Who did Holmes duck?

It was not a strong era but Holmes had to have fought the best out there. There was no uncrowned champions because everyone who got a turn at an alternative champion to Holmes wound up wearing a belt then or at some later time apart from quick Tillis. That is a whole lot of belt holders passing a belt around and they all lost to a Holmes victim or Holmes himself. Snipes, Williams and Bey almost certainly would have won a belt if they fought the other guy instead of Holmes. Maybe even Frazier would have too. That's how strong the division was. Not very.

There is the point that perhaps tougher men were to be had when Larry fought a European or a Frank or a Frazier but that's mostly because he was staying busy. He still beat the best too. The problem with split championships is each champion has his own chalengers so that a top 20 becomes included within a top ten. It totally dialutes the quality and the natural order because a top 30 guy could bypass number 29 to #9 to challenge and win a belt. However, Holmes kept winning when nobody else could.

 

I agree with most of what you say but Bey only won 4 of his next 16 fights after fighting Larry and Snipes should have not gotten the shot before Coetzee and Snipes ( only won 1 of his next 7 fights) would not have won the other title, neither would Bey, he was terrible and Williams had a poor chin (in fact it was Weaver who stopped him in2 rds after Williams fought Holmes) so I think they would have lost to the other guy.

Holmes was the best of the Era, condition etc., but he was protected,navigated around certain guys and there was a large window of opportunity for his to fight the others. Ali had a better style than Frazier against most opponents but guys like Frazier and Norton had style difficulty for him, how would Ali's legacy be if he waited for Foreman to beat them so he didn't have to fight them.

 

Ali didn't rematch Foreman or Young but he found time for Richard Dunn, Coopman, Evangelista, Spinks and Chuck Wepner. Ali was still the best out there however and so was Holmes.

David Bey was no great shakes but going into his fight with Holmes his credentials were as strong as quick Tillis or any amount of belt holders like Tubbs, Dokes, weaver, Coetzee when they first challenged for titles. Sure David's and Renaldos bave management enforced losing streaks spiralling out of control straight after Holmes but so did Page once losing his title fight. Bonecrusher was also thrown to the wolves but he somehow found enough form to wipe the floor with Witherspoon and Weaver...... after losing to marvis Frazier!

Either Smith improved or Witherspoon and Weaver were never any good to start with. if that was the case Marvis was one he'll of a win for Holmes since he beat the pants off Smith!

Once Tubbs and Thomas lost they were navigated away from contenders until they could challenge again for a title without fighting anyone. Let's not forget they did not beat anyone decent before winning titles either. Who knows how Thomas v williams might have went? Or Tubbs vs Williams right after they lost titles?

Witherspoon was no better than Williams

Page no better than Bey

Coetzee no better than Weaver

Weaver no better than Smith

Thomas no better than berbick

Dokes no better than Snipes.

 

Bummy has a hard on against Holmes and loves to repeat the same argument thread after thread without accountability for facts .. Holmes fought and beat Bey right after he defeated Page. He fought Berbick right after he beat Page. He did knock out Weaver. He did defeat Witherspoon. He will never come out and say he picks any of them straight up over Holmes but just split hairs. The he goes on to discuss how other guys walk on water without anywhere near the same level of accountability. That being said, it's his opinion nd my thoughts on his opinion .. neither one of us wrote the book ...

 

I dont have a hard on for Holmes but I remember the era, yes it was very weak!!! but I cant wear rose colored glasses with some fighters and pick hairs with others, Sorry but Larry does not come near Joe Louis,Marciano or Ali or for rematching tough fights or one-simple unification....I see people criticize the Klitschko's but at least Vlad unified all the titles except the one his brother held and people call his era weak, the Holmes era was very weak

 

by the way I would have put $$ on Coetzee by KO for the 5-1 + odds and I would bet Weaver to win the Rematch by a KO or TKO, I think the strong Thomas had a good chance to UD Larry and Page had a chance but only a top form Greg which would be hard to bank on but worth a bet betting on the odds. I never thought Witherspoon was much and Smith had size and power but was afraid of his own blood, Tyson gave us a good measurement of the Holmes era Berbick,Holmes,Thomas,Smith,Marvis and even M.Spinks (who I never expected to beat Holmes)

I made money with Coetzee-Dokes and Duran-Moore and Duran-Barkley and I think It may have been worth a few bets betting against Holmes but i would not put a dollar on a 10-12-13-14 -16 fight fighter

 

Can't argue with that bummy:good

I would always put Holmes behind those 3. There is a gulf between Larry and those three.

