ESPN CLASSIC-TOMMORROW AT 6!!!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 29 Nov 2005, 07:27

Holmes never unified the title becuase the TV people and a certain promoter realised tat they could make more money with the extra title... they would never let the fight happen... but there was never any doubt about who was the real champion...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Nov 2005, 11:21

silkov wrote:Holmes never unified the title becuase the TV people and a certain promoter realised tat they could make more money with the extra title... they would never let the fight happen... but there was never any doubt about who was the real champion...

I think that's partly right. The other reason was that the WBA belt changed hands every 6 months so the belt holder could never be built up to be even thought of as a champion.

The Ring did an article on how Spinks could beat Holmes but with the weight disparity (between LH and HW) bigger than ever I just couldn't see Spinks winning. It was a great achievement.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 29 Nov 2005, 13:09

Ezzard wrote:
silkov wrote:Holmes never unified the title becuase the TV people and a certain promoter realised tat they could make more money with the extra title... they would never let the fight happen... but there was never any doubt about who was the real champion...
I think that's partly right. The other reason was that the WBA belt changed hands every 6 months so the belt holder could never be built up to be even thought of as a champion.

The Ring did an article on how Spinks could beat Holmes but with the weight disparity (between LH and HW) bigger than ever I just couldn't see Spinks winning. It was a great achievement.

I was a huge Spinks fan and liked the confidence and proffessionalism he had... I just remember when the fight was made feeling that Mikes herky jercky style could beat Holmes who really had slowed a fair bit on his feet.
I also got the feeling that Holmes was a bit jaded mentally and tired of all the hassle connected with being champion... something which he's said himself in the years since. Having said all that it was a great performance by Mike... who was possibly the best 175 fighter of all time imo.... definately top 5...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Nov 2005, 13:16

silkov wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
silkov wrote:Holmes never unified the title becuase the TV people and a certain promoter realised tat they could make more money with the extra title... they would never let the fight happen... but there was never any doubt about who was the real champion...
I think that's partly right. The other reason was that the WBA belt changed hands every 6 months so the belt holder could never be built up to be even thought of as a champion.

The Ring did an article on how Spinks could beat Holmes but with the weight disparity (between LH and HW) bigger than ever I just couldn't see Spinks winning. It was a great achievement.
I was a huge Spinks fan and liked the confidence and proffessionalism he had... I just remember when the fight was made feeling that Mikes herky jercky style could beat Holmes who really had slowed a fair bit on his feet.
I also got the feeling that Holmes was a bit jaded mentally and tired of all the hassle connected with being champion... something which he's said himself in the years since. Having said all that it was a great performance by Mike... who was possibly the best 175 fighter of all time imo.... definately top 5...

I think you can make a claim for Spinks. His achievements and record speak for themselves. It's a great division but Spinks has to be top 5. Then again I'm probably biased becasue it was the era that I was growing up in.

You could see that Holmes was frustrated because he could see the openings but his reflexes had slowed so that he just couldn't quite deliver the KO blow.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 29 Nov 2005, 13:27

Ezzard wrote:
silkov wrote:
Ezzard wrote: I think that's partly right. The other reason was that the WBA belt changed hands every 6 months so the belt holder could never be built up to be even thought of as a champion.

The Ring did an article on how Spinks could beat Holmes but with the weight disparity (between LH and HW) bigger than ever I just couldn't see Spinks winning. It was a great achievement.
I was a huge Spinks fan and liked the confidence and proffessionalism he had... I just remember when the fight was made feeling that Mikes herky jercky style could beat Holmes who really had slowed a fair bit on his feet.
I also got the feeling that Holmes was a bit jaded mentally and tired of all the hassle connected with being champion... something which he's said himself in the years since. Having said all that it was a great performance by Mike... who was possibly the best 175 fighter of all time imo.... definately top 5...
I think you can make a claim for Spinks. His achievements and record speak for themselves. It's a great division but Spinks has to be top 5. Then again I'm probably biased becasue it was the era that I was growing up in.

You could see that Holmes was frustrated because he could see the openings but his reflexes had slowed so that he just couldn't quite deliver the KO blow.

Yeah, also Spinks would move every time Larry got set to throw... Spinks was very clever the way he used his movement... very clever guy.
I do think Holmes should have won the rematch, he was much sharper in that fight. But again it was a close fight. I need to watch it again to refresh the memory! 8)

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 29 Nov 2005, 14:36

silkov wrote:Yeah, also Spinks would move every time Larry got set to throw... Spinks was very clever the way he used his movement... very clever guy. I do think Holmes should have won the rematch, he was much sharper in that fight. But again it was a close fight. I need to watch it again to refresh the memory! 8)

I watched both Spinks - -Holmes fights ealier this year. I had Spinks edge the first fight and Holmes edge the rematch. I can't recall my scores but I have them scibbled down somewhere.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Nov 2005, 07:04

There were a lot of good HWs around that he fought but no real great ones.

great point ezzard.

i mean its clear in tersm of solid depth, holmes fought some of the best depth of good fighters in heavyweight history,

BUT how many great fighters did he beat???

