BoxRec

Controversial wrote:Albeit being a "10 round" world title fight against an un-ranked opponent :-)

Yep. Like it or not!

I only credit him as having 19, but there are some who say 20 due to his claim to lineage. But that doesn't hold much water with me. You're either holding a title or you're not. And defending a belt has just as much to do with being champion as winning it.

Il Duce wrote:

Controversial wrote:The WBC refused to sanction the Holmes and Marvis Frazier fight as they wanted Holmes to fight Greg Page. Holmes relinquished his WBC belt after fighting Frazier and accepted the newly created IBF belt and champion status. So how does the Frazier fight count as a title defence when the WBC didn't sanction it? Boxrec doesn't show it as a title fight yet Holmes is always credited as having 20 title defences?

'It Was A Television Organized Championship Bout'

To justify the $3,100,000 Fight Purse for Larry Holmes, the 'non-title' bout had to be a 12-Rounder {Championship Type}.

Larry had signed a 'Two-Bout Deal' with NBC-TV.

So boxrec has it wrong, it lists it as a 10 round fight?

SteveO wrote:

Controversial wrote:Albeit being a "10 round" world title fight against an un-ranked opponent :-)

Yep. Like it or not!

Makes no odds to me, just interested in the thinking behind it. So are non-title bouts allowed in the HW division? To me the only difference between Frazier and Johnny Davis is that Davis had a crap record, so this sort of justifies it being a non-title fight. Does it matter if the are unranked or does it always have to be a 12 round fight to be classed as a world title distance (obviously 15 in the older days)?

Il Duce wrote: Chuck Hull, Ring Announcer stated that it was a '12-Round Bout'

Yes just heard it, interestingly the announcer never mentioned that it was for the title though? Plus Frazier not introduced as a challenger although Holmes was described as current WBC world champion but that was it. No sign of the belt either that I can see.

Introduced as "The main event of the evening, 12 rounds of boxing in the heavyweight division"

The result at the end Holmes was pronounced "still heavyweight champion of the world".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRrvu-PXYzY

I always thought it was scheduled for 12 rounds.

Not sure why Boxrec shows it as 10.

If Marvis Frazier had been a Don King heavyweight you can bet your life that fight would have been for the WBC title.

There is a long, long list of unqualified boxers challenging Don King-controlled WBC champions in WBC world title fights.

Ring Magazine had Joe Frazier as its CHAMPION after the Jimmy Ellis bout 2/16/70. Ali had relinquished his crown, I was getting the boxing magazines then, We had a monthly subscription.It was in all the Ring Record books, right there in black and white, now you look on Ring heavyweight history, it was not till 3/8/71 that Smokin Joe beats Ali for the title! Not so, nobody in that Building had Ali as the World Champion entering that building that nite including Muhammad, Joe Frazier entered that Arena the undisputed heavyweight Champion.

How they change boxing history with one sweep of a pen or computer is beyond me. GO WITH HISTORY HOW IT REALLY WAS! I'm yelling here. Are the Dodgers in Baseball gonna be known as the world champions 2010 2012 and 2014 because they paid for them in advance? didn't happen!

ronnyrains wrote:Ring Magazine had Joe Frazier as its CHAMPION after the Jimmy Ellis bout 2/16/70. Ali had relinquished his crown, I was getting the boxing magazines then, We had a monthly subscription.It was in all the Ring Record books, right there in black and white, now you look on Ring heavyweight history, it was not till 3/8/71 that Smokin Joe beats Ali for the title! Not so, nobody in that Building had Ali as the World Champion entering that building that nite including Muhammad, Joe Frazier entered that Arena the undisputed heavyweight Champion.

I agree. Titles are won by beating the best "available" opposition out there. If a champion is stripped, retires, falls off the face of the earth, whatever, then the next guy in line gets it. Its the same reason why I felt Mike Tyson was already the champion when he met Spinks in June of 1988.

Tuan_Jim wrote:If Marvis Frazier had been a Don King heavyweight you can bet your life that fight would have been for the WBC title.

There is a long, long list of unqualified boxers challenging Don King-controlled WBC champions in WBC world title fights.

There is a long list of unqualified challengers for the world heavyweight title in most eras. Dont just pick on King.

When a man like Holmes has the title you can't just strip him because you don't like the colour of his shorts. Or in another division, because you want to give the title to Roy Jones without him having to leave the country. Or because some guy provides bigger sanctioning fees to the organisation.

If a guy cannot fight because of the law then that's different.

But Holmes was the champion. If Marvis had won then what? It was an exhibition?

Mike Spinks beat the champion and was still fighting. He was the man until he retired or was beaten.

Ezzard wrote:When a man like Holmes has the title you can't just strip him because you don't like the colour of his shorts. Or in another division, because you want to give the title to Roy Jones without him having to leave the country. Or because some guy provides bigger sanctioning fees to the organisation.

If a guy cannot fight because of the law then that's different.

But Holmes was the champion. If Marvis had won then what? It was an exhibition?

Mike Spinks beat the champion and was still fighting. He was the man until he retired or was beaten.

I agree 100 % with that, Marvis Frazier Was not exactly a slouch of no kind! So real Exhibitions ALI-COOPMANS, ALI-DUNN, ALI-EVANGELISTA, FRAZIER-DANIELS, FRAZIER-STANDER, FRAZIER-ZYGLEWICZ, FOREMAN-ROMAN were all "title fights?

