BoxRec

I Feel Fine wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He's the most famous of all famous fighters, though. He'll get more praise, he'll get more criticism. Fans have to be prepared to take the bad with the good. I mentioned my favourite fighter's worst challenger (Within reason).

Still, the level of scrutiny is a little too much. Like I said before, Holmes fought some real no-hopers, but his no-hopers in title fights don't get anywhere near the same scrutiny as Ali's. You don't hear much about guys like Leroy Jones and Scott Frank and David Bey. They weren't exactly blowing away Coopman and Dunn in quality or in being deserving, and yet you don't hear nearly as much whining about them. Ali had just fought Joe Frazier for the third time, and was about to fight Jimmy Young and Ken Norton, so he took a break inbetween fights and fought Coopman. Holmes never fought that level of opposition in his title reign, besides his own fight with Norton and his Shavers rematch, so where did he get off taking easy fights like Jones, Frank and Bey? Or what about Lorenzo Zanon who was one of the biggest pushovers I've ever seen fighting for a championship? Marvis Frazier wasn't the only weak opponent in Holmes' "great" title run. He also had Witherspoon and Williams, who both beat Holmes in my opinion, and both of them had only around 15 pro fights.

I just think the difference in scrutiny is a bit much. And I'm aiming in on Holmes specifically after hearing Lampley's comments about Holmes and Ali during the Jones-Trinidad replay.

No doubt, but you'll never hear the level of praise, nor the quantity, for Holmes that is reserved for Ali. Personally, I wouldn't criticise Ali for Coopman, for the reasons you outlined, namely the quality opposition that surrounded Coopman both previously & ahead of time. Holmes had some soft opposition --- A lot of that had to do with the guys around at the time --- but he damn well should have given some guys rematches, & if you gave him too tough a fight, you were blacklisted. Norton & Witherspoon knew it. It wasn't all Holmes' fault --- most of the competition was poor, but when they were too tough, they had to win first time out, or they would be frozen out by him.

In spite of his long reign, I wouldn't place Holmes' title history ahead of Ali's though. You piqued my curiosity --- I was watching Jones-Trinidad in a bar, & couldn't hear the sound well. What did Lampley say?

In Bert Coopers defence, he was a last minute replacement.

I think why Ali gets so much scrutiny is because he is the GREATEST, was the linear undisputed champ and was fighting when there was a lot of good challengers.

Holmes fought guys who eliminated other contenders in upste wins, that is why he never faced say a Bruno, Young or Page. Because they lost the fights that would have seen them face him. Sure Frank was a bad challenger but at the same time this was for a 3rd of of the title. I suppose a win over Stander and Wepner gave him some cred as well as the draw over Snipes.

I think Frank was a local tough guy who didnt really deserve the shot. But he got it none the less.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:No doubt, but you'll never hear the level of praise, nor the quantity, for Holmes that is reserved for Ali. Personally, I wouldn't criticise Ali for Coopman, for the reasons you outlined, namely the quality opposition that surrounded Coopman both previously & ahead of time. Holmes had some soft opposition --- A lot of that had to do with the guys around at the time --- but he damn well should have given some guys rematches, & if you gave him too tough a fight, you were blacklisted. Norton & Witherspoon knew it. It wasn't all Holmes' fault --- most of the competition was poor, but when they were too tough, they had to win first time out, or they would be frozen out by him.

In spite of his long reign, I wouldn't place Holmes' title history ahead of Ali's though. You piqued my curiosity --- I was watching Jones-Trinidad in a bar, & couldn't hear the sound well. What did Lampley say?

I think we generally agree. As for the Jones-Trinidad comments, Lampley was just making a comparison between Jones' decline and Ali's, saying that both relied on their natural ability but never developed much technical skill, and that this was the reason why Ali lost to Holmes, because Ali had lost his natural ability and couldn't out box Holmes who was a "better" technical boxer. Sort of ignores Ali's age, wear, inactivity and the fact that he was probably already on the road to Parkinsons. I reject the idea that Holmes was all that much better as a technical fighter. Your technical skills are going to look real good when you're fighting the kind of guys Holmes fought.

