BoxRec

Robinson wrote:Im a Holmes fan and sure I would have loved to have seen him re-match Williams and Witherspoon BUT to my understanding politics at that time were some what turbulent and would have made it hard. To Holmes credit the guys he never faced that were top men, Bruno, Page etc were eliminated before they got to him and he ended up facing there conqurerors.

Weaver and Shavers gave Larry tough fights and he was happy to give them re-matches. Was a Norton rematch possible ?


Kym

Holmes didn't give Weaver a rematch for more than twenty years, in spite of their (relatively) close encounter. Shavers lost every round in his first fight with Holmes, so we have no choice but to eliminate that. & politics have always been a part of boxing. There was certainly enough politics at the time Frazier fought Bonavena second time around to, "prevent" that match. Frazier was being pressured to unify the titles. Ellis hounded him right before & immediately after the fight with Quarry in 69. But he did the honourable thing & personally eliminated any doubt as to who was the better man.

He knew Norton was old & getting older. That fight was hell on Holmes. Arguably the toughest victory of his career. If he waited just a little longer, Norton would retire, & it happened. Norton --- in spite of his contempt for Holmes --- was good enough to give him a title shot. Way I figure it, regardless of the outcome, you owe such a man a chance in kind if you win first-up. Doubly so if the fight is close, & that was as close on the cards as they come (Though I had Holmes further ahead than most).

Weaver - Left it twenty-one years.
Norton - Would sooner wrestle a bear on a clifftop than entertain a rematch.
Witherspoon - Too difficult. Too much risk.

He never looked back at any guy who gave him a hard time, & it hurts his legacy for me. That said, the man fought everyone & beat everyone. You can't ignore that. It would be nice to see today's, "champions" do the same as Holmes did.

But my intention was not to attack Holmes. I was simply using him as an example of a great HW champ who did not make hard fights happen more than once. Frazier did, including against Bonavena, & he deserves credit for that.

Reagrdless both Fraziers fights with Bonavena are tough brawls. Its ashame not many people sit down and watch some of these early Frazier bouts. I love his fights with Quarry, Ellis and Bugner. I wish that Frazier managed to squeeze some more fights in during the early to mid 1970s so that we had more of him available.

I think Holmes was managed very well and like you said, he fought every one who was put in front of him. No doubt there were fights I would have loved to have seen him fight AGAIN.

Kym

I Feel Fine wrote:

Robinson wrote:'Athletes Kidneys' I think they called it. I remember reading in an old
Rings magazine that he had trouble with it leading up to that fight.

In either case he won that fight, and whether he was worse for wear after the fact does not matter. One could also argue that he won the trilogy, after seeing what Ali and Frazier look like today.

Kym

Jackass statement...

I'm going to be fair and take this comment back. I disagree wholeheartedly with robinson's post, but I shouldn't have been insulting. I would also apologize to other posters who I've done this to in the past, even granberry and elmer.

It's too late the tears have already been shed ;)

I didn't mean that it was solely Frazier who caused Ali's present condition what I meant is that in the long run, Frazier is physically better off. As opposed to immediately after the first fight when he spent the week in the hospital. I was kinda trying to make the point that many raise, about Frazier getting the decision but Ali winning the fight (due to Frazier havbing to stay in hospital)...and in turn one could use the logic that Ali won the trilogy, but Frazier won the final fight. Or something to that effect. In either case, I take each fight as a separate entity and what happens inside the ropes counts and not after the fact.

Kym