Robinson wrote:So who is the man that beat the man now ?
And who was the man when Ali retired post Spinks II ?
There is no champion in the traditional (linear, meaningful) way, today. Klitschko is recognised by most as the best, but there is no true Heavyweight champion. Shocking & tragic.
Holmes was made the champ upon Ali's retirement once he beat Spinks. You often see Holmes' reign as listed as 1978-85, when he bested Norton, or 1980-85, after he beat retired champion Ali. The truth is, both are wrong --- Ali had one belt in 1979, Holmes the other. When Ali retired in late '79, that made Holmes the champ. It wasn't the most glorious beginning point as the Heavyweight titleist for Holmes, but 1979-85 is The Easton Assassin's true span as champ.
This gives him the third-longest reign as champion in Heavyweight history.
Coetzee...witherspoon..page..thomas ....all threw their baubles away ...holmes's rep wouldnt have changed one bit by fighting them again or for the first time
funso banjo baby wrote:Coetzee...witherspoon..page..thomas ....all threw their baubles away ...holmes's rep wouldnt have changed one bit by fighting them again or for the first time
That may very well be true, but he was still never a unified champion. In fact the “real title” that was held by Ali was won by Tate when he came out on top of a legitimate 4 man tournament. Most recognized Holmes as the champion, but he never really resolved that issue in the ring.
Interesting that you brought up the 4 man tournament. You don't hear a lot about the Tate-Coetzee-Knoetzee-Spinks tournament.
Tate should probably get more credit for winning this. Having to beat Coetzee with that huge crowd in South Africa wasn't easy to do.
There was some talk about a Tate-Holmes showdown. In fact, before Holmes fought Leroy Jones the same night as Tate-Weaver, he was interviewed and was talking about fighting Tate.
Of course, Weaver scored the miracle ko in the 15th and the showdown never happened. Holmes had already beaten Weaver and there wasn't a lot of interest in a rematch between Holmes and Weaver.
Holmes is recognised as the man. BUt at the time he only had a part of the strap.
Linear title is really a myth now. Tate won the title Ali held. AFTER he regained it from
Spinks. Holmes fought Norton for a fragment of the title that Spinks lost.
I think from 1978-85 Holmes was the dominant champion. I would love for him
to have faced those guys above...but he didnt and they all stalled in there careers
any how.
I think the complex politics of the time are often over looked these days.
The ABC's were not hard for fighters to unify and secure a legacy in.
when holmes fought norton were they Ring 1 and 2 ?
Who cares where Ring had them rated? Norton never really won a title and as noted, Tate legitimately won Ali's vacated title. Holmes beat Norton for really what amounted to nothing but media recognition. Of course, I believe Holmes was the man as well and have him ranked 3rd all time, but the fact is that the real HW title path went through Tate to Weaver, Dokes, etc.
when holmes fought norton were they Ring 1 and 2 ?
Who cares where Ring had them rated? Norton never really won a title and as noted, Tate legitimately won Ali's vacated title. Holmes beat Norton for really what amounted to nothing but media recognition. Of course, I believe Holmes was the man as well and have him ranked 3rd all time, but the fact is that the real HW title path went through Tate to Weaver, Dokes, etc.
In terms of the WBA title sure, but as the best fighter in the division was not in the tournament how can the WBA strap be considered the 'real' title? The lineage ended with Ali's retirement and continued when he came back and lost to Holmes.
Robinson wrote:I think from 1978-85 Holmes was the dominant champion. I would love for him
to have faced those guys above...but he didnt and they all stalled in there careers
any how.
How dominant would he have been fighting some of these guys?
Weaver gave him absolute hell, Witherspoon (IMO) beat him.
So how easy would he of had it with the likes of Dokes, Page, Tubbs, Spoon again, Pinklon Thomas..?
We dont know because instead he routinely defended against the likes of Zanon, LeDoux, Frank, Marvis, Lucien frickin Rodriguez et al... Indefensible really when you consider who else was out there battling for Ali's WBA strap.
when holmes fought norton were they Ring 1 and 2 ?
Who cares where Ring had them rated? Norton never really won a title and as noted, Tate legitimately won Ali's vacated title. Holmes beat Norton for really what amounted to nothing but media recognition. Of course, I believe Holmes was the man as well and have him ranked 3rd all time, but the fact is that the real HW title path went through Tate to Weaver, Dokes, etc.
In terms of the WBA title sure, but as the best fighter in the division was not in the tournament how can the WBA strap be considered the 'real' title? The lineage ended with Ali's retirement and continued when he came back and lost to Holmes.
