That was in 1985. All these supposed ducks occurred during the preceding seven years. Nice try. Furthermore: Jinx of '85 probably beats any late 70's/early 80's version of any of these men that were 'ducked'.
Page was more of a threat than Dokes, that's for sure. Dokes couldn't handle a strong jab, a fact Larry Himself mentioned.
Alright, duck brigade. Let's play hardball. Each of you make a thread with a poll asking the hypothetical winner of Holmes vs. (insert ducked party) @ (insert time frame Holmes vs. ducked party was desired to happen). (...should go without saying, make it here, in Classic...) Then we can tally votes. I am curious to see who's brave enough to stick their neck out and put their vote where their mouth is and risk being among a literal handful of dissenting votes among hundreds, all to prove their point that Holmes avoided legitimate threats he would've lost to. Quit hiding behind this 'er, well, in aggregate, with the wear and tear, he probably would've lost eventually...' backpedaling cop-out. What an unreasonable crock of a standard to hold any champion up to. You can literally say that about every champ since the dawn of time. "Well if they fought half a dozen challengers a year, nothing but the most dangerous, it would have done a number on them over time and maybe increasing their chance of losing to some inferior challenger due more to accumulated wear than said challenger's merit!! :rant" Um, yeah, no kidding. Who can't you say that about? :nut You make 'em, or I will...and your silence (lack of votes) will speak volumes.
I dont believe that at all, Spinx had never fought as a heavyweight prior to Holmes and I really didn't think he had a chance against Larry (I was Wrong) Coetzee,Thomas,Page,Dokes,improved & confident Champ-Weaver-Tate,Witherspoon would all beat Spinks IMO and they all style-wise had a better chance to defeat Holmes.... Against Holmes I would have placed a strong wager on Tate,Coetzee,Page,Thomas, and possibly Tate & Dokes depending on the odds how much I would bet. Style-wise these guys all had a chance they were all good right hand punchers and were not afraid to exchange with Larry
The inclination to "beat the best available"is easier to establish if the best win the next best has isnt outpointing a guy the champion already knocked out. I remember those days it was frustrating that Holmes was not getting unification fights but I don't think the other champions helped themselves. They kept losing. I don't think the governing bodies helped the issue either. Where did they get Tate from? Why could they not have had Tate or Coetzee challenge Holmes? Nobody needed Larry getting stripped anymore than Michael spinks getting stripped for not fighting Tony Tucker. These contenders did not do enough to be considered that outstanding. They were not cleaning out divisions. They were not Sonny Liston were they? Who stripped Floyd Patterson? who was easy 83' onwards? Everyone was a potential beltholder! Holmes was kind of toying with retirement by 1984, I remember that. Point is I don't think there was an outstanding contender really out there because although they were all good who could stand out? Holmes agreed to Coetzee. I remember a KO magazine cover all about it then the next thing He loses to Page and the round was too long. That had to be resolved so Holmes took bonecrusher then Bey instead.
Joe Louis for one. Ali, mostly for another. And whether or not they would have won is beside the point, anymore than whether or not Dempsey would have lost to Harry Greb or Harry Wills.
If you fight better competition there is certainly a wear and tear factor. Especially if better competiton is out there at the time. If you are a road warrior fighting in the other guy's backyard constantly, you are not going to win every decision in your bouts. So absolutely correct. Holmes loses earlier in his career than fight 49. He loses in fight 25 or 35. Against insert name here opponent. This is like saying a guy like lets say Duane Bobick. Futch had him up to 38-0. Did you go to his fights? know anything about his opponents? If he's too old for you, how about Alex Stewart? I went to some of his early fights too. Built him up to a 25-0 w/ 25 ko's record. Sounds great on paper. Go watch the fights. Go watch his opponents fights. Look at the other heavies around at the time he could have fought instead. Are you saying that stuff makes zero difference on a guy's career?
Are you comparing Duane Bobick and Alex Steward to Larry Holmes as professional fighters ? Were talking about an all time top great here who overcame a ton of adversity early in his career. He had no fights. He was treated like a dog by DK before and after he won the title. He was forced to take fights on next to no notice against men no one else wanted to fight, undertrained, some times w injuries and then not even get properly paid. If anyone had reason to screw up their careers and play the blame game it was Larry but he had the focus and inner strength to preserver and it was a skill that served him well and helped to make him a great champion. He was mentally stronger than most as well ..
The only decent fighter Coetzee ever defeated as a drugged out Dokes. He was beaten by Tate, Weaver, Page and held to draws by Thomas and Snipes. I seriously doubt he had any shot against any form of near prime Holmes. Dokes was at his best when Holmes was at his best. No contest for Larry who was better in every way. Thomas was a one handed fighter who may have been tough as Holmes passed thirty four but lost his title so quick that never happened. Page kept blown his pop by losing. Spinks won because he was extremely fast, well conditioned and had a very unorthodox style .. he squeezed out decisions based on young legs and volume punching from strange angles, never hurting but mostly annoying a Holmes who lacked the legs to catch him ..
You're not going to get that .. these are implants by guys that either don't really know the history of the era and how it played out in real time or guys who simply have an axe to grind, holding Holmes to standards they'd never hold others to or simply couldn't because he fought far more often than their favorites on the championship level. I've been making a similar call out for years but they all shuttle away at a direct response.
OH so when Coetzee KO'd Leon Spinks in 1 round he was so bad that Larry fought Leon 2 years later instead of fighting Coetzee...it is style that Larry navigated around, he fought inexperienced guys and guys he already knew he could beat
Holmes had a very protected rise to the title, Don King paid Ring magazine (this is a Known Fact) to get some of Holmes opponents ranked to make his fights credible. It was a weak era but Larry still managed not to unify and he had many opportunity's and he never rematch a tough fight....put on your rose colored glasses when it comes to CERTAIN guys He grant
the shame is when Larry no longer had the ability to navigate he took a "easy victory" M.Spinks over the tougher fights and lost...then when he lost the title had to fight a puncher, Tyson and was smashed....makes me wonder and speculate that there was a reason for his avoidance's all along