Why didn’t Holmes ever unify?

Because he didn't fight GREG PAGE?

 

A mandatory contender that would have led to him retaining the world title ? What on earth do you think defines the demeanor of a champion ?

 

Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks are all-time great fighters. They were both recognized as great fighters in their day. They both chased bigger paydays. They both chased greattness. They were both all-timers.

Neither lost any standing all-time because they chased "money and greatness" rather than fight Greg Page and Tony Tucker.

 

He made 20 freaking title defenses. He fought Ali, Norton, Tyson, Holyfield, Mercer, Witherspoon, Berbick, Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher, Shavers, Cooney, Weaver ... over a Hall of Fame career.

But he didn't fight Greg Page, so scew him?

You guys are talking out of your asses. I think I'm going to go enjoy my Sunday now.

Long story short. Holmes is great. He's an all-timer. A Hall of Famer. One of the best ever. He tried to unify.

And he's great because of the people he beat. Nobody he missed lowers his all-time standing in any way. Nobody he missed would've lifted him any higher.

 

you’re being a tad disingenuous here. The thread is about why he didn’t unify and hence pertains only to his title reign. Bringing up men he fought after losing the crown when he had nothing to lose and only to gain doesn’t get him off the hook. His 19 title fight victories ( Marvis wasn’t for a belt ) consisted of a lot of weak defense. Smith, Witherspoon, Williams and weaver were nobodies when he fought them. Many of his other defenses consisted of Bey, Cobb, Ledoux, ocasio, Rodriguez, Zanon, Evangelista, and Frank were not to his credit . And I find it odd that you think beating Ali in 1980 when he was half dead is something he should be given credit for. Imagine where he’d stand today if he had unified all three belts, avoided no one and maybe even retired undefeated ? You don’t think this would have elevated his standing ? F-k, he might well be number one if he had and these arguments wouldn’t be happening

 

Spinks did it once. Holmes avoided multiple fighters. And Spinks DID unify his first and primary division before taking a big risk to move up and fight the reigning champion in his first fight at the higher weight. Here’s a secret… the guy he ascended to fight only took him in because he THOUGHT he’d be an easy defense

 

No, the corruption & selfishness among individual sanctioning bodies is what's killing boxing today - w/o that, there wouldn't be any proliferation in the first place.

If you want to be upset w/ someone/something, it should be w/ the WBC for jumping into bed w/ Don King & basically becoming "the Don King title" for the next decade, + setting off the shameful trend of sanctioning bodies treating other titleholders or their titles as though they didn't exist. There was no reason for Page to be singled out as a "must-fight" mandatory ahead of Coetzee once the latter beat Dokes for a title.

 

He did try to win the unified titles. Tyson knocked him out.

 

Well, since we're pretending and all ...

Larry Holmes entered the HBO Heavyweight Elimination tournament when it started in 1986.

His first fight in the tournament in 1986 was his rematch with Michael Spinks.

Now imagine if the fight played out exactly as it did. What would've happened if Larry had gotten the decision, which everyone thought he deserved?

Larry would've been the IBF champion. Trevor Berbick (who Larry already beat) was already the WBC champion (he beat Thomas a month earlier). Tim Witherspoon (who Larry already beat) was the WBA champion.

When Holmes actually dropped the second decision to Spinks and was out of the tournament, and he was the biggest name, HBO scrambled to add Mike Tyson.

If Larry's still in, HBO does't panic and Mike Tyson isn't added.

Since Witherspoon had to fight Bruno in England, it's Larry Holmes vs. Trevor Berbick II in the fall of 1986. Witherspoon still fights Smith (who replaced Tubbs) at the end of the year and gets KOed by Bonecrusher (who Holmes ALSO already stopped) in one round.

So the HBO tournament final is Larry Holmes vs. Bonecrusher Smith II in early 1987 for all the belts.

If Larry goes 50-1, he has all the belts, but he doesn't get Marciano's record.

Does Holmes beating two guys (Berbick and Smith) who he already beat in title fights elevate him past Joe Louis or Ali all-time? No.

If he loses to Berbick or Smith, does that lift him higher than he is now? No.

And, had he carried on, Larry wasn't beating Tyson, regardless. The Tony Tucker mandatory awaits in 1987. Once the tournament is over, does the IBF insist Holmes fight Tucker before anyone else? Does Holmes just call it a day then? Does he start dropping belts again almost immediately?

Larry's rated where he is because of who he beat. Nobody he missed lifts him higher.

On that note, have a nice day.

 

Politics at the time and how his career broke down .... from 79 he was waiting the big $ fight vs Ali , from 81 - 82 was the big money with Cooney. Post Coonety a bit older and feeling his oats he decided no more being manipulated by DK and to do what he wanted .. many forget just how manipulated the heavyweight division was in the 80's ... it's to Homes credit that he managed to old it together when so many others fell apart .. the era was a generation of wasted talent from Dokes to Page to Witherspoon to Tubbs and so on all because they lost heart as they were robbed of purses and opportunities ..in addition, while Holmes did not unite there ws rarely a champion that held another alphabet title long enough to make a huge money challenge that would make Holmes more than he was making ... while Holmes was champion Tate lost to Weaver who Holmes beat ... Weaver lost to Dokes, had a rematch that many felt he was robbed then lost to Coetzee who had also lost to Tate and Weaver ... Coetzee held the title for ten minutes but lost to Page who lost and so on ... in the meantime Holmes beat many of either the alphabet title holders or the men that beat them .. he beat Bey who beat Page, He beat Weaver, he beat Berbick, he beat Bonecrusher Smith .... the bottom line, he did not unite and especially in the post Cooney to M. Spinks years he did choose his opponents to a degree but he did still fight Witherspoon, Cobb, Williams, Bey and Smith as an older champion and they were all in their own primes coming off strong victories ... there s a lot to it ...

 

We both know Tyson was going to find his way into the tournament either way and clean up.

 

Only 5 big-ish names left off Holmes' resume -

*Gerrie Coetzee
**Michael Dokes
***Greg Page
****Pinklon Thomas
*****Tony Tubbs

*Lost to Mike Weaver who was beaten by Holmes
**Was beaten by Coetzee who was beaten by Holmes
***Was beaten by Witherspoon,Bey and Berbick who were beaten by Holmes
****Lost to Berbick who lost to Holmes
*****Lost to Witherspoon who lost to Holmes

 

Doesn't work that way. Beating McCall will never equal beating Lennox Lewis.

 

Anyone living through that era knew Holmes was the champ. I don't recall thinking that he ducked anybody. True , he picked opponents carefully from around '83 , but he'd been champ since '78 and was 33 years old , which in those days was seen as in the veteran stage. I don't recall any status issues for him because he didn't fight guys like Dokes or even Page. These guys were seen as good but eventually hit and miss like the other alphabet guys. There were no missed fights that diminish his reign. Anything that suggests otherwise is pure revisionism and doesn't reflect how that era was seen at the time.
It wasn't until the Carl Williams fight that there was a perception that Holmes was starting to fade.

 

Please. So first it was he abandoned a title to unify (like that is a thing) and now its the corruption. There isn't corruption now, or when the same promotors were doing their thing in the 90s?

Insisting he fight a #1 contender is corruption?

Just stop.