why did Larry Holmes never once try and unify?

If I'm not mistaken Larry said outright that Witherspoon wouldn't get a rematch, so it wasn't politics standing in the way. It was Larry.

After Bey: "I want a lot of money and no more of those big hitters like Tim Witherspoon and Mike Weaver," said Holmes, narrowing the field to almost nobody. "I've paid my dues, and if they want me back, they've got to give me little people I can beat on without getting hurt."

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Larry_Holmes_vs._David_Bey

 

I'm going to go off into a fantasy tangent here... Let's say that boxing was run the way it was 20 or 30 years before. The NBA was pretty legitimate and there were no other sanctioning bodies mucking things up. King and Arum weren't on the scene, nor were Suliman or Mendoza (? WBA boss from mid-70's). It wasn't perfect, but I think it was better. (edit: the system was better, as Choklab posted while I was typing this).

• Early 1978: Things are going along just fine. Ali is champ, but he's getting older and contemplating retirement. Norton is top contender and hoping for a fourth bout with Ali. Ali is looking for an easy defense after a tough bout with Shavers, after which he promises to fight Norton again or retire. Ali chooses young upstart Leon Spinks, who most people feel Ali can beat easily. But it's an interesting cross generational fight between two gold medalists, so it lands on prime-time TV and the public watches. Ali loses and Spinks' obligation is to take on Norton.
• Mid 1978: Spinks chooses to take the higher-reward, lower-risk Ali rematch instead of fighting Norton. The NBA, citing a long tradition of title fight rematches and remembering how disastrous it was to strip Ali for rematching Liston in the sixties, allows the rematch. Norton, needing to fight to hold his #1 position, takes on Larry Holmes, highly rated but mostly invisible at this point, save for a very impressive win over Shavers in March. Jimmy Young, also highly rated, takes on young upstart Ossie Ocasio in a stay-busy / earn a paycheck / stay in front of the public fight. Holmes wins a bit of an upset, while Ocasio wins a bigger upset.
• Late 1978: Ali beats Spinks in the rematch. Top contender Holmes takes on Evangelista in a stay-busy fight (no title, of course); Norton takes on Stephens in a stay-busy fight. Young pulls out of a fight with Scott LeDoux. Ali hems and haws on retirement.
• Early-Mid 1979: Young loses rematch to Ocasio. Holmes, still top contender, beats Ocasio to cement his status as #1 contender. Norton loses an upset tune-up to Earnie Shavers. Ali announces retirement. Holmes will meet previous champ Leon Spinks in June for Ali's vacant title. Holmes, complaining of a cold, easily beats Spinks in three rounds. Guys like John Tate, Gerrie Coetzee, and Gerry Cooney are waiting in the wings. Journeyman Mike Weaver is looking good.
• Late 1979: Holmes beats Shavers but has a scare. Tate beats Coetzee in a 12-round eliminator.
• 1980: Holmes makes more defenses & beats a come backing Ali badly. Other guys will come and go. Contenders will fight as contenders rather than for organizational titles.

Basically, the same fights happen, but there isn't the two- and later three-title nonsense that confuses potential fans and drives them away from the sport. More money is made by all because we know who the champ is and we know who the contenders are and everything cruises along. Holmes eventually loses his title to Michael Spinks after hearing that he's ducking guys who, in all reality, are eliminating each other in their campaigns for title shots. Tyson beats former champ Holmes and a slew of other contenders before becoming champion in 1988 by beating Michael Spinks in a scenario similar to what Sonny Liston had to go through 25 years before, clearing the contender decks and waiting on a reticent Patterson (and his management).

And, finally, we don't have a thread about whether Holmes should have unified the titles because there can only be one Heavyweight Champion of the World.

 

He might have been playing with the press, which Larry has been known to do.

 

He said what he would do and wouldn't do, and acted accordingly. If that's not cased closed, what is?

 

Fair point.

 

Agree 100%. It isn’t perfect but that is the right way to look back on the era. A lot of contenders inflated beyond their worth with One champion Navigating through a bad system ruined and confused by politics.

 

What also really hurt was the Ross Smith debacle. The guy was planning top notch bouts and paying everyone involved well. Lots of folks thought he was taking over from Arum and King.

 

Make no mistake, a lineal champion who acted like Holmes did after Cooney would get absolutely eviscerated on this forum today.

That goes to some degree for Ali after Norton 3 too tbf.

 

Right , horrific decisions and blatant manipulation you can justify but Holmes is held accountable to far more legitimate nuances ? I disagree.