The whole lineage thing makes absolutely no sense when a guy retires for a few years and is replaced as a result of a legitimate tournament. The fact that Holmes beat an Ali who had been retired for over two years really doesn't mean anything. Do you really think Ali was THE MAN after he retired, his real title was won by a fighter in a sanctioned legitimate tournament and then he decides to return after more than two years. The title Holmes won was fabricated and given to Norton. The real title that Ali held was earned by Tate.
It's a noble gesture to try to tie together all champions, but it simply is not possible. Beating an old, long retired and severely declined Ali meant nothing, and putting any meaning to it merely propogates fighters continuing their careers entirely too long.
Holmes was obviously the best for many years, and in my mind an ATG top 3, but the fact is that he never was the true champion, merely a title holder. He did tarnish his legacy somewhat by never unifying the title as Tyson did a few years later.
Does any sane rational person really believe that Jack Johnson wasn't the champ until he beat Jeff, who had been retired for 5 years and had become obese during his retirement. As I said, it's a noble attempt, but it's simply not possible. There are breaks in the lineage, and fighters have to earn the term champion if there is confusion by unifying any split titles. And while was clearly one of the best of all time, there is some tarnish on his career because he never made any real attempt to unify. And trust me, there would have been very good money in a unification fight.
I never really put much stock in the lineage thing either. I understand the whole deal about beating the man who beat the man etc. However that doesn't go back to beginning anyway. after tunney retired, he never came back. His successor (Schmeling) beat another contender, not tunney. So it dies right there.
Beating a shot Ali didn't make Larry Holmes the real champion.
To me, when a champion retires, he isn't still the champion if he comes back. (Unless he wins back the title.) If you really think about it, that really doesn't make a lot of sense to consider him the champion.
Patterson the champion after he won the 3 man tournament after Marciano retired after his last fight in 1955.
If Marciano would have made a comeback, would that have made him the champion again and all of Patterson's title fights become null and void? Of course not.
Are the title fights that that have taken place since null and void if Lennox Lewis ever makes a comeback? But they count if he doesn't? Makes no sense.
I agree that the "Governing Bodies" are corrupt and do a lot of stupid and unethical things. However, I don't think the WBC did the wrong thing with Norton. Norton was the #1 contender and fought the #2 contender Jimmy Young in what was an elimination bout. The winner was promised a fight against Ali for the title. Norton won. However, Ali got upset by Spinks and Spinks wouldn't fight Norton so the WBC stripped him.
I think the WBC had the right to strip Spinks. Norton was promised a title shot if he beat Young and he did that.
Norton was the #1 contender and ordinarily they would have match him against the #2 contender for the vacant title. However, he had just beat the #2 contender. If he had to fight Young again, that wouldn't make much sense. It would mean that Norton's first win didn't really count.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I think giving Norton the title was actually the right thing to do in this unique situation. I consider Norton a real champion.
Remember, Norton had to get into position to be the #1 contender in the first place. He then beat the #2 contender. The new champion (Spinks) wouldn't fight him.
So when Holmes beat Norton, he beat a real champion. He also beat the best heavyweight in the world at the time. It would have been great if Holmes would have unified the title. However, it's not like people were screaming for a unification fight. Holmes even though never that popular, was obviously the best. Weaver himself admitted that he wasn't the real champion even though he had the WBA title.
Holmes would have helped himself historically had he unified the title. However, I don't think that he cared that much.
Last edited by Ambling Alp on 03 Jun 2008, 10:33, edited 1 time in total.
Ambling Alp wrote: I think the WBC had the right to strip Spinks. Norton was promised a title shot if he beat Young and he did that.
Norton was the #1 contender and ordinarily they would have match him against the #2 contender for the vacant title. However, he had just beat the #2 contender. If he had to fight Young again, that wouldn't make much sense. It would mean that Norton's first win didn't really count.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I think giving Norton the title was actually the right thing to do in this unique situation. I consider Norton a real champion.
Remember, Norton had to get into position to be the #1 contender in the first place. He then beat the #2 contender. The new champion (Spinks) wouldn't fight him.
The new champion chose to defend against Ali, the most well known person in the entire world and the man he beat for the title. How did that justify getting stripped? It was pure lunacy on a par with just about all other such rulings by the corrupt organizations that rule the business.
Ambling Alp wrote:So when Holmes beat Norton, he beat a real champion. He also beat the best heavyweight in the world at the time. It would have been great if Holmes would have unified the title. However, it's not like people were screaming for a unification fight.
Of course there was a great deal of interest in the titles being unified. What exactly do you mean when you say that people weren’t screaming for a unification fight? Of course we wanted a true unified HW champion.
Ambling Alp wrote:Holmes even though never that popular, was obviously the best. Weaver himself admitted that he wasn't the real champion even though he had the WBA title.
Of course he didn’t think he was the “real” champion because he knew the championship was split, even though he really held Ali’s old title. He had some humility while Holmes didn’t care, because he had his own agenda and it didn’t include unifying the titles.
