Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

[Wheelchair]

Holmes was a great fighter who reigned far longer than many heavyweight champions. To dismiss him is foolish, every fighter has their off nights as Holmes did, but to get to 48-0 wasn't easy, not many go undefeated for as long as Larry managed it.

[LondonRingRules]

Gerry Cooney outboxing Larry Holmes,eh? Well,you learn something new on the internet every day I guess drunk//

 

------ You don't have to learn it on a forum when you have your own two eyes and a functioning brain.

 

1. Watch the fight with a studied eye without sound. Cooney is taking the fight to Holmes and doing quite well. Holmes quickly backed off after the flash KD because Cooney recovered quickly and that was Holmes' M/O for the rest of the fight until the last couple of rounds when Cooney's form is gone.

 

2. With sound, the American commentary lauds Cooney's fight throughout the fight.

 

If you still disagree, than:

 

3. Do the math. The cards at the stoppage when a fatigued, legs shot Cooney collapsed without taking a punch: 113-111 x2 and 115-109 Add in the 3 points Cooney was deducted for low blows late in the game and Cooney is ahead in spite of the KD and losing the last couple of rounds clearly, meaning that he seems to have won most rounds while still fresh. 114-113x2 and 112-115, a split.

 

I do tire of beating up on Larry until he opens his big mouth with his latest tirade slamming all that followed him and proclaiming himself the greatest ever. He's not the master boxer he thinks as many thought a green Spoon edged him and he was horrible against Williams who was another green kid who likely would've gotten the stoppage under today's rules with Holmes' eye completely shut.

 

Hey, if someone likes the fire and grit he brought to his fights, that's great as he was clearly the best of a talented generation of slackers who worked for King and split the titles up to never unify.

 

King is still hanging on. He recently sent Suliaman into heart seizure mode and managed to queer Vitali/Adamek on the 40th anniversary of Ali/Frazier 1 in MSG, so maybe he's got a new brand of diapers and making a comeback.

 

Could be we see Vitali/Austin on the 40th anniversary.........whatever floats the WBC's boat.

[Wheelchair]

Ahem, who actually won the fight? It wasn't Holmes who lost was it. If Larry was being 'outboxed', surely it's to his credit he then won the fight?

[LondonRingRules]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

2......Cooney....... Good heart to survive the hard punching Cooney......

[Wheelchair]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

2......Cooney....... Good heart to survive the hard punching Cooney......

 

So why make such daft assertions that Holmes was no good?

 

Larry showed great heart in beating guys in hard fights, and kept on winning impressively for the most part.

 

He was a great champ, and I'm in no way a fan of his, but you can't argue with his reign.

 

Remember too that the WBA brigade of champs were constantly playing pass-the-parcel with the title. Not much incentive for Larry to get in the ring with such a sorry bunch.

 

I well remember at the time of Holmes' reign, he was seen as a class above he other pretenders, and no-one was in any doubt who the real champion was.

[donlevy]

 

------ You don't have to learn it on a forum when you have your own two eyes and a functioning brain.

 

 

 

Unlike yourself,I can watch and score this fight without any agenda.I have no reason to favour either fighter.

 

 

 

Cooney did hold his own,and he was competitive,but he sure as hell did not outbox Holmes.Anyone with two working eyes could see that Holmes won the vast majority of the rounds.

[Wheelchair]

 

------ You don't have to learn it on a forum when you have your own two eyes and a functioning brain.

 

 

 

Unlike yourself,I can watch and score this fight without any agenda.I have no reason to favour either fighter.

 

 

 

Cooney did hold his own,and he was competitive,but he sure as hell did not outbox Holmes.Anyone with two working eyes could see that Holmes won the vast majority of the rounds.

 

Agreed Don. goodp//

[WelshDevilRob]

On a slightly seperate but related question.

 

Was Don King keeping the WBA fighters away from Larry Holmes as he didn't want to risk Larry losing or was King trying to get an established rival for Holmes?

 

Obviously the WBA belt holders kept losing the belt and no one established themselves to be built into a SuperFight opponent for Holmes.

[LondonRingRules]

Hey, if someone likes the fire and grit he brought to his fights, that's great as he(Holmes) was clearly the best of a talented generation of slackers who worked for King and split the titles up to never unify.

[LondonRingRules]

Unlike yourself,I can watch and score this fight without any agenda.I have no reason to favour either fighter.

