anyone who knows anything about Thomas or the era or has read the articles that were just posted would know that Thomas was at his height before the Berbick fight and he said that he had marital problems and there were rumors of substance abuse...the fact remains that this was just another fight Larry avoided because of style but Larry also paid for it by getting slapped around by Michael Spinks in Mike's first heavyweight fight.
It was not a KO, Weaver was not dropped by a legal punch. Do we say Golota KOed Bowe? Eh....it's hard to look like hot stuff when getting badly fouled after just one round of action. At any rate as I've shown, the impressive Weaver defense had SI calling for Thomas as Holmes' most logical opponent. There's no room for debate on that.
I love digging up these old articles for that reason. Holmes may have been the first Champion in the modern era to never fight his true #1 contender, he missed Weaver II, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Spoon II, and Thomas during his reign. It certainly raises some flags, and the article even pointed out what I recall being said at the time by most everybody following him, he wanted Marciano and Louis' records and really didn't care how he got there.
Weaver held the top spot beneath Holmes until he lost it and the WBA title to Dokes. Cooney was ranked #2 by RING when Holmes faced him, certainly his highest rated challenger while he was Champ if I'm not mistaken.
"Weaver held the top spot beneath Holmes until he lost it and the WBA title to Dokes. Cooney was ranked #2 by RING when Holmes faced him, certainly his highest rated challenger while he was Champ if I'm not mistaken." You are correct, Mongoose. In regards to the Ring rankings of Holmes' opponents, here's something I posted a few years ago: --- Ring Magazine Rankings at the time of Holmes' defenses: Holmes #1, Evangelista #6 Holmes #1, Ocasio #5 Holmes #1, Weaver #8 Holmes #1, Shavers #3 Holmes #1, Zanon #7 Holmes #1, Jones #6 (At this point Ring awarded Holmes it's belt as he had already beaten new WBA champ Weaver) LeDoux #10 Ali #5 Berbick #7 Spinks #3 Snipes #10 Cooney #2 Cobb #9 Rodriguez unranked Witherspoon #10 Frank unranked Frazier #10 Smith #9 Bey #3 Williams #12 Spinks - LH Champ --- It's a shame that the split titles decreased the likelihood of certain fights. But how much blame goes to Weaver and Coetzee that they didn't fight Holmes? (yes, in Weaver's case a Holmes rematch). They weren't the most active of 'champions'. It's like they both just sat on their 'titles', although I'm sure there's more to their inactivity than that. Also, due to the WBC's antiapartheid stance, they refused to rank Gerrie Coetzee during his best years.
exactly and it never fails to surprise me how many revisionist fans want to forget or just did not live the era but i see a few knowledgeable guys like yourself who are not just looking at box-rec I enjoyed Holmes but I really have to guess how he would have fared against the best of his era, just too many avoidance's and navigation and corrupt King control for me to rate him as high as he is rated on ESB
You got to remember that King had a strong influence over the WBC and WBA and the politics and the way things played out. It is a proven that King was paying off John Ort of the ring Magazine to raise a Holmes opponent in the rankings....what a tangled web we weave
good point and had it been Joe Louis in Larry's shoes IMO, he would have rematched Weaver at least after he beat Tate,Coetzee,Tillis or sooner because of the tough battle he was given. Louis would have fought Coetzee, Tate, Page, Dokes, Thomas, Weaver just to unify and he would have quickly rematched Norton,Witherspoon & Williams....what a difference in era's and Champion mentality .... if he did not fight them all he would have at least unified and fought the best of the bunch
So true. I look at The Ring ratings as pretty reliable, from the the Fall of '79 on. Loubet & Ort were gone by then and Bert Sugar had taken over the magazine, instituting a ballot system for it's monthly ratings. But The Ring had no pull over what was actually happening in the boxing world, obviously. If they had, maybe we would have seen a Weaver-Cooney elimination fight in late 1980 or 1981.
Cannot argue with that. It was a lousy situation. Don benefited all round, he had some manopoly. The problem is if the #1 has a belt he has as much inclination to defend that strap as he does in seeking a match with a more established rival. He also has his own mandatory challengers. I a m not sure if there was any policy within the governing bodies themselves to take on other champions or if they haggled for prospects to include in their rankings to snag the best ticket sellers. I remember looking at each top ten and be amused that the rival champions were not rated within other lists at all and often "contenders" unique to one body were absent on the next list. How can there be so much dispute about the order of best fighters within one weight class? One guy could be #1 with one body and nowhere on the others. Another guy might be #18 with one group but as high as #3 with another with less than 20 fights.
Tyson cut through a lot of the BS when he became Champ because he and Cus wanted to...A champ has to want to unify and fight the best for himself...Vlad fought Povetkin and the other so-called Champs, it just makes sense...We can blame king for part of it but Larry has to take the blame for some of it
Bummy you're funny in your Holmes revisions. Why not lay the cards fully out. Tyson was part of a heavyweight division title elimation tournament. King desperately wanted him n it because he had no control over Mike at the time and it was his way to work it. The demand was there because post Holmes there was nothing but the same old revolving door of unmotivated , inconsistent guys like Thomas, Page, Tubbs, Witherspoon, Berbick, ect.. No serious winning streaks. No huge fan bases. Lots of failed drug tests and flat careers. Tyson was a breath of fresh air. He fought who Jacobs, Clayton and King put in front of him. All three knew they had a potential time bomb on their hands and had to try to milk as much money as fast as possible. Stop creating fantasies please. While you're at it you can also discuss how Al Weill and his mob connections helped your idol have his career shaped. :rofl your hard on for Holmes is a bit over the top and it wouldn't shock me if his post Spinks 1 comments are the motivating force to some degree.
there you go again He-grant, when the truth is spoken about your love Holmes you get a hair up your ass and then you show your bias and hard on against Marciano, who fought 5 #1 contenders out of 6 real defenses..yea I know the Mob gave him a split nose in the Charles fight so Charles could take a dive and make him look good or fight a war against Walcott in fight one and although he manhandled Archie for the most part it was hard work and anyone that saw him against Rex Layne who was 34-1-1 (and beat the man he lost and drew against ) has to know the right hand that blasted Layne and took out his front teeth was really a fake....so we all know Marciano was clean but then again he was Italian so he-grant swears he was a mobster or connected after all how could a white guy dominate a black era ....you are a historian...please the world according to he-grant and his twisted bias one of the reason's Marciano is one of my favorites is that he fought the best of his era and was the sole Champ in his division and another guy from Brockton Marvin Hagler did the same at 160 and he also rematched tough fights something I nor YOU can say about Holmes Tyson showed what the era was worth, he walked through most of the guys willing to fight including Holmes, Bone crusher was scared to death and they changed his name to Bone Clutcher after Tyson and iron Mike slaughtered Berbick, Holmes and Michael Spinks among others
Since your so all over the place, scrambling to make points out of thin air, comparing a prime Tyson and an old Holmes I have a question ... How does the Tyson who fought Danny Williams do against the Holmes who fought Mercer ? No doubt Rocky fought the best .. the best just happened to be old and small fighters that he could impose his physical advantages of youth and strength upon .. not his fault but certainly to his advantage.. however, revisionists like yourself spend hours ripping Holmes while not honestly appraising the quality of Marciano's opposition and lack objectivism and honesty to me. I happen to think several of the young guys a old Holmes defeated , be it Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith or Williams would have been stylistic nightmares for the 185 pound Rocky with the 67" reach and may very well have beaten him. AS far as anti-Italian