John L,
I am agreeing with you regarding some points. Here is why I disagree with you on some other points:
-It doesn't matter than Ali was the most well known person in the world. Norton was promised the next title shot if he beat Young and he did. If Ali would have beat Spinks the first time, he would have had to fight Norton. Since Spinks won, Spinks would have to.
Why should Norton be denied a title shot that he was promised because Ali lost? That isn't his fault. Spinks wasn't willing to fight Norton.
Giving the title shot to a guy (Ali) just because he is much more famous over the
guy (Norton) that was promised a title shot isn't justified.
If you were the President of the WBC, what would you say? Sorry, that "Elimination fight" between Norton and Young didn't really mean anything?
-I remember the late 1970's and early 1980's very well. The average person didn't even know who Mike Weaver or Michael Dokes were.
Almost everyone knew who Larry Holmes was, even if they didn't like him. I myself always rooted for Holmes opponents, but I knew that Holmes was the real champion.
What I mean by people not screaming for a unification fight is that there simply wasn't a huge interest. If Holmes fought Weaver, it would have been like just another title defense on a Friday Night. It wouldn't have got huge TV ratings or been for huge money (Believe me if Holmes thought it would have, he would gone for that fight). A Holmes fight against Dokes,Coetzee,Page and Tubbs wouldn't created that much interest either. They probably wouldn't even have been able to put it on Closed Circuit.
The only time that it may have been seen as a big showdown was if Tate would have beat Weaver and a Tate-Holmes fight would have happened.
When Weaver won, there was very little interest in a Holmes-Weaver rematch. Holmes had already beaten Weaver and wasn't that highly regarded at all. Perhaps if he or some other WBA champion would have made several successful title defenses it could have built up interest in a unification fight.
But that's not what happened.
Weaver lost to Dokes on a controversial stoppage.
The rematch was a draw.
Dokes then immediately lost to Coeztee. (Coetzee had already lost to Tate and Weaver)
Coeztee in his first defense then immediately lost to Page in controversial fight.
Page in his first defense then immediatley lost to Tubbs in a very boring fight.
During Larry Holmes 7 year title reign, there were a grand total of 9 WBA heavyweight title fights.
There was a grand total of 3 successful WBA title defenses.
Holmes had 20.
There were many fighters that were roughly even during this period. Tate,Weaver,Dokes,Coetzee,
Page, Tubbs,Berbick,Smith,Witherspoon were champions at one point but couldn't keep the title for long. Not to mention contenders that weren't that far behind like Snipes,Bey,Cooney,Williams.
Holmes didn't fight all of them but he certainly fought enough of them. Shavers was certainly a dangerous opponent when Holmes defended the title against him. Even Ocasio was coming off of beating Jimmy Young.
Make no mistake about, Holmes was the man.
Unifying the title would have just been icing on the cake; though like you I wish it would have happened.
Yes, hardcore boxing fans hate multiple champions. The casual fan doesn't care that much, especially when one guy is clearly better than other.
-I should clairfy what I said about Weaver. Weaver himself said that Holmes was the real champion.
Well I certainly don’t need a history lesson, but thanks for the reply.
Holmes didn’t unify because he didn’t feel any need to unify and clear things up because he had the major media behind him at the time (ABC, HBO). Had he had any sense of humility he would have done it and he would have been well compensated.
Ali getting a rematch after losing to Spinks is a much more reasonable next step for Spinks than him fighting Norton. If you think there was little public outcry for Holmes to unify, there was certainly plenty of public interest in an Ali-Spinks rematch, but I guess in that case the public opinion doesn’t matter even though you spent much of your post explaining how more people knew who Holmes was than Weaver or Dokes.
BTW, Dokes was very well known and was also somewhat of a house fighter for ABC as an amateur and also as he came up through the pro ranks. Weaver was also quite well known, with much of his media attention due to the very difficult fight that he gave to Holmes. Certainly deserving of a rematch.
And Norton is hardly the first or last fighter to be “promised” a title fight and then have to wait. Norton was never a champion, he didn’t win it in the ring he was simply handed a belt.
As I said Holmes was a great fighter, but his legacy would be better if he had fought at least one the other title claimants during his reign. Don’t you agree?
Sorry if I went into too much detail. I don't know all what you remember and I am responding to other people who weren't around at the time.
I do agree that it made sense from marketing point of view for the WBC to renege on their promise to Norton. Yes public opinion preferred an Ali-Spinks rematch.
However, from an ethical standpoint, I think they owed Norton the title shot. I do see your point that others fighters have been cheated by the WBC and other alphabet soup orgainzations. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. I don't see how you can criticize the WBC in this particular instance. For once they did something honorable.
