why did Larry Holmes never once try and unify?

IMO Holmes was the man who beat the man the lineal heavyweight champion the rest were cheap knock offs.....I thought there was an effort to also match him with Dokes for a unification as well

 

OK, so the rule set that applies to true, lineal champions is (and only true, lineal champions):

1) They must rematch anyone who gave the a decent fight

2) They must unify with each and every person who holds another belt, even if that person only held it long enough to pass it to someone else a few months later in their first defense.

So why isn’t Hagler ever criticized for not giving Duran a rematch (or Hearns, for that matter, in what is widely considered one of the greatest fights of all time, or Mugabi)? He was a true, lineal champion.

It’s bunk to hold one guy to some standard that is basically tailored only to criticize him and then say ‘well it doesn’t matter if no one else did this, we like them and don’t want to criticize their legacy, so who cares if they didn’t do the exact same thing we’re criticizing this guy for.’

 

Well know, not at all. Ali and Louis have wins over other formidable greats. No one is nitpicking anything, so we are right back to start.

As above. Can't do it to Ali or Louis.

Sorry, no on the first sentence. Witherspoon had great talent, and flashes of brilliance. He was wildly inconsistent and is not a "great" in the same sense as someone who had an important title reign.

You can parse it any way you want but those big wins aren't there to put him in the top five.

 

LOL. Holmes beat Ali, one of your greats.

He also beat Ken Norton, who beat Ali once and by some views all three times (or at least two). And Shavers, who shook Ali’s ancestors and gave him one hell of a fight (whereas Holmes lost like one round to him in two complete fights).

Holmes beat plenty of top fighters. He beat the top fighters of his day.

Why aren’t you screaming about Hagler refusing to rematch Duran or Mugabi?

 

Tell me you just didn't say this? You know this is sick, right?

Holmes beat Ali when he was manifesting Parkinsons, and taking thyroid pills that left him a zombie.

Yes, he beat Norton who beat Ali, but he is not a first-tier great himself any more than Sanders who beat WaldKlit, Rahmen who beat Lewis, etc.

Just stop, dude. Citing Holmes win over Ali...just wow.

 

Muhammad could have fought Larry earlier but didn’t. Not Larry’s fault.

Ali also didn’t rematch every opponent who gave him a good fight. But since you don’t want to criticize him, it doesn’t count. He owed Norton another go and avoided him. Jimmy Young. Earnie Shavers (Larry did oblige him btw), George Foreman. You know the drill.

Nor did Louis (you’re probably gong to tell him how he obliged light heavyweight Billy Conn five years later), but of course he’s also immune because he meets some mythical standard in your head that means the same standards don’t apply.

Why aren’t you calling out Marvin Hagler? Because you like him. You don’t like Larry (probably because of what he did to Ali) so you want to discredit him. It’s as simple as that. Otherwise, your rematch standard would apply to all equally.

 

Wow. You have completely shot all credibility. Even Holmes' most ardent admirers know that they fight was a travesty. Really, good day.

 

It's not an absolute rule. It's just one consideration that goes in the pot when I rate lineal champions' records.

One reason Louis gets a lot of credit, for example, is that he slaughtered people in rematches who'd given him close fights the first time. It follows that a champion who rematches the fighters who took him close the first time removes some doubt about his dominance (if he wins) compared to those who don't.

You'd mentioned Jimmy Young. He's a good example. Late period Ali is justly criticized for all kinds of things, including allowing Young to run him that close (and arguably win) in the first place. Had Ali rematched Young and shut him out or KO'd him, he wouldn't face the criticism for that close fight with Young. But he didn't rematch Young. And that's one of the many reasons we believe late-period Ali was a shell of his former self.

Conversely, Ali's Spinks loss looks better when you factor in his victory in the rematch. It's still bad, but not as bad as it would have been without one.

And yes, I think that when a lineal champion has a bunch of other beltholders lurking around, it weakens his claim to dominance over the division.

(As to the more combative posts flying back and forth in this thread, I don't really have any dog in the fight, and don't intend to get involved in that on either side.)

 

And I’d argue that it is also strong if you beat someone and move on to give someone else a shot and prove yourself against a variety of challengers with different styles.

People whine about Greg Page not getting a fight with Larry but Holmes dominated Bey right after he beat Page and … well, since we know how that turned out let’s not give him any credit and instead make a big deal about the guy Bey whipped. Please.