 

Cooney did hold his own,and he was competitive,but he sure as hell did not outbox Holmes.Anyone with two working eyes could see that Holmes won the vast majority of the rounds.

 

------ My friend, I did the math for any of the math illiterate showing that Cooney would've been ahead of Holmes on the ACTUAL cards but for the 3 point deductions at the point of the 13th round stoppage.

 

Two of the judges only scored 113 for Holmes, meaning there were seven 9pt losing rounds for Holmes and five 10pt rounds where he was actually declared the winner of the round assuming the scores were kept up to the 12th round, but not the 13th which would just make the scoring more egregious for Holmes.

 

My original point in responding to the thread was that Holmes was hardly the master boxer as claimed, winning 3 highly contested title decisions over fighters he should have held all the advantages over if he was a top 10 all time heavy and actually behind on the cards of his best win, Cooney but for point deductions that boosted him in the lead.

 

I also mention the American broadcast that highly praised Cooney's fight during the match.

 

Those are indisputable facts of his career you will just have to live with like Holmes can live with all his controversial wins unless you chose to be blind to reality which is a common dilemma among boxing fans, but not fatal unless the farm is bet.

 

If you wish to keep Holmes on your all time list after reviewing just a few of the facts I addressed of his career, no problem. He can never make my list for many more reasons than I elucidated for this thread, though I still rate him fairly highly, just not a boxrec #9 for example.

 

BTW, Cooney ranks 182 all time, well behind Brian London and Clarence Henry for example, so I don't put much stock in most peoples rankings with so much nonsense out there when Ring ranks him the 53rd best ever puncher, a pretty high honor.

[iamasadlittleboy]

...using official scoring? Heh if ever anything was bent.

[Wheelchair]

Who cares what Cooney did or did not do, he LOST the fight. Holmes won, and that's what counts. In the real world anyway.

[donlevy]

 

------ My friend, I did the math for any of the math illiterate showing that Cooney would've been ahead of Holmes on the ACTUAL cards but for the 3 point deductions at the point of the 13th round stoppage.

 

 

 

 

I'm well aware of the scorecards,and I think anyone who has seen that fight could tell you that the fight was scored poorly.I don't think Holmes deserved the decision over Carl Williams(if thats one of the "3 highly contested title decisions" that you were talking about.)

[Greb]

Ok folks......so if we are going to chastise "Peanut" for his challengers then we have to take prime and post-prime Ali to task, not to mention Joe Frazier and Joe Louis. Sonny Liston? He failed to do good work as a champ.

 

Takers?

 

Or perhaps an adjustment of the microscope is in order?

 

Twenty title defenses and I say that eleven were solid defenses over contenders or marquee names with too many dollars attached. The rest can be argued one way or another....but if we are going to love Louis for taking on UPS drivers and flower shop owners than we have to understand and accept the cost of doing business as Larry Holmes circa 1978-1985.

 

Now, I am no spring chicken, but I do know that all too often a fan can have his viewpoint altered by personal feelings, pro or con. Holmes had an acid tongue, at-times, and he could alienate those around him almost as quickly as a naked Roseanne Barr....but don't let that obscure the good work he did as heavyweight champ. If you want to slag on Holmes, even hate on him for not giving Spoon a rematch, so be it. But the fact remains, Spoon failed to finish the job....or at the very least, convince two of the judges.....and that was against a declining Holmes, not a 28 year-old upstart.

 

Michael Spinks? Great fighter, underrated and willing - but - he edged the flattest Holmes I have ever seen by........one point. Did Spinks deserve it. Yes. But by denigrating Holmes....you denigrate Spinks' historical achievement.

 

I'm a Holmes fan. I'm a Spinks and Spoon fan. More than that I'm a fan of boxing. I never much cared for a few of the more popular fighters of the last twenty years....but damned if I let that get in the way of appreciating how good they could be....or how bad they could be, at times. Boxing is a story line. It's about drama, both in and out of the ring, shrouded by ever-changing variables. It's a commentary on the human condition...under the microscope...for all the world to see.

 

If Holmes is a farce, if he's S**t....then so too are all of the others he dispatched...or those that failed to keep their pants up around their waist...because their belt kept....slipping away.

 

Think about that.

 

But you've still not answered.... why no Page, Dokes, Coetzee, Thomas or Tubbs? Why no rematches of his hard fights with Norton, Witherspoon and Weaver? Why no unification? Tyson unified all 3 belts in a year but Holmes didn't even try in 7 years. Why so many defences against second and third tier opposition?

