Larry Holmes: Klitschko has no jab, no heart and would be beaten by Wilder or Stivern

Klitschko would beat Holmes H2H. Too powerful, with too large a range of punches. Holmes simply doesn't hit hard enough to force Klitschko to change his game. Wlad, on the other hand, hits hard enough to loosen Holmes' jock strap. I reckon Larry may have seen the end bell, because he was a hard-ass, but he'd have been a mess.

It's not true that Wlad has no heart. He's been knocked down before and gotten up to win. Against Sanders even after the 4th knockdown, he was trying to get up and fight. His chin may be average but his heart is all right.

 

We are talking Prime Larry Holmes.The 1978-1980 verson.

That Holmes had more speed, workrate, better movement, better chin, more heart, better inside fighter, better condition, etc you name it

WLad has more power, better height and reach, was stronger, better left hook.

 

Its fun how Klitschko workrate, movement and speed is underrated.
One big thing i got to say about Klitschko. He was beat - yeah, but he learn from his loses and was never replaced, he was always a factor, and 10 years after is one of the most dominant champion ever.
Holmes, Tyson, Holy and a lot of guys was simply beat and replaced by better fighters.

 

Even assuming that what the Blade says is true, Klitschko's style is wrong for Holmes. Kind of hard to out jab an excellent jabber who has a reach advantage and a power advantage on you. And as for the inside game, Wlad would give Holmes the huggie bear treatment (yeah, it sucks, I know) and sap that vaunted endurance right away.

Obviously we are just speculating here, but 'on paper' and just going by what I have seen from the two fighters, I'd be pretty comfortable putting cash on Wlad for this fight.

 

brb points are correct, or atleast the most, but he forget power and speed, which i both give to Klitschko.
Speed is arguably, cause one can say Klitschko is faster, other can say that Holmes is faster.

 

Agreed that stylewise this ain't easy for Larry.

I see Wlad being ahead after 6 rounds.Larry would pull out a hard fought close 12 round decision.

Larrys movement and speed would be the deciding factor.

 

Would be a sweet fight to watch

 

You don't know what he'd have done in today's era. Nobody does.

But if you took the 80's, HW version of him, and put him in today's top 20, then I'm sure he'd do okay.

How on earth wouldn't he have been able to earn a paycheck at HW?

Just what HW's are you looking at today?

I swear we must be looking at different fighters.

Arreola, Pulev, Cunnngham and Chisora are earning pay checks.

A HW version of Spinks would be one of the better fighters in the division.

Today's top 20 is weak.

Also, I'm still waiting for all these names that would have beaten the absolute sh*t out of him.

 

Historians do rate Holmes highly.

Wlad is currently dominating one of the weakest HW era's.

If a 1988 version of Mike was fighting today, he could have destroyed Wlad.

It's just circumstances.

 

I'd say Tyson would do a lot better than Holmes against Wlad, stylistically speaking

 

I doubt Tyson would get near at Klitschko, and if he do, he will fail to a clinch, against 30-40lbs heavier guy.
If Douglas can beat a prime Tyson, Klitschko sure can . And guess what punching power of Douglas, cant be compared to Klitschko one. Tyson will feel every shots Klitschko fire.
I dont see how 22-23 years Tyson could beat Klitschko in his period of 2007-2012.

 

surely prime klitschko has best chance, not faded old one.

 

You can't just say 'besides Holmes, Spinks never beat a good heavyweight'

Because:

1. Holmes was a great fighter.

2. Spinks only had 5 fights at the weight.


So you've not got a lot of fights to choose from.

But although he only had 5 fights at the weight, it was still enough to show that he was a very good fighter.

 

lordlosh,

Nobody is arguing, and it's a great debate. :good

Again, I've no problem with you saying that you think Wlad would have beaten Holmes.

My only issue, was that you said Larry could never have beaten Wlad in this life, and your opinions were based on him losing to Spinks and Tyson.

But that wasn't being objective.

As a whole, the HW's of today, are no better than they were 20-30 years ago.

The best fighters of the 80's and 90's were better than today's guys.


With regards to Foreman and Ali, George was only young. He was only 24, and he'd blasted everyone out. He thought he could simply overpower Ali.

But put any version of Foreman in today's era, and he'd cause lots of guys problems.

Boxing simply doesn't evolve, in the same way as other sports have.

Today we have huge advancements in sports science, nutrition, and training equipment and facilities etc. But they can only help a fighter so much.

A hook is still a hook.

A body shot, is still a body shot.

Just because fighters today are bigger and stronger, it doesn't mean that they're all-round better fighters with more skills.

Again, compare today's top 20, with the HW's of the 80's.

That's a gap of 30 years.

As a whole, today's guys are no better.

Make two lists, and see for yourself.

If boxing evolved over time, and it kept evolving every decade or so, then that would mean that today's fighters across all weight classes, were the best fighters of all time.

But that's clearly not the case.

List the best fighters of the 80's, across all weight divisions.

List the best fighters of the 90's, across all weight divisions.

Then list all of today's best fighters, across all weight divisions.

You'll see that today's fighters aren't as good, as a whole.

The weight only becomes a big factor, if there's also a big disparity in skills.

 

You can't just say that Wlad was more skilled, based solely on the fact that he went to the Olympics and Larry didn't.

With regards to heart, Wlad only avenged one of his three defeats.

I don't think many will agree that Wlad has a better jab.

Also, Wlad doesn't show a great deal of variety.