Robinson wrote:I think why Ali gets so much scrutiny is because he is the GREATEST, was the linear undisputed champ and was fighting when there was a lot of good challengers.

Holmes fought guys who eliminated other contenders in upste wins, that is why he never faced say a Bruno, Young or Page. Because they lost the fights that would have seen them face him. Sure Frank was a bad challenger but at the same time this was for a 3rd of of the title. I suppose a win over Stander and Wepner gave him some cred as well as the draw over Snipes.

He was fighting when there were a lot of good challengers... I agree, and he fought all of them, Holmes didn't. Ali and Holmes were sort of the opposite... Ali fought mostly respected fighters, with a few exceptions. Holmes fought mostly weak opponents, with a few exceptions. No unifications, not many rematches (as goodnight pointed out). I think Holmes was a great fighter, but I think some today go a little over board with him, almost as if they feel that by over-praising him they are making up for the lack of credit he was getting when he was champion.

Just wanted to make a few points:

-I don't understand it why if a champion defends his title say 4 times in a year and 2 are against top challengers and 2 are against easy opponents. Why is that worse than only defending your title twice (or even less) ? There is atleast a small degree of risk anytime you put your title on the line. I'm not saying that a champion should get a lot of credit for beating say Lucien Rodriquez or Johnny Paychek or Richard Dunn. However, why should he get criticized for it?

-You also have to look at how good the opponents were perceived to before the fight. For example, Ossie Ocasio was actually considered one of the top heavyweights when he fought Holmes. Leroy Jones was the #1 challenger when Holmes fought him. (I do agree that Holmes could have fought a couple more tough challengers at the end of his title reign. Rodriquez,Frank, and Marvis Frazier in one year was a bit much.)

-A couple of other nominees for horrible title challengers:
Tommy Burns defense against Jewey Smith. Burns also defended the title against Billy Squires three times.
Floyd Patterson defenses against Tom McNeeley and Roy Harris.

Burns and Patterson could have been fighting much better challengers instead. (Though in Burns case, atleast he was defending the title against someone, which some of his predecessors and immediate successors didn't do much.)

A champion shouldn't get ripped for defending the title against a weak challenger if he is also fighting top challengers.
However, he should get ripped if he is doing that instead of defending it against top challengers.

Ambling Alp wrote:Just wanted to make a few points:

-I don't understand it why if a champion defends his title say 4 times in a year and 2 are against top challengers and 2 are against easy opponents. Why is that worse than only defending your title twice (or even less) There is a small degree of risk anytime you put your title on the line. I'm not saying that a champion should get a lot of credit for beating say Lucien Rodriquez or Johnny Paychek or Richard Dunn. However, why should he get criticized for it?

-You also have to look at how good the opponents were percieved to before the fight. For example, Ossie Ocasio was actually considered one of the top heavyweights when he fought Holmes. Leroy Jones was the #1 challenger when Holmes fought him. (I do agree that Holmes could have fought a couple more tough challengers at the end of his title reign. Rodriquez,Frank, and Marvis Fraizer in one year was a bit much.)

-A couple of other nominees for horrible title challengers:
Tommy Burns defense against Jewey Smith. Burns also defended the title against Billy Squires three times.
Floyd Patterson defenses against Tom McNeeley and Roy Harris.

Burns and Patterson could have been fighting much better challengers instead. (Though in Burns case, atleast he was defending the title against someone, whcih some of his predecessors and immediate successors didn't do much.)

A champion shouldn't get ripped for defending the title against a weak challenger if he is also fighting top challengers.
However, he should ripped if he is doing that instead of defending it against top challengers.

Exactly how I see it. Everyone is entitled to some easier ones as long as they defend against the top guys too.

The problem is when they miss too many of the good ones.