 

Because your reasoning is flawed. You want to talk easy fights ? Wepner, Cooperman, Dunn then supposedly Spinks .. pretty weak opposition .. then if you look at how Ali actually performed defending the title he wanted back so badly .. he came in flabby and had next to no interest in defending the title w grace .. also how do you know what Holmes kept from his publicized title purses opposed to what he actually received from King ? Maybe 50 cents on the dollar.

 

In one of the articles posted in this thread it was said that he brought home 4,5 mil for Cooney after King skimmed his part, I think it was.

And you well know Ali faced Lyle, Bugner, Frazier, Young and Norton during the two years he also faced Wepner, Coopman and Dunn. That's the top 5 minus Foreman, whom he had already beat.

So after Foreman he defended against the next 4 best HW contenders over two years, and you critisize this just because he also faced some fillers? Holmes arguably didn't have such a two year run during his career.

As for the Ali's reign after Norton 3, no one has said anything but that it was weak, so I don't know who you're arguing with. It just that Ali's career up to that point had been much longer with much greater achievements than Holmes's up to 1983 (or ever really). This is the third time I have to say this, although you know it full well.

But, hey, won't you bring up Spinks and that there never was a Norton 4 again? Ali's reign after Norton 3 about which there is no debate. Fourth time's a charm.

 

A lineal champion never had to deal with regular contenders receiving belts and confusing the public in the way Larry did. In the absence of Ali Larry watched the winner of Tate and Coetzee lose to the guy he just beat (Weaver) for the WBA title. Later He watched another guy (Greg Page) who just lost to the man he knocked out (David Bey) beat Gerrie Coetzee for the WBA. The same guy he signed to fight.

Witherspoon got made into a champion out of beating Page but he lost to Thomas who could not beat Coetzee and had proved he couldn’t before taking on Witherspoon. The same Coetzee that Larry signed to fight in 1984.

All of this mumbo jumbo could have been avoided if Larry just been able to fight Coetzee in 1979 and dog gone Greg Page in 1983 and Pinklon Thomas in 1984 as the lineal champion.

Instead there were way too many options for everyone. There were vacant belts for Coetzee and Page to fight for.

Weaver, Witherspoon and Thomas were good contenders inflated by the joke system. It was invented by clowns

Thomas got to win and lose to Larrys challengers in the name of a belt. By that definition He was just a contender.

Dokes beat a Larry challenger to become champion. As did James Smith. These guys were just contenders.

 

Larry was lineal after beating Ali. Why unification with Weaver didn't happen during the 2+ years Weaver was WBA champion, I don't know. But without a doubt Holmes was responsible for ditching the WBF and giving yet another belt legitimacy.

Imagine if Fury did today what Larry did after Cooney. First a year of soft defences on paper (yes, Witherspoon turned out to be really good, but with only 13 pro fights he wasn't considered a real threat then), then refusing a mandatory and being offered a new belt without having to fight for it. Fans would be shitting themselves. But, now, many years later, many just go "you know, politics".

Again, I think Holmes had a brilliant career and he's one of my top HWs, but I can't se why it's so difficult calling a spade a spade.

Ali's reign 77-78 gets brought up time and time again, but absolutely no one here is defending the choices he made. Why is it so hard to be as objective about Holmes's late reign when no one has that problem with Ali's?

 

I think because there was a lack of a joke politics distraction, Ali’s actions probably are harder to defend. The titles were not offering Ali the excuses or options Larry has. They largely went along with Ali in union.

The Holmes situation is more tangled.

With Larry, yes he point blank turned down Page and Witherspoon on the record. But those two guys, both controlled by King, had the possibility of a vacant WBC belt dangled in front of them.

where had the pressure come from? Don King. Why couldn’t Page wait? He had earlier lost to Berbick. Why couldn’t Witherspoon wait for a rematch? They both would have under a linear system.

The IBF did give Larry the option to turn down the WBC (and work with King again) because the championship duty had been corrupted by the politics. Legitimising the whims of a weary champion.

At the time Dokes/Coetzee/ Weaver became rated higher than they perhaps deserved to be because the WBA happened to recognise their series of fights. But without that recognition it would just be a series of fights. as mere contenders Weaver/Dokes/Coetzee would simply sit among untitled Page, Snipes, Berbick, Witherspoon just as proudly.

There would have been no pressure from King for the WBC to insist on Page being ahead of any of the others he was not especially eclipsing. Greg had not beaten Weaver or Dokes. And he had lost to Berbick.

 

This is an endless discussion.

People whine about all the belts, but still they defend Holmes in giving one up for not facing a good contender for good money and helping create a new one. It just doesn't make sense. We have to let go of this narrative of Holmes being a held to ransom. He was offered FOTC money for facing effing Page for god's sake, but it wasn't good enough for him and instead we got a third belt.

This is a no-brainer, but you and others doggedly make it into one. Just admit you have been wrong. Not the end of the world.