To me rematches are usually, or at least should be, earned. You had a shot, you came up short, put yourself back in position to show you’ve improved. Not just a ‘you gave it a good go, you surely should get another chance.’

Less than a year after Witherspoon lost to Holmes he got a shot at a belt and took it and won. And promptly lost it in his next fight. Isn’t it fair to say that Tim blew his chance at both the rematch and a unification by not holding onto his belt for a few defenses to say to the world ‘Hey, I have a belt too, I’ve defended it, we’re the two baddest men on the planet, let’s do it again.’ Economics would dictate that’s the way both benefit, not just a charity handout because you gave someone a good fight.

And should Larry have ducked out on his rematch with Shavers, who had obliterated Ken Norton to earn a No. 1 contender’s spot, to fight Mike Weaver again after he knocked Weaver out?

(And why shouldn’t those guys have to have given every fighter they’d ever had a close call with rematches and be held to the same standards? Oh, because they’re not Larry Holmes so they’re just victims, lol.)

Yes, you just now actually criticized Ali for not giving Young a rematch. I’ve never seen it done before. I’ve had people argue that Young won or gave him a great fight, but NEVER seen anyone call Ali out for ducking a rematch with Young. I suspect you haven’t either.

Then you give Ali credit for GETTING a rematch with Spinks. He didn’t GIVE Leon a rematch, Leon gave HIM a rematch. It’s preposterous.

 

Ali's failure to give rematches didn't start until he was far past his prime. Holmes missed out on many contemporaries who were active when he was at his best like Coetzee, Dokes, etc

 

you are correct. Even when Larry and Weaver rematched each other as silly old guys Larry flattened Weaver again. Yes they were past prime. I know people will say this doesn’t count. they were too old and neither guy was relevant anymore. However, it’s the same two guys. They were just as “past prime” as each other. So it is the fight they might have had. The same result.

 

Economics dictate which fights happen. They don't dictate where we rank fighters.

Fairness also doesn't have much to do with where we rank fighters. Sometimes circumstances conspire to prevent two well-meaning fighters from meeting when they should have. That isn't their fault, but it affects their ranking.

So I'm not giving Ali some kind of moral brownie points for the act of setting up and promoting a fight with Spinks. I'm crediting Ali with demonstrated ability, which he showed by fighting Spinks a second time and beating him. Who "gave" whom the fight doesn't matter much to me.

Ali arguably losing to Young is another blot on his record. And you're right. Most people (myself included, before this thread) hadn't really given thought to whether Ali should have rematched Young. It's not a question we commonly ask. But since you asked it, I gave it some thought and concluded that Ali's resume was harmed by failing to give Young a rematch. It was a close fight that Ali arguably lost. He never demonstrated superiority over Young. A rematch might have fixed that.

I see all of these things as the same kind of issue. It always comes back to: Did the champion demonstrate in the ring that he was the best fighter in the world during a certain period? There are plenty of morally excusable reasons to answer that question, "No," but it doesn't change the answer.

You want another example, try Marciano and Nino Valdez. Those two didn't fight at all, but it's the same issue. I've seen people break down their careers to argue that Rocky wasn't really at fault for never fighting Valdez. Maybe true. But he didn't fight the guy, and that's always going to be a pebble Marciano fans' shoes.

Or consider the dog that didn't bark. What if Louis hadn't rematched Walcott? What do we make of their relative standing during Louis's late reign if we only have the first bout to work from? Same issue.

Ah, but what if Louis had literally died after Walcott I? That's the ultimate good excuse for not having a rematch. Do we excuse the now-deceased Louis for missing the rematch? Morally, sure. Totally not his fault. He can keep all his brownie points. But it still hurts Louis's legacy because he had a really close fight with an opponent he never clearly beat.

 

There was never any effort to match him with Dokes. Dokes was owned by King's stepson.

 

There was a lot of effort for a Coetzee v Holmes match once Gerrie iced Dokes though.

Larry walked out on King and the WBC to try and make that fight. without Kings money and blessing it just couldn’t be made. Contracts were signed but eventually the WBA and the IBF forced both champs to take another fight.

Absolutely crazy.

proving just how difficult it was to make a heavyweight unification during that period without the HBO Money.

 

There was. Part of the problem was Larry wanting so much which made it a hard match to get home. He was entitled to ask whatever but i just think it put it out of reach.