 

I'm a boxing fan too. I particularly like to see the best face the best. It usually makes for a good fight and allows us to gauge how good two fighters are. Maybe you were pleased to see Holmes fighting LeDoux, Zanon etc, but I wasn't. Mismatches don't interest me and they aren't good for the sport. I'd have much preferred to see him test himself against the best fighters in the division. Whenever he did, it was usually a good fight and a hard fight for him. Yet he hardly ever did it.

 

Those fights mentioned above that Holmes missed would have been big, lucrative (and risky) fights for him and would have added more to his legacy than the fights he was taking. Fighting Evangelista and Ocasio when he could have been having a rematch with Norton does not look good. Fighting 10-0 Marvis Frazier and leaving the #1 contender Page to face Spoon who he'd just struggled with does not look good. Fighting Cobb while Weaver tackled the #1 contender Dokes does not look good.

 

These are valid questions about Holmes' career. Asking them doesn't mean I have a grudge against him as you implied. Whatever the reasons, it represents a big hole in his legacy and there is nothing comparable in the careers of Louis, Ali, Marciano or Liston.

[telboy66]

Ok folks......so if we are going to chastise "Peanut" for his challengers then we have to take prime and post-prime Ali to task, not to mention Joe Frazier and Joe Louis. Sonny Liston? He failed to do good work as a champ.

 

Takers?

 

Or perhaps an adjustment of the microscope is in order?

 

Twenty title defenses and I say that eleven were solid defenses over contenders or marquee names with too many dollars attached. The rest can be argued one way or another....but if we are going to love Louis for taking on UPS drivers and flower shop owners than we have to understand and accept the cost of doing business as Larry Holmes circa 1978-1985.

 

Now, I am no spring chicken, but I do know that all too often a fan can have his viewpoint altered by personal feelings, pro or con. Holmes had an acid tongue, at-times, and he could alienate those around him almost as quickly as a naked Roseanne Barr....but don't let that obscure the good work he did as heavyweight champ. If you want to slag on Holmes, even hate on him for not giving Spoon a rematch, so be it. But the fact remains, Spoon failed to finish the job....or at the very least, convince two of the judges.....and that was against a declining Holmes, not a 28 year-old upstart.

 

Michael Spinks? Great fighter, underrated and willing - but - he edged the flattest Holmes I have ever seen by........one point. Did Spinks deserve it. Yes. But by denigrating Holmes....you denigrate Spinks' historical achievement.

 

I'm a Holmes fan. I'm a Spinks and Spoon fan. More than that I'm a fan of boxing. I never much cared for a few of the more popular fighters of the last twenty years....but damned if I let that get in the way of appreciating how good they could be....or how bad they could be, at times. Boxing is a story line. It's about drama, both in and out of the ring, shrouded by ever-changing variables. It's a commentary on the human condition...under the microscope...for all the world to see.

 

If Holmes is a farce, if he's S**t....then so too are all of the others he dispatched...or those that failed to keep their pants up around their waist...because their belt kept....slipping away.

 

Think about that.

 

But you've still not answered.... why no Page, Dokes, Coetzee, Thomas or Tubbs? Why no rematches of his hard fights with Norton, Witherspoon and Weaver? Why no unification? Tyson unified all 3 belts in a year but Holmes didn't even try in 7 years. Why so many defences against second and third tier opposition?

 

I'm a boxing fan too. I particularly like to see the best face the best. It usually makes for a good fight and allows us to gauge how good two fighters are. Maybe you were pleased to see Holmes fighting LeDoux, Zanon etc, but I wasn't. Mismatches don't interest me and they aren't good for the sport. I'd have much preferred to see him test himself against the best fighters in the division. Whenever he did, it was usually a good fight and a hard fight for him. Yet he hardly ever did it.

 

Those fights mentioned above that Holmes missed would have been big, lucrative (and risky) fights for him and would have added more to his legacy than the fights he was taking. Fighting Evangelista and Ocasio when he could have been having a rematch with Norton does not look good. Fighting 10-0 Marvis Frazier and leaving the #1 contender Page to face Spoon who he'd just struggled with does not look good. Fighting Cobb while Weaver tackled the #1 contender Dokes does not look good.

 

These are valid questions about Holmes' career. Asking them doesn't mean I have a grudge against him as you implied. Whatever the reasons, it represents a big hole in his legacy and there is nothing comparable in the careers of Louis, Ali, Marciano or Liston.

