Page was Holmes's mandatory in 83 as you well know, and Holmes gave up the belt and fought two very undeserving challengers in Frazier, Frank. The Frazier fight was considered such a poor fight the WBC wouldn't even sanction it because Frazier wasn't in the top 10. Now i know you've stated before about money and what have you. But i'm sorry i think giving up the belt to avoid fighting a dangerous opponent at that time, to fight two very poor challengers is not a good look in my view.

Overall i think Holmes carefully picked his opponents after the Witherspoon scare, who at that time wasn't supposed to push Holmes that hard. As Witherspoon was relative unknown at that point, and had got a gift decision vs Snipes in his previous fight.

Holmes for me should've rematched Weaver and unified at some point, should've fought Page in 83, and should've fought Thomas in 84-85 who was undefeated for 7 years. If you want to disregard the Page fight, then Holmes definitely should've atleast fought Weaver again and Thomas.

Holmes never fought a 1 number contender, missed out on unification fights. And opted to not fight some of the more challenging opponents at that time. I like Holmes as a fighter and his fights vs Witherspoon, Norton, Weaver, are some of my favourite Heavyweight fights ever. But Holmes does deserve some criticism for all of the above.

 

You definitely reminded me to check out the three Holmes fights you mentioned just now! I am going to waste my day off watching them now!

 

Make sure to score them aswell I'd like to see your scorecard in scorecard thread we have here.

 

This is how I feel.

 

Not to bang on as I think your points are definitely strong ones. But looking at the records Page had already lost to Berbick in 1982 who Holmes had already beaten in 1981. Page then loses to Witherspoon (who Holmes has beaten) and David Bey. So Saintpat has a point that there was a very small window with a lot of these guys for Holmes to make a fight. And while I 100% agree Frank and Frazier were poor fights and opponents for Larry, the Page Berbick loss and subsequent loss to Tim makes the prospects of that fight less exciting to me in hindsight and hence less of a black mark. Although as you said in reality it probably would have been a decent match if Page was motivated!

Thomas also subsequently lost to Berbick as well as being a full blown heroin addict, albeit in 1986. So again while at the time it looks bad I do wonder how competitive the match this would have been in reality?

Just being devil's advocate really to fuel the debate as I think your are pretty much correct!

Btw how to you see the fights against Thomas, Page and Weaver rematch going?

 

You said it best!

 

Here's the issue i have alot of the arguments are with "hindsight" involved, yes we all know Page was inconsistent and lazy no disputing that. But in 83 Page had only 1 loss on his record to Berbick, he rebounded with wins over Tillis, Snipes, and become Holmes's mandatory. Holmes gave up the belt instead of fighting Page who was hot at that time, and fought two very undeserving challengers in Frazier, Frank. Page's future losses have nothing to do with Holmes side stepping Page in 83. I certainly think Page would've been a far better fight than most of Holmes's opposition after Witherspoon, and certainly better than Frank, Frazier.

Again this is with hindsight involved Thomas lost to Berbick when Holmes was no longer champion, @JohnThomas1 will quote you actual comments from Holmes himself where he states he won't fight Thomas. Holmes fought relative novices Bey, Bonecrusher, Williams, who had 14 fights, 15 fights, 16 fights, instead of fighting Thomas who schooled Witherspoon and was undefeated for 7 years. Thomas in 84-85 would've had a great chance at beating Holmes, infact i would've favoured Thomas over Holmes during that period.

Overall as i said i think Holmes does deserve some criticism, for not fighting some of the more dangerous opponents at that time and also failing to unify aswell. Just look at Tyson in comparison who came along only a few years after Holmes, he basically cleaned up the division and unified in a few short years so it could be done. And if Holmes really would of wanted too he could've done the same aswell, but i truly believe Holmes picked softer defences towards the end of his career, because he wanted to break Marciano's record and probably fought he was aging and didn't want to risk losing.

 

Of course that ‘relative novice’ Bey beat Page to earn the shot at Holmes. So maybe Page wasn’t so hot?

The best case can be made for Pinklon but, again, win the title and hold onto it for a few defenses to make the mandatory both makable and attractive.

It’s fact that Holmes offered Page step-aside money so he could collect the overly large, easy money paydays vs. Frazier and Frank. Page (or maybe King) decided he’d be better off fighting for a vacant belt vs. Tony Tubbs … how’d that work out for him? Page can’t be a hot commodity in ‘83 and washed in ‘84.

As for taking on Bey (who beat Page), Williams and Bonecrusher, those are three rising prospects that Holmes took on. I don’t see how it’s a negative that he took on and beat three rising guys rather than find retreads to fight. If he fights Page instead of Bey, he’s ducking the winner of their fight. If he skips ‘Spoon and Williams and Bonecrusher and instead beats three other guys from that era, someone these days is posting about how he ducked Spoon and Williams and Bonecrusher.