My only real gripe with Holmes was that at the end of his career he was obviously avoiding Thomas and Witherspoon and wanted to creep over that 50 wins line.

Ezzard wrote:
My only real gripe with Holmes was that at the end of his career he was obviously avoiding Thomas and Witherspoon and wanted to creep over that 50 wins line.

And instead Holmes became

the first heavyweight champion IN THE HISTORY OF BOXING to

lose his title to a light heavyweight.

The pathetic Michael Spinks (who lasted 91 seconds with a real heavyweight).

Hilarious.

Well I didn't mention Ocasio, but he was another inept title challenger, and Holmes even knocked him down with a jab if I remember right. But he beat an over weight drug addict Young and got himself in a position to fight Holmes. Jones beat Weaver, who as most people know lost a lot of fights before he fought (and almost knocked out) Holmes, and he was indeed coming off a loss in his last fight when Jones beat him. None of Jones' other opponents had records much more impressive than Weaver's to that point. I get that these guys were highly rated in the inept Heavyweight division of Holmes' era, but the fact remains that these guys were not very deserving, and they were even less capable as title challengers; they were truly glorified sparring partners.

I guess is depends on how you are looking at things.

At the time that Holmes fought Ocasio and Jones, it wasn't considered a joke. Ocasio had some decent boxing skills. His main problem was that he was short for a heavyweight, and if you are short you almost have to be a pressure fighter, like say Frazier or Tyson. It's very difficult to be short and be a boxer type, which Ocasio naturally was. Still he wasn't considered a bum or anything like that. Holmes certainly could have found a weaker opponent.

Jones was actually the WBC #1 challenger and Holmes had to fight him or he would have been stripped of his title. Jones probably shouldn't have been the #1 challenger, but you can't blame Holmes for that.

So if you are blaming Holmes for fighting these two guys, I don't think that is fair.

However if you are saying that it's not that big of an achievement to have beaten those guys, that is fair.

Pete Rademacher is the most undeserving just due to the fact that he hadn't had a professional fight and was awarded a shot based on his Olympic status.

He's not the worst though. Not even close.

That was actually another point I wanted to make. Just because Jones was named the #1 contender by the corrupt WBC doesn't mean he was a worthy opponent. But, yes, I understand and agree that if you have to fight a mandatory to keep your title then that's what you have to do, but the question isn't "should Holmes have fought him" the question is "was he deserving" and the answer is clearly no. Hopkins had to fight Hakkar, that didn't make Hakkar deserving. Plus Holmes didn't have to fight guys like Frank or Frazier or Bey. I should pull out the tape of Holmes-Frank, Holmes was torn apart by boxing critics for taking that fight, they were practically making fun of Holmes for the choice. And we're not even naming all of the pushovers he fought as champion.

Pete Rademacher is the most undeserving just due to the fact that he hadn't had a professional fight and was awarded a shot based on his Olympic status.

He's not the worst though. Not even close.

I agree with this statement here.

There have been many amateurs I have seen fight, who actually had more boxing skill and talent than some professionals out there. Take Patterson's defense against Boston based journeyman Tom McNeeley. Now McNeeley was an amateur as a younger man, but nowhere near the accalades of Rademacher, and was undefeated I believe as a professional when he got his shot at Patterson. He last all but three rounds, while the Olympic Gold medalist went six. Not much of a descrepancy I know, but none the less, it does show some evidence of what I just said.

In regards to Holmes.

There was an attempt to unify the WBA and WBC strap but politics prevented this fight between Holmes and Coetzee.

The challengers that Holmes was going to face that were top guys at the time Greg Page, James Tillis, Jimmy Young, John Tate, Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno and Gerrie Coetzer all were elimanted by one of the guys that did go on to face Holmes.

Young loss twice to Ocasio. Ocasio faces Holmes.

Berbick had beaten tate, which eliminated Tate, which gave Berbick the shot.

Snipes beat Gerrie Coetzee, which you could argue elminated Gerrie and put Snipes in line for Holmes.

