why did Larry Holmes never once try and unify?

Hmmm,

I get what you're saying - the issue is Larry wasn't supported but then didn't necessarily force fights that could have been made.

I think the real issue is a lack of relative calibre of contender to the era that preceded him. Larry's placement and ranking suffers moreso from him not being Ali and then that Larry and Mike's era is steeped in politricks and fighters with dependency issues. It doesn't detract from Larry's abilities - it does detract from his ring record. Larry is right at the top of greatness - top 5 or 6 for most, arguably no. 4 for me behind Ali, Louis and Lewis - when you get to this level, then you get scrutinised very heavily.

 

Yes Larry deserves the full scrutiny here…and so too should the belt holder guys and the crooked governing bodies with their promotional alliances. Let’s scrutinise the justification of all the challengers for titles in that era as suitable and deserving a title shot. Certainly some guys like Dokes don’t seem much more deserving than guys like Leroy Jones and Ossie Ocasio. Coetzee getting a shot at Weaver. What was this based on? Tillis getting a shot at Weaver? Tony Tubbs, don’t get me started on him. His credentials were based on being a Don King fighter. He hadn’t done anything.

We know Larry, in order to stay busy, was not always taking on the cream but he got through enough of them didn’t he? When Bey was beating Page he turned down a shot at Coetzee in favour of Larry. Bey might very well have beaten Coetzee. Then off the back of two losses Page beats Gerrie. Hardly good form.

How about Thomas? He got a shot at Witherspoon from drawing with Coetzee didn’t he? There was no telling Thomas was good enough to be challenging for a title at that point. I guess in order to defend these worthless titles each guy had to take what was there.

 

Agreed. These connect the dots games are getting old

 

Really ? Like how Ali got on public television and begged for the Spinks rematch even though Norton was promised the winner of his fight w Spinks ? Ali did this for same reason he didn't rematch Norton after Yankee Stadium which was because he knew he had no shot of winning .. there are dozens off fighters who avoided fighters regardless of money .. I'll repeat, Holmes was motivated by money as much as any fdifghter I've ever seen.

 

Yes, after the Norton rubber Ali was looking to take it a bit easier, but by then he had been beating top contenders for 15 years, had pretty much cleaned out two generations of top HWs.

Holmes acted the same may after beating Cooney - after four years, instead of 15, of beating top contenders. And sure as hell without any Listons, Fraziers or Foremans on his record. That's the main difference between them, and it's a pretty big one.

 

Really .. it is easily argued he never beat Norton. Ali also had a completely different reality than Holmes .. Ali via Herbert Muhammad called the shots .. he chose who he fought and got paid ... Holmes was part of the era of heavyweights that were raped by King but unlike Thomas, Witherspoon, Page, Dokes and company, Holmes was mentally tough enough to hold it together and keep winning despite being mistreated and robbed .. that's why when he could he did what he wanted .. he was then 33 and had been handled and robbed his whole career .. you can't compare it to and Ali or a Dempsey or a Robinson or a Leonard who got to call their shots all along

 

The problem is when a boxing champion is judged on sport when championship boxing is really a business.

 

And like business all is not equal or faifr.

 

According to an article posted in this thread, Holmes had already made 20 mil at that point. He got as much for facing Cooney as Ali did for Foreman, and turned down the amount Ali got for peak Frazier for a fight with Page. Not that much of a hard luck story really.

Holmes was about the same age that Ali was when he started looking for easier fights (about a year younger actually), but without nearly as long time at the top and not nearly as many brutal wars and with much more left in the tank. That is the main separation point between them. Holmes still had a great career and is probably my nr 3 or 4 ATG HW, but there is a clear separation between him and Ali and Louis. And it is not that that he made much less money. It is pure legacy. I don't see how this even is a point of discussion.

 

One of the key differences here is that Ali had already fought Norton THREE times. And Leon giving a rematch to a long standing linear champion wasn’t unreasonable.

 

Yes, compared to how Holmes openly refused Witherspoon a rematch after ONE tough, close fight.

 

Exactly

 

Statistically, purely on statistical credentials, 15-0 Tim had gotten a crack at Larry from barely beating Renaldo snipes on a MD. that’s all Tim had going for him at that point. hardly the kind of win to force a pressing challenge to the title.

Yes Tim gave Larry a surprisingly competitive fight that boosted Witherspoons worth. But let’s not forget what he had going for him coming into that fight compared to other challengers.

Interestingly Larrys very next opponent 16-0-1 Scott Frank got his shot on the basis that he drew with Renaldo Snipes. That’s all he had going for him as well. Which wasn’t much worse.

I still would have like to see a rematch with Tim. It’s just worth looking at some of the details. The landscape. The timeline.

Once Larry had cleaned up most of the big names, Ali, Shavers, Norton, Spinks, Cooney, and kept busy, outside rival champions, Larry was running out of viable threats to his superiority.

With the title picture diluted with two champions, and as many as 4 “title” fights a year, challengers were now being selected from the inexperienced prospect level guys.

Trouble was, Larry was about the only seasoned heavyweight who could win consecutive fights at that level.

 

Lets look at the landscape and timeline then.

Did a segment of people think Frank beat Holmes? No. Your smokescreen is a weak one. Witherspoon run Larry extremely close at worst and it's historically quite customary to give guys rematches after such an event.

He was avoiding those considered viable threats at the time in Page, Witherspoon (rematch) and Thomas. This is irrefutable no matter what reason one wants to pin it down to.

No, Larry was picking young inexperienced guys. This was a conscious decision that he told everyone he was going to do. Some still don't seem to understand. Again, put it down to wahtever reason one wants but it's just what happened.

How about Pinklon Thomas not losing over a 9 year span. He even beat Witherspoon comfortably the year after he fought Larry.

 

Going into a title fight against Witherspoon, Thomas had drew with Coetzee. That was his only bout with a live guy wasn’t it unless you count Tillis. The rest of his career was against the usual hand selected stepping stones.

so was Weaver. He picked Tillis and Dokes. Had they done much more than Witherspoon or Cobb?

under a unified system he would have got those fights. There would be no distracting watered down top tens to navigate challengers from. I Blame the system more than the champion.

I said I would prefer Larry had the rematch actually. I think there is an argument that it didn’t need to be immediately since Tim was good enough to come again. How do we know Tim wouldn’t have got a shot at Larry later on if the WBC had not put Witherspoon in a fight with Page? I think the rematch happens if the titles were not separated. Under a unified system I would have more complaint that Larry avoided the rematch. He was distracted by fights that did not come off. I don’t think We can blame him entirely that they did not come off.

The system was bad. And it was there to be exploited.