All champs have had money making fights. I don't mind that as long as they are taking on the top contenders too.

Ezzard wrote:All champs have had money making fights. I don't mind that as long as they are taking on the top contenders too.

yes ALI TOOK ON THE WHOS WHO OF EVERYBODY AT EVERYTIME SOME TWO OR THREE TIMES

I just don't think that the belts in that case were the "deciders".

He was the champ, he fought, he won, it was recorded as a pro fight.

Thus.... the genuine Championship defended

on a tech note, the WBC strap.... was not defended.

But who cares about that?

Buzz hits the bullseye

Yes, the WBA couldn't wait to find excuses to srtip Ali of their belt TWICE but it didn't matter - they are just a sanctioning body and he was still lineal champion 'the man who beat the man'. If we're talking sanctioning bodies well the WBC, Ring Magazine, the EBU and the BBBC etc all continued to recognise him as champion until he announced his retirement on February 3rd 1970 - even then the 'Ring' continued to recognise him until he lost to Joe Frazier.

^^^^^MORE PROOF of the "DUMB LINE" Ring magazine has ALWAYS brought forward w/THEIR IDEAS of who owns what!

ImranSarwar wrote:Yes, the WBA couldn't wait to find excuses to srtip Ali of their belt TWICE but it didn't matter - they are just a sanctioning body and he was still lineal champion 'the man who beat the man'. If we're talking sanctioning bodies well the WBC, Ring Magazine, the EBU and the BBBC etc all continued to recognise him as champion until he announced his retirement on February 3rd 1970 - even then the 'Ring' continued to recognise him until he lost to Joe Frazier.

^^^^^MORE PROOF of the "DUMB LINE" Ring magazine has ALWAYS brought forward w/THEIR IDEAS of who owns what!

3/15/70 Joe Frazier WAS Champion for Ring Magazine. THEY CHANGED HISTORY NOW AND SAY NO!-Even the Ring record books had Frazier from 2/16/70 to his loss to Foreman in 1973. the Ratings clearly Show Frazier, however I agree Ali beat them all and was the Champion. I consider Joe from 2/16/70 only because Ali relinquished the title then.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I only credit him as having 19, but there are some who say 20 due to his claim to lineage. But that doesn't hold much water with me. You're either holding a title or you're not. And defending a belt has just as much to do with being champion as winning it.

That is drunken all right! Belts are meaningless ---Holmes was Champ case closed!! WBC WBA WBeverything---Defending belts when there are several does not make a champ!! Common Sense!!

ThatOne wrote:One time Marvis and Joe Frazier were on the Howard Stern show. It was a riot. Marvis said that when Tyson rocked him and the ref asked him if he was okay he was so dazed he said "mommy, can I get off the potty now?" At the time Tyson still had the aura of invincibility and Howard asked Joe how he would beat Tyson and Joe said "hit him back." I took that to mean Joe believed many of Tyson's opponents were cowed by him and he wouldn't be.

Marvis Frazier is a really cool guy & very charismatic when he wants to be.

Also, in respect of hitting Tyson back, I remember seeing someone (query who) ask James Toney, "how do you beat Mike Tyson?" & Toney said, "hit the fu**er back!"

Unless the bout is billed as an exhibition, every time a heavyweight champion steps in the ring it is a title fight.

Typically, lighter-weight champs can get away with it by fighting in over-the-weight bouts. A welterweight champ, for instance, won't lose his title if he loses a fight at junior middleweight - because he and his opponent didn't weigh below 147.

Since there is no weight limit at heavyweight, you can't fight over-the-weight bouts. So Holmes-Frazier was a title defense.

Dubblechin wrote:Unless the bout is billed as an exhibition, every time a heavyweight champion steps in the ring it is a title fight.

Typically, lighter-weight champs can get away with it by fighting in over-the-weight bouts. A welterweight champ, for instance, won't lose his title if he loses a fight at junior middleweight - because he and his opponent didn't weigh below 147.

Since there is no weight limit at heavyweight, you can't fight over-the-weight bouts. So Holmes-Frazier was a title defense.

So Joe Louis had 26 defences then

knockouts67 wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I only credit him as having 19, but there are some who say 20 due to his claim to lineage. But that doesn't hold much water with me. You're either holding a title or you're not. And defending a belt has just as much to do with being champion as winning it.

That is drunken all right! Belts are meaningless ---Holmes was Champ case closed!! WBC WBA WBeverything---Defending belts when there are several does not make a champ!! Common Sense!!

It depends on which side of the argument you're on. Some people think that a man is champion until he loses the title in the ring regardless of getting stripped of a belt. some people feel that for a bout to be a title bout there needs to be some sort of sanctioning belt on the line. there have been lots of champions who have fought in non title fights. Holmes vs Frazier was probably billed as a title bout to sell tickets. But there was no actual belt on the line.

Because it was for the Ring title that Larry had. If the ridiculously NYSAC sanctioned 4 round exhibition fight between Joe Louis and Johnny Davis can be counted as a title fight then surely the 12 round Holmes vs M. Frazier can.

1112273 wrote: ↑12 Oct 2022, 13:08 Because it was for the Ring title that Larry had.

You sure about that? I thought the Ring champions were out of commission then.