I guess Cooney helped eliminate Young again.

Bonecrusher Smiths win over Bruno eliminated the Briton from facing Holmes and elevated Smiths status as challenger.

David Bey got his shot by beating Greg Page, which in turn eliminated Page from facing Holmes.

Carl Truth Williams beat James Tillis which got him his fight against Holmes, this in turn eliminated Tillis from facing Holmes.

Granted He did face some not so great guys, but when you fight that many challengers that often, as is the case of Louis, Burns and so on you do face some guys who are not all time greats.

Kym

I already talked about Ocasio. Ocasio beat a drug addict, over weight Young and put himself in a position to fight Holmes. Fine, but he's not exactly the most deserving fighter, historically speaking, to get a title shot. He's also one of seven Holmes title challengers with less than 17 pro fights.

Bey beat Greg Page, yes. But Page had just lost to Witherspoon in his last fight, where Witherspoon became the WBC champion. If beating Greg Page was a way of getting a fight with Holmes, then Witherspoon would have made a better choice than Bey, being that he beat Page first, was far and away the better fighter, was a belt holder, and had lost a dubious decision to Holmes.

That's forgetting Le Doux, Frank, Frazier, Zanon, Mr. Jones and others. Ali has been criticized for fighting Evangelista, but other than winning the meaningless European title, Evangelista really didn't do that much between fights to justify Holmes fighting him. Cobb beat Shavers, but he then lost to Norton and Dokes, two guys Holmes could have fought, or fought again... though to be fair Norton was shot by then.

Again, the microscope seems to be very biased. Ali gets criticized for taking one easy fight inbetween fights with Hall of Famers or all time great Heavyweight contenders, Holmes gets credit for beating a series of bums. At least half of Holmes' title challengers were only slightly, if at all, better than the Coopman's, Wepner's and Dunn's who Ali critics love to point to; even though in Ali's case they were rare exceptions, while for Holmes those kind of opponents were the norm. When Holmes did step up and fight a good fighter, half the time he would either win a close, controversial decision (Norton, Witherspoon, Williams) or come close to getting knocked out (then journeyman Mike Weaver, Shavers, and, while I wouldn't call him a good fighter, Renaldo Snipes also came close.)

Don't get me wrong, I think Holmes is a top 10 Heavyweight. But talk about lack of scrutiny.

I agree Holme did face some questionable guys.
BUT the title was fragmented at the time. AND he had a 3rd of the
title. Sure he did become the linear champ in 1980 by beating the 'man'
but essentially when defending a ABC belt one does not neccesarily face the same quality as one would face while defending the linear or undisputed.

In regards to Young, he was all of those things no doubt but he was still a credible guy who was beaten by Ocassio TWICE one after the other. And he was eliminated early on by Norton, who as we know Holmes faced for the WBC belt.

I would love to have seen Holmes face those other guys. BUT for what ever reason he didnt and he did face some guys that where less than credible in the grand picture.

Ali is criticised because he was the only champion at the time, there was no Weaver, Dokes, Witherspoon, Coetzee or Page that held a version of the title at the same time.

The alphabet craze as we all know dilutes and confuses things to hard core fans let alone casual ones. When the entire spectrum the the world is focused on you as the sole champion then you take more heat. I think this is perhaps why Holmes or other post 80s champs get it a little easier in regards to who they defend against.

As a Holmes and boxing fans I would love to have seen him face the better guys.

Kym

"...He's also one of seven Holmes title challengers with less than 17 pro fights..." - IFF

An alarming statistic, & not one you see mentioned often.

"...Sure he did become the linear champ in 1980 by beating the 'man'..." - Robinson

I never understood that logic, personally. Holmes' linear title reign should really be considered to have begun in 1979, upon Ali's retirement.

I thought we were starting to find common ground until you came back to Ali. The fragmentation of the titles means nothing, Ali didn't deprive anyone of a title shot. Holmes on the other hand didn't face plenty of the top fighters who were around in his era. Holmes could have also sought a unification, Ali did in the 60's against Terrell.