1 ken norton in a fight that was too close IMO to be called either way. holmes never totally proved himself against great heavyweights.

reasons why holmes is not top 2

- never unified the title

- never GAVE REMATCHES too close or controversial decisions like spoon, norton, williams

- instead of fighting a coatzee, dokes, thomas, page etc, he decided to feast on 10 extra uneeeded journeyman.

- he never totally cleaned out the division the way tyson did

he was very protected and did not fight the best of his era,. king had holmes avoid the good right hand bangers. WEAVER,Spoon,Truth rematches as well as Dokes,Coetzee, thomas and Page these fights would have been good paydays for him.

silkov, just cause rory does not rate holmes in top 5 nor thinks is competion is all that good is no reason to insult him. many people think holmes fought weak competion and u can defintley make a case for him not being top 5.

i mean its pretty clear louis and ali are top 2, anyone who thinks otherwise has no case.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 30 Nov 2005, 08:07

Holmes was around for a long time and had some great skills. He was also one of the most durable champions ever. He had a great chin, great stamina and the heart of a lion.

I should back tis up by re-examining his record but off the top of my head Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Cooney, Witherspoon were all very good fighters and would have been contenders in any era.

I partly agree on the unification issue but it wasn't that simple as has been discussed and I don't hold that against him. It's a bit hard for you to criticise him for not grnting Williams a rematch as I think Holmes lost the title in his next fight anyway.

Coming abck in his 40s and having close fights with McCall and beating Mercer proved that larry was a truly great boxer.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Dec 2005, 02:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
There were a lot of good HWs around that he fought but no real great ones.

great point ezzard.

i mean its clear in tersm of solid depth, holmes fought some of the best depth of good fighters in heavyweight history,

BUT how many great fighters did he beat???

1 ken norton in a fight that was too close IMO to be called either way. holmes never totally proved himself against great heavyweights.

reasons why holmes is not top 2

- never unified the title

- never GAVE REMATCHES too close or controversial decisions like spoon, norton, williams

- instead of fighting a coatzee, dokes, thomas, page etc, he decided to feast on 10 extra uneeeded journeyman.
- he never totally cleaned out the division the way tyson did

he was very protected and did not fight the best of his era,. king had holmes avoid the good right hand bangers. WEAVER,Spoon,Truth rematches as well as Dokes,Coetzee, thomas and Page these fights would have been good paydays for him.

silkov, just cause rory does not rate holmes in top 5 nor thinks is competion is all that good is no reason to insult him. many people think holmes fought weak competion and u can defintley make a case for him not being top 5.

i mean its pretty clear louis and ali are top 2, anyone who thinks otherwise has no case.

Hahahahaha, did not fight the best of his era? Who did he avoid, mate?

I already gave you an explanation on Page earlier. Which part of it is incorrect?

For instance, some people say Holmes ducked Page. But it wasn't the case.

Page lost to Berbick on the undercard to Holmes - Cooney when he was basically being showcased as next in line for a shot. Holmes had already beaten Berbick winning every round on one judges card.

Page later lost to Witherspoon after he'd worked his way back into the picture. Holmes had already beaten Witherspoon albeit only just.

Page then lost to David Bey. That really put Greg out of the picture. Bey got a shot at Holmes as a result of this win and he was stopped in 10.

Had Page been able to beat Berbick or Witherspoon he'd certainly have got his shot. The myth of Holmes ducking him is just that. A myth.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Dec 2005, 02:34

i never said holmes ducked anyone cause he didnt. but he was protected and had a lot of title defenses where he could have subsittuted fighting journeyman for a page or a thomas.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Dec 2005, 16:00

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i never said holmes ducked anyone cause he didnt. but he was protected and had a lot of title defenses where he could have subsittuted fighting journeyman for a page or a thomas.

You said he didn't fight the best of his era.

And regarding some title defences against 2nd rate opponents, any heavyweight champ who has put together a few defences has done it.

Louis fought some soft touches. Marciano only made 6 defences but in that he had Cockell and old light heavy Moore. Patterson's defences I don't need to mention. Even my man Ali in his first reign had the shell of Big Cat Williams. Frazier had some defences against blokes who were as bad as the worst Holmes defended against. Big George only made 3 defences and one of those was against Jose Roman. And Ali had Wepner, Coopman and Dunn in his 2nd reign.

So you see, mate, it's not just Larry who had the odd soft touch.

Also, you refer to some of them as 'journeymen'. I'm not sure what your definition of this word is (care to enlighten me?) but I'd be interested to know which of them, given the names I have listed above, didn't really qualify for a shot at the title. Hell, even the guy I consider the worst title opponent of Holmes, Scott Frank, had managed a draw with Snipes.