why did Larry Holmes never once try and unify?

okay they did better than Rodriguez or Ledoux. But Larry was busy. Without the distraction of another title those fellas would have been in line too. Larry would have fought them. Nobody disputes this. The political situation corrupted what was the natural order.

nobody lost sleep about Rick Keller or Larry Frazier. All Tillis had going for him was that he lasted the distance with Weaver. Big deal. Larry already knocked him out.

it was a good run. I give page that. But Cooney was eclipsing him with his wins at that time. And that’s a fact.

Dokes went life and death with Cobb though. Larry did better. And Larry never drew with Ocasio. I like Ocasio. But Larry Destroyed a prime Ocasio in a way Jimmy young and Dokes never could at least first time around..

This is a fair point. You are correct that here. Absolutely. The credentials of these guys were admittedly low. However, If a champion wants to keep busy, who else is he going to fight? How legit are the contenders the WBA have tied up during this time? Even if they have more merit we are still just talking about Weaver and Dokes. I like weaver. A journeyman made good. But he only beat Tate who is remembered only for beating Coetzee. and on points. I don’t get it?

At no other time in history are the real champion measured against the results of men he already beat, mere contenders, beaten challengers.

Weaver drew with Dokes as well as being knocked out by Dokes. So how good was Dokes? Best guy he beat also drew with him? …All this and previously Larry had kayoed weaver.

based on who he beat when he beat them Tubbs was barely a contender. And that was at his best.

Yes his is a very good point if you take broad look at it. Almost valid. However the reasoning behind mandatory ratings back then were quite crazy. A lot of times These alphabet soup decisions were proven to be based more on promotional ties than actual merit. Who were the mandatory rated challengers during this period? Please name them and their credentials.

 

The trouble was Holmes biggest money fights featured the opponent as the draw - Ali and Cooney. Coetzee wasn't a major draw at all so the fight was never going to make enough money for it to be paid as a superfight.

 

Blatant lies. Holmes had already received an extension from the WBC to fight Scott Frank and was actually signed to fight Page after that. Then he's after another one. The WBC didn't sanction Frazier but it didn't strip him either. Holmes still had to fight Page and chose to relinquish the WBC title instead.

 

Page - Snipes was an official eliminator to fight Holmes as his mandatory contender so the fight did indeed make Page a logical contender despite your dishonest attempts to portray otherwise. Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier most certainly weren't the logical contenders

 

Page was decent contender. In fairness Snipes was only an official eliminator because the WBC said it was. Not that there was much better to fight then, but snipes had won just one of his last three fights going into this eliminator.

why didn’t Page rematch Berbick? When the WBC had Page in line to fight Larry we still knew page couldn’t beat Berbick. Larry already beat Berbick. It made little sense.

 

Larry was within his rights to take the challenger for the most money. It’s only a duck if Page drew more money in my view. And the contract Don tied him to limited Larrry to less money for Page than the Frazier fight. When the IBF gave him recognition it meant Larry didn’t have to be forced by the WBC and Don king to take less money. It also allowed him to take a unification with a South African for even more money.

when Marvin Hagler took Leonard over Herol Graham nobody minded. Hagler vs Leonard was the bigger fight. Well Coetzee was the bigger fight for Larry. Holmes tried to make that happen.

 

So many strawmen, just so many. Twisting like a pretzel to try and cloud what is a very clear happening. If only you were there to tell everyone who to fight and when and also to tell the WBC who to rate and where.

The WBC owned the title. They made the rules. The rules had been followed by Holmes previously and many many other great fighters. Your revisionist opinion doesn't matter.

 

Frazier wasn't a challenger, the fight wasn't even recognized by the WBC. Holmes went for the lesser easier fight where as Hagler went for greatness, destiny, and a better fight. Comparing them is disingenuous, obviously. Hagler - Leonard was also sanctioned by the WBC and the IBF would still recognize Hagler if he won.

Coetzee had nothing to do with Holmes - Page not originally coming off.

 

Articles at the time did list the potential of Holmes v Coetzee rather than Holmes vs Page.

“It is unlikely that Holmes will withdraw from his Nov. 25 defense against Marvis Frazier. And he has a commitment to King to make his mandatory defense against Greg Page in February or March next year. If the champion, who soon will be 34 years old, continues to fight at all next year, though, he knows his biggest payday would be against Coetzee, the gentle man with the hammering right hand.”MICHAEL KATZ
Published: September 25, 1983

 

Coetzee didn't even win the title until 4 months after the eliminator so lets keep it factual. Holmes had already fought Frank by then with an extension granted by the WBC. Holmes hadn't even lined up Frazier at that point. Holmes - Coetzee talk came after the horse had bolted as Holmes said he wouldn't be fighting Page, or Witherspoon, or Thomas or others for that matter. Now whether we accept it was money or other this is what transpired. After the Witherspoon scare Larry took the easy road home. How one perceives this and how it affects their rating is entirely up to them. Some will obstinately ignore it, some will say it matters a little whilst others will say it matters a lot. As with peoples top 10 lists, it's all about personal criteria and how much importance they put on different factors. If it was Marciano he wouldn't be top 20 for some, possibly not top 50.

 

what it boils down to is the list of guys Holmes did not fight were and are the rise to the occasion type guys. not long term belt holders but guys that fight very well one night on a big stage.

The other factor with this is the wear and tear factor fighting those guys and the accumulation====as compared to the guys he did fight. Big big difference and it ultimately leads to losses earlier in those title defenses. The sum of tough fights and tougher fighters vs the opponents selected. Holmes would of lost to one of the rise to the occasion guys.

 

I can't help but think that if he'd had enough money thrown at him for Thomas or Page (or for a rematch with Witherspoon or Weaver) he would have fought them.

 

I just think if there was no governing bodies Larry would have won the title in the way everyone did before 1964. he would then have been forced to take the biggest fight that could be made each year that he was champion in the way all those other champions had.

He still would have fought Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Spinks and Ali.

He would have fought Coetzee in 1979.

I am not sure Weaver would have gotten a shot because Coetzee would have gotten it instead.

Tate would have lost to weaver without a title. And Coetzee would have lost to weaver without a title after fighting Larry. I can’t think where the high profile win for Weaver is without a title because Shavers, Cooney, Spinks and Ali would be looking better and more established at that kind of point.

snipes, Witherspoon, Page and Berbick would have fought it out against each other before meeting Holmes and not all of them would necessarily have made it to a title fight. You can add Williams and Bey in there too.

I am not sure where Thomas, Tubbs and Dokes would have fitted in because I doubt their exposure would have warranted logical challenger status based on whom they fought for the ABC titles without the label of a championship.

Just think about it. Coetzee vs Thomas was just a bout between contenders. And so would have Witherspoon vs Thomas have been. Dokes vs Weaver? Tubbs vs Page? Just undercard fights without the lable of an alphabet title.

Simply put these contenders simply become contenders. They would not be passing bogus titles around because there wouldn’t be governing bodies making up rules that splintered and confused the championship.

importantly there would have been no need for Rodriguez or Frank or Ledoux because better fighters wouldn’t be so encumbered with the political situation.

So Larry probably fights a lot less times as a champion and might miss out on a lot of the “hindsight” opponents we now think look good on his resume.

maybe with split tithes we never had it so good?

 

I completely sympathize with your thoughts on the subject. The whole "more than one world titlist" thing was ridiculous from the very start.