When Ali took a tune up it would usually be coming after a fight with a good fighter, and would be followed by a fight with another good fighter. With Holmes, more often than not when he fought an easy opponent he followed it up with another easy opponent. Big and obvious difference.

The point I am trying to make is that the Holmes era was comlicated more than the Ali one by sanctioning body politics and the likes.

Sure thing Holmes did face alot of guys who were on there way up, in the case of Berbick and Witherspoon etc.

But is this better or worse than facing names at the very end of there careers. Ultimately I would love for him to have faced some of those other guys to. But he didnt.

Granted that Holmes did lose to Spinks, I thought it was a draw. BUT...he still lost. Spinks atleast proved to be an all time great LHW.

Kym

Yes, by all means Larry holmes did face a few questionable contenders during his reign & a handful whom only had slightly more than a dozen fights to their resume ( plus one in Frazier, who was merely 10-0 ). BUT, in many of those occasions they were ,infact, among the best men available for the job. Many of which, were voluntary title defences that could have gone to more established fighters, had said fighters not let those opportunities slip thru their fingers by losing to young, up & coming, though "green" fighters.

For instance, as I recall it, back in '79, despite his second round TKO loss to John Tate in MSG earlier that year, Bernardo Mercado was still considered a viable, rather dangerous contender. At least enough so to qualify for a shot a Holmes at the Garden that summer in a tune up for the Champ's September mandatory against the resurgent Earnie Shavers.
Don King & co. had penciled in the big Columbian as Holmes June opponent as a latino challenger for the heavyweight title was seen as a very attractive co-feature to that night's "dream bout" between Roberto Duran & just deposed welterweight champ Carlos Palomino.
Unfortunately, a funny thing happened along the way during Mercado's own "tune up" bout in Reno with rugged journeyman Mike Weaver. A fight that was just supposed to get Mercado back into the win column before his title bid, Weaver didn't follow the "script" & followed up his own upset KO of fringe contender Stan Ward with a KO5 over ol' Bernardo. Eliminating the hard hitting, but something decidedly less than durable Mercado from title contention for the second time that year ( had he beaten Tate, he'd have gotten a birth into the WBA's elimination series to crown a new champion in the wake of Ali's retirement ).
So, after Jimmy Young was briefly considered as a replacement opponent due to his name value ( an idea that was nixed because Young had lost three or four in a row by that point ) they decided to give Weaver a "ROCKY-esque" shot.
Though, the original network scheduled to televise the card balked at King's choice of opponent & passed on showing it, which allowed HBO to pick up the rights for it at a bargain rate. Something that greatly established HBO's status as a booxing broadcaster & which made ABC look rather foolish when Weaver rose to the occasion & gave Holmes all he could handle for eleven plus rounds.

A title challenger is measured by how deserving he is, and how good he is. Going into the fight, Weaver was considered neither good nor deserving. Holmes shouldn't get credit for opponent selection just because Weaver turned out to be good. Holmes was willing to fight Weaver when he was a journeyman with nine losses, but when Weaver was WBA champion who had almost knocked Holmes out there was no thought of fighting him then. Just like with Witherspoon, he'll fight him when he's 15-0 but not when he's a more experienced WBC champion who many thought deserved a decision over Larry. Instead he'll fight Bey.

I'm not saying Holmes was unwilling to fight top opponents. I'm just saying that his title reign left much to be desired, and Holmes didn't go out of his way to get opponents who might have been more credible. He was content with fighting mostly no-hopers. But because Holmes is perceived as someone who didn't get enough credit when he was champion, some fans seem to feel that he deserves no scrutiny. I think a lot of his choices deserve scrutiny.

I never understood that logic, personally. Holmes' linear title reign should really be considered to have begun in 1979, upon Ali's retirement.

This "logic" has been around almost as long as the sport it's self. Most people point out to the Johnson-Jeffries bout as one of the best known early examples, but this happened even further back in such bouts as Mitchell-Mace for the English title, when Mace was in his 60's against a prime Mitchell.