 

 

Two brilliant posts guys that's exactly what makes this forum the tops, discussions on past champs will always cause controversy there are very few champ that haven't picked up easy change when the opportunity arose & who could blame them it's a short career & the way they get milked by managers & promoters doesn't leave much in the pot

[davemurphy]

On a slightly seperate but related question.

 

Was Don King keeping the WBA fighters away from Larry Holmes as he didn't want to risk Larry losing or was King trying to get an established rival for Holmes?

 

Obviously the WBA belt holders kept losing the belt and no one established themselves to be built into a SuperFight opponent for Holmes.

 

Rob-

You kind of answered your own question, they couldn't hold onto it long enough to build up momentum for a Holmes fight. The only one I thought came close was Pinklon Thomas, where negotiations after he beat Weaver were really in the serious stages....but then it was HOLMES that went out and lost to Spinks three months later. Thomas then went out and dropped his title the next spring to Berbick and Holmes followed up with a repeat loss to Spinks and that put that one to rest.

[WelshDevilRob]

Rocky Marciano often gets criticised for his opposition as does wladimir Klitschko and in both cases fairly IMO. Holmes is another - nice long list but should have been so much better.

[fonso]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

Earnie Shavers,Gerry Cooney,Mike Weaver

[Zute]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

I would say Trevor Berbick, Tim Witherspoon and Cooney. Holmes is my all time favorite heavy and I could talk about his title reign all night long. Shavers was a guy Holmes already handled and he did have that one huge moment w knocking Larry down, I would rate him a tad below the three I have. Weaver was considered nothing going into the Holmes fight and of course became a guy to be reckoned with during the early 80's, he is a good choice too. The Cooney fight has to be there because of all the hype/pressure going into that fight. besides, Cooney was pretty good that night and would have been champion if Larry was not so sharp/tough. Larry had some stiffs on his record, but i would put Leroy Jones against Tony Galento and Scott Ledux against Johnnie Paycheck ;-)

[Zute]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

I remember the Homes- Coetezee fight actually being made, but fell apart for reasons I do not remember, perhaps you guys could help me with that. But I know I saw MAGAZINES with that fight made. I love Holmes, but think it is perfectly fair to hold not fighting at least one of these guys Page, Thomas, Dokes etc Page was the one guy I think he could have fought more than once, and simply did not. I think in like 84, he could have fought him instead of Bey. he is still my favorite and wish at least one of those fight happened so it cannot be used against him.

[Zute]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

I would also like to point out that Tex Cobb, considered by many to be one of those bums, did give guys like Dokes and Norton trouble and beat Shavers. Just because he couldn't touch Larry he is a bumb

[LondonRingRules]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

I remember the Homes- Coetezee fight actually being made, but fell apart for reasons I do not remember, perhaps you guys could help me with that. But I know I saw MAGAZINES with that fight made. I love Holmes, but think it is perfectly fair to hold not fighting at least one of these guys Page, Thomas, Dokes etc Page was the one guy I think he could have fought more than once, and simply did not. I think in like 84, he could have fought him instead of Bey. he is still my favorite and wish at least one of those fight happened so it cannot be used against him.

 

---- Coatzee well might have fought Holmes early on if he hadn't been robbed against Snipes. Typical Don King move to funnel the weak "winner" in to fight the champion to make it appear more competitive.

 

I know Holmes turned down the biggest money fight of his career against Coatzee, more than he got against Cooney because Coatzee wasn't trying to claim it all. John Tate took that fight instead. Holmes gave some phony apartheid reason as if Gerrie was responsible for that reprehensible policy. Gerrie started in the black townships against many black fighters and was quite popular for that reason. Then a few other deals fell apart.

 

I get tired of beating up on Holmes until he opens his stupid mouth to badmouth heavies better than him that he was jealous of. In a nutshell, he never held more than 50% of the belts, and later just 33%, he was instrumental in splitting the belts further, and he has a losing record against actual champions that he did fight. That Tyson cleaned up his era so easily in just 3 years shows so much more class over the venal Holmes that I just don't get his accolades. Yeah, great jab, a vicious fighter with loads of heart in life and death thrilling bouts, but I was always wondering why he was fighting Ledoux or Rodriguez when the talented WBA heavies were busing fighting each other and knocking each other off the throne.

[Zute]

Re: Larry Holmes - Who Were His Three Best Challengers?

 

I thought the fight was made after that Snipes fight then fell apart like 84ish