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

Holmes was a consistent fighter who always won but he wasn't a great athlete, a powerful puncher or a brash talker. The main reason why he never got the "respect" is because simply despite his undoubted fighting heart, he was just not that impressive. Klitschko may be boring at times but he has at least a dozen KO finishes Holmes could only dream of.

 

I'm saying that people are going to question that.


Holmes rematched Spinks.

He was obviously not going to pursue a rematch with Mike at 38.

His other losses came in his 40's, when he was past his best.


Wlad's losses came on the way up, whilst he was only in his his 20's.


There's a big difference.

Nobody would ever question why Larry didn't avenge his defeats.

 

Pretty simple stuff.

 

A guy can't be at his best, if he's not physically and mentally at 100%. As soon as Rooney and Cayton went, and King, the women and the money rolled in, Mike was on a downward spiral. If you have no sympathy, I don't blame you. Obviously, it wasn't Douglas's fault either. Mike's best years were 85-88, where he was a committed student of the game, where he trained and fought to his full capabilities, who was always looking to better himself as a fighter.

If you think Douglas would always have beaten Mike, then I can respect that. But the Tyson who rolled up in Tokyo, was not physically and mentally at 100%. His personal life was chaotic, and he hadn't trained properly. At that point, his love of boxing had faded, and he was only interested in the money to massage his ego and to fund his crazy lifestyle.

When I look at today's top 20 guys, it appears weak to me. That's not to say that it isn't exciting, with great potential fights to look forward to. But it's certainly weaker than the 80's and 90's. Could Stiverne have been a champ in those eras? Could you seriously have seen Wlad being undefeated for ten years in those decades?

 

Frazier beat Ali, but I get your point.

But my initial point was in relation to what lordlosh had said.

 

Here you are again exaggerating.

Norton wouldn't have lasted 6 mins against any of those guys?

 

Larry Holmes doesn't have the footwork to make up for Wlads reach, and it would be a stretch to say he has the edge in speed and sharpness.

He would probably get eaten alive on the outside.

 

brb,

I think a fair breakdown of each fighters skills would be fair. I've no issue with you thinking that Wlad has more overall skills, but basing it solely on the fact that he went to the Olympics and Larry didn't, is silly.

With regards to avenging their defeats, Larry didn't need to. Although he did try and avenge his defeat to Spinks.

The circumstances were completely different.

Five of Larry's losses were in his late 30's and his 40's. He didn't need to avenge those, as he was clearly past his best, in the final stretch of his career.

Wlad however, was on the way up in his 20's.

So that's a question mark against his resume.

 

I have the Kunt at 6.

 

..

 

..

 

For those who believe that WK would defeat Larry Holmes.
I ask this of you: Which parallel matchups are more impressive?

Holmes beating a 35 yr old Ken Norton to win the title
or ...
WK beating a 35 yr old Chris Byrd to win the title?

Holmes beating Earnie Shavers twice
or ...
WK beating Sam Peter twice?

Holmes' victories over Mike Weaver, Tim Witherspoon,
Carl Williams, James Smith, ****ey and Ray Mercer
easily negate any of WK title defenses.

Wlad's best wins are against Chris Byrd, David Haye,
and Alexander Povetkin. Pure sacrilege. + in those
last too he looked like cr*p in doing so.

When WK met someone as big as him with fast hands
and power he got decimated via old, fat, inactive
Corrie Sanders. And don't tell me that Wlad was too
green at the time he took his beatdown. He would get
his a** handed to him at any stage of his career by
"The Sniper."

WK can rack up title defenses like they were billiard-*****.
No matter how many he makes he will never eclipse Holmes
achievements, nor would he beat Larry in a fight.

 

Wlad was certainly more dominant in dispatching the aging contender. 35 year old Norton took Larry to the limit in a razor close fight.

They are about equal. Shavers and Peter were both crude guys who flashed technical ability but were never consistent. Both had subpar stamina, Shavers hit harder with both hands but Peter was more durable, equal trade off.

I think Povetkin, Haye, Spoon, Weaver, Mercer, and Byrd are on the level on their best night, give or take. I don't think he looked like ****, I think the Haye fight is if anything, a fantastic showcase of Wlad's mobility, handspeed, and ring IQ. Coney and Bonecrusher don't belong in this grouping, both were limited punchers that earned their best wins over vulnerable fighters that favored their style, neither man had long term success.

I'm not going to hold the Sanders loss against Wlad, when it was so long ago before he changed trainers and completely revamped his style and training methods. Even if what you said was true, how many fighters in history have been as large as Wlad with fast hands and one punch power? That's a damn rare oddity.

No matter how hard you try to make the last paragraph sound concrete, there is evidently room for debate on the matter. Both are going to be remembered as all time great heavyweight champions on roughly the same top 5-10 tier and nothing anybody on this board can do about that.

 

Let's compare world title opposition.

Beat for Title
Byrd vs. Norton

Defenses (Chronological Order)
Brock vs. Evangelista
Austin vs. Ocasio
Brewster vs. Weaver
Ibragimov vs. Shavers
Thompson vs. Zanon
Rahman vs. Jones
Chagaev vs. LeDoux
Chambers vs. Ali
Peter vs. Berbick
Haye vs. Spinks
Mormeck vs. Snipes
Thompson vs. ****ey
Wach vs. Cobb
Pianeta vs. Rodriguez
Povetkin vs. Witherspoon
Leapai vs. Frank
Pulev vs. Frazier
Jennings vs. Smith

Wlad
14

Holmes
5

 

I just compared their opposition. Wlad has a much stronger resume with the guys he has fought.

Wlad's opponents would dominate Holmes' opponents easily.