Theres always the saying that, to be the man you have to beat the man. That's why I think in this day and age, nobody has really clung on to the heavyweight divisions title holders, because nobody really won it from Lennox Lewis. Now if Lewis was to unretire, come back, and lose against let's say Wladimir Klitschko, then I am sure a minority would consider that Klitschko was the "true" champion.

Other examples? When Louis came back, he faced the current champion Ezzard Charles, who done beat Joe Walcott in the eliminator earlier that year. But the fight was being promoted as being for the "true" title, as Louis never lost it in the ring, it was only until Charles beat Louis was he really considered the champion.

But for all intents and purposes, this whole fad, the beginning of "championship emeritus" started with the American public clamouring for James Jeffries to come out of retirement to defeat Jack Johnson, and since Jeffries never lost the title in the ring (which was a first under the official lineage of the heavyweight title under the Marquis of Queensbury rules), he was deemed the only man worthy enough to do the deed.

Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, were all swept under the carpet and were deemed claimers of the title when the first "fight of the century" began to take shape, that if Johnson was to truly call himself the champ, he would have to beat Jeffries. Of course, the six years physical indifference, having to lose 110 pounds and get in shape for a 45 round contest took their toll on Jeffries and he lost by KO in the 15th round.

As far as Holmes is concerned, why on earth anyone would think he was the linear champion is beyond me. Leon Spinks refused to fight Ken Norton for a more lucrative match with Muhammad Ali, and was stripped of the WBC title, to which Norton wins it by default. Holmes beats Norton via 15 round split decision.

Muhammad Ali defeats Leon Spinks in the rematch and regains the linear and WBA titles, then he retires. The two top contenders for the WBA title square off (John Tate and Gerrie Coetzee) and Tate wins the title.

It wouldnt be until the Ali-Holmes fight, would Holmes actually win the true linear title. Sure Holmes by that time was generally considered "the man" of the division, but it still didnt make him the true champion, at least entirely.

You have to give Holmes some due though, he was later given the IBF title, though the WBC would drop his ass during negotiations for a Page or Coetzee fight. Outside of that one title (WBA) he was the best of the late 1970's to mid 1980's.

Yeah, that last line is another point I wanted to make. It seems that it was implied by someone above that Holmes would have fought Page but didn't because Page was upset by Bey. That is untrue. Holmes didn't want to fight Page and vacated his WBC title. Page then fought for that vacant title but lost to Witherspoon, then in his next fight lost to Bey. So Holmes didn't want to fight Page, didn't want to fight Witherspoon in a rematch after he beat Page and won the WBC title, of those three choices Holmes went with a fight against Bey; an inept opponent with less than 15 pro fights.

For reasons I still dont quite grasp, Holmes could have easily made both the Page and Coetzee fights happen, but his rationale, least his "explaination" to the public was why make 10 million off two fights off guys like Page and Coetzee when he could make the same amount of money off of fighting a two-three-four fight series against the likes of Marvis Frazier and other inept challengers.

He also stated that he wouldnt fight Coetzee if it was to happen in South Africa because he disliked the politics over there and the killings, etc. As for Page though, there was no real explaination ever made, other than you could sense Holmes hated Page saying he was 'cocky and arrogant' and thought he was 'God's gift'.

Holmes also asserted that the contenders were all the same, that you could put all the names in a hat, shake em up, and no one was better than the other. If that was the case, then why make such a fuss over Coetzee or Page?

Whether it was ego, money, poltics or all three, it does seem a bit fishy that it was only those two who seemed out of reach of getting a shot at Holmes, when Tate, Weaver and others had better opprotunities.

Holmes struggled with Mike Weaver, Reynaldo Snipes, Tim Witherspoon and Carl Williams

and never gave any of them a rematch.

But somehow he is one of the "greatest of all time."

Renaldo

Holmes-Snipes was also a terrible stoppage.