 

Tyson did well to get them all lined up like that. He was hot and they were not. Tyson was lucky they were still active, that the alphabet boys and promoters were keen to unite titles that time around for "the greater good" once a more colourful fighter came along. This was not so in Larry's day. Perhaps Larry was never regarded as colourful?

If they all had of been around, active and they were lined up for Holmes one after the other in 1978-79 in the way Tyson was fed the "lost generation gang" what odds would you give Holmes to beat the ALi era guys when Larry was hot and they were not? Foreman, joe Frazier Young and Lyle? Instead Foreman retired, Frazier returned too late to be relevent and young and Lyle fizzled out.

 

The ref didn't "jump in" after Weaver was dropped. He was dropped at the end of the 11th and barely beat the bell.

Larry teed off on him in the 12th and Weaver never fired back. The ref had no choice.

 

Tyson and Cus wanted to clean up the division and unify the titles, they had no doubt that they could beat all, Holmes was content with the split title dynamics and the benefits of the time.

I don't think Holmes stacks up to Ali, while Ali got hit with the left hook mainly he also got hit with right hands and while Holmes got dropped by the right hand he also got caught with some hooks.

Holmes would have had some success in the Ali ERA he may be able to survive the Foreman 1's early onslaught and take him later, Frazier would be a tough fight for Holmes because of the pressure,I pick Frazier Young a different style with tricky movement like M.Spinks but harder to hit, tough fight...I think Larry handles Lyle pretty well

 

The oft implication in these threads is that Holmes was going to fight the winner...and Page lost so he didn't get the fight. This was never the case. Holmes ducked the Page fight, it's a simple as that. Irrespective of what happened afterwards, Page was largely thought of as the most talented and the one who, at his best, could beat Larry (and the one given the shortest odds to beat him anyway). And Larry beat Berbick before Trevor outpointed Greg. Also, the Witherspoon fight became a big win only in hindsight; it wasn't a case of Larry choosing him ahead of the likes of Page and co, like it was a fight people wanted to see against a super-hot prospect- Tim was barely top 10.

 

Witherspoon, Williams and Weaver were nobody's when Holmes fought them but they wound up being pretty good.

 

That means nothing, really. This isn't meant to be a "let's look back on Boxrec at what they achieved" discussion, which is what you, in particular, seem to turn virtually every debate into. It's about the inclination to take on the 'best available' as regarded at the time, whether that turned out to be misguided (ala Page) isn't really the issue.

If those three had a great reputations who knows if he'd have fought them. Weaver- yes, Witherspoon: doubtful; Williams: not likely. Holmes was ready for "easy" defences from 83 onwards...or what he felt were easy fights.

 

Proven what? I was at those early holmes fights. I saw the guy when he was fighting 4 rounders. 6 rounders. 10 rounders.

That opposition list was horrible. Even worse than his numerous title defenses. Where you aware the guy was not even the top dog in the stable he fought out of? He was not the main event guy and was the undercard fighter. He kept winning and winning. The same cannot be said about the guy's he was fighting. They certainly weren't winning and it wasn't as if Larry is the type to ruin fighters.

There were tons of potential guys around prior to the Norton fight. He fought Shavers. Another guy whose fights I went to. That was an easy fight to pick and the wrong guy for Earnie to fight. Ibar Arrington? guys like that. that's all the names he fought back then.

There were certainly others available.

 

Spinks was a 6-1 underdog when he beat Holmes.