I do understand that people think that Norton was "handed the title". However, it was an awkward situation. The WBC's options were pretty much:
A. Renege on the promise to Norton and sanction the Spinks-Ali rematch.
B. Have Norton fight Young again, this time billing it as a title fight. (Which would have odd, especially if Young would have won the rematch.)
C. Have Norton fight someone else for the title. (Which would be odd given that a win over the #2 contender would get Norton a title shot against someone ranked below the #2 contender.)
D. Give Norton the title based on his #1 ranking and the fact that he had just beaten the #2 contender.
None of them were great choices, but D seems as good as any.
Do you really think that Holmes would have been more compensated for fighting Weaver than many other other opponents after Weaver won the title? I certainly don't think it was the biggest fight out there for Holmes.
Weaver wasn't a draw at all. When he fought Holmes previously, it wasn't even on national TV because he had so little respect.
If "Once a Year Weaver" would have been more of a fighting champion, maybe things would have been different. Several successful title defense may have built up some interest. However, he only made two successful title defenses in all the time that he was the champion. Holmes made 8 during that time. Weaver and the other WBA champions seemed to be quite content not to risk their WBA title and fight Holmes.
If you asked 10 people off the street who Larry Holmes was, probably 8 could tell you. However, if you asked the same question about Michael Dokes, the number would have been much lower.
If Dokes has won convincing win over Weaver in their rematch, then maybe there would have been some interest in a Holmes-Dokes unification fight. However, Dokes reputation took a hit with that fight. Of course he then lost to Coetzee, and it's doubtful that Coetzee-Holmes would have been a huge fight either. The WBA champions that followed were all unable to make even 1 successful title defense.
I do agree that it would have been nice if Holmes would have unified the title. It would have helped his legacy with hardcore fans.
However, I don't think it would have been a hugely anticipated Super Fight like say Leonard-Hearns or even Pryor-Arguello.
They couldn't have made it a closed circuit event. It wouldn't have drawn huge numbers of TV viewers either.
Again though, it would have been nice to have happened.
None of Holmes fights were super fight, so what? He still should have unified, but chose not to.
Norton already had 2 shots at the real championship but came up short in both. Well kind of short in Ali 3. He should never have been handed a title because he beat Young by a very close and somewhat controversial decision, which is why few real boxing fans acknowledge him as a title holder.
Tate won the real title when he impressively came out on top of a legitimate 4 man tournament composed of 4 of the best HWs available at the time. The fact that the general public knew the King/ABC supported Holmes better is irrelevant, and all of this silly discussion would not be taking place if Holmes had simply fought one of the “lesser known” title holders of that time. He would have made a very good chunk of change and would have then been able to legitimately call himself the champ, not merely a title holder. It was his choice and he made that choice, so it’s best not to make excuses for someone who played the system well and came out of it with his wits and a very large portfolio.
"He should never have been handed a title because he beat Young by a very close and somewhat controversial decision, which is why few real boxing fans acknowledge him as a title holder."
I am surprised to hear you say this. you are implying that Norton not winning convincingly is what is really important here. (You must think that the Norton-Young fight was pretty significant then.)
To me that is sort of like saying if you win the World series or the NBA championship in 7 games it doesn't count. After all, it was close.
I agree that the Young-Norton fight (which was a great fight) could have been scored the other way. However, it shouldn't matter how close it was.
If Norton would have destroyed Young, then it would have made him a legitimate champion?
You can challenge the legitimacy of the tournament that Tate won. He beat Kallie Knoetzee and Gerrie Coetzee. That's not beating the very best fighters in the world.
In comparison, Norton had to beat Jimmy Young, the #2 contender.
Maybe we aren't so far apart with Holmes unifying the title, I don't know. I wish he would have. However, to me it was have just been one loose end to tie. I certainly don't think he was concerned about losing to any of them and often they probably weren't even the #2 heavyweight in the world. They didn't seem to interested in fighting him either.
But yes, it would have helped his historical legacy.
Ambling Alp wrote:To me that is sort of like saying if you win the World series or the NBA championship in 7 games it doesn't count. After all, it was close.
Except for the fact that Norton-Young wasn't a championship fight. I guess you could call that an inconvenient truth.
Once any organisation starts stripping fighters then it becomes a joke. If a fighter cannot defend his title for any reason (e.g. gone to prison, or retired etc...) then that's one thing: boxing just can't stop but other than that it makes the whole sport pointless. But if a fighter retires it's not really him being stripped, he gives up the titles. If we remove the notion of the colour line then the best hand over was Jeffries picking out two top contenders... You don't need sanctioning bodies for that.
No matter what anyone thinks of the lineal system once you start giving out the titles to people who appear to be the best then (a) there is no point at all even having a championship bout and (b) there's not much point in fighting the top contenders as you only have to look good in winning.
