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

Hold on, didn't you little jackass just tell us Wlad ducked Toney. Now all of a sudden Toney chose to talk away from a Wlad fight as a "business decision". So what was it: Wlad ducking Toney or Toney not interested in Wlad fight? :deal

 

A stronger resume, or better wins?

Some of Wlad's opponents may have dominated Larry's opponents easily.

Likewise, some of Larry's opponents would have dominated Wlad's opponents easily.

Also, some of Larry's opponents could have beaten Wlad.

 

:good

 

I posted my results. There are many more of Wlad's opponents that beat Larrys.

None of Larry's opposition is coming anywhere near a W against Wlad.

Larry's best opponent wouldn't beat the best 2 guys Wlad has beat.

 

NONE of Larry's opponents would have had a chance to beat Wlad?

So Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield wouldn't have had a chance?


What are Wlad's best wins? Haye, Povetkin and Byrd.

So Tyson, Holyfield, Spinks and Norton couldn't have beaten them?


Really?

 

1. Wlad's stats are truly great. But again, statistics don't allow for circumstances. Could Wlad have dominated for ten years, in earlier eras? IMHO, no.

2. Sam Peter was a strong guy, but he wasn't a great fighter. Many greats of the past could have handled him.

3. With regards to Tyson, forget the word prime. When Douglas beat him, he wasn't at his best. A fighter can't be at his best, if he's not physically and mentally at 100%.

4. Why is it funny to suggest that Wlad could be beaten? He's been beaten before, and he's never beaten a great fighter.

5. Manny has not made him unbeatable. Maybe in this weak era, but he wouldn't be unbeatable in stronger eras.

6. There's a number of fighters from the past who would have had a shot at beating him.


By the way, where are you from?


:good

 

Those are great statistics, that need to be respected.

He could well finish in most people's top 3-5 when he retires.

But there's an awful lot of factors that need to be taken into consideration, before rating a guy.

Of course it's all subjective, but as well as all of the positives, there's also negatives that could affect his standing.

1. He's lost three times, to fighters who weren't great.

2. He was in his 20's at the time, so he wasn't a baby.

3. The era of his losses, was a stronger era than today.

4. For whatever reason, he didn't avenge all of his losses.

5. He's never beaten any ATG's.

6. This is one of the weakest eras in a long time.


Those factors could well affect his standing.

But I think he'll definitely be classed as a top 5-10 HW after he's retired.

 

Wlad is 4-0 against Haye, Povetkin, and Byrd.

Holmes is 1-4 against Tyson, Holyfield, Spinks, and Norton.

I really fail to see the point your are trying to make here.

 

Lol

 

Wlad's best wins are better than Holmes' best wins. You could argue that old Norton, which Holmes barely defeated, was better than Byrd, Haye or Povetkin. But Norton lost against worse fighters and could lose against any of them.

I consider Haye better than Spinks. Michael had a poorer campaign at heavyweight.

But Tyson and Holyfield are obviously greats and better than any of Wlad's wins. They both BEAT (old) Holmes, it wasn't the other way around. My point remains: Wlad's wins are better than Holmes' wins.

 

This was some Serious hating by Holmes but Holmes would picked Wlad apart and stopped him in his prime

 

Wlad would be destroyed by prime Holmes. If you think otherwise you live in la la land

 

1. Holmes lose 6 times, and avenge non. Tyson lose 6 times and avenge non. Ali lose 5 time, avenge 3 of them. Joe Louis which is in many number 1-2 ATG list, lose 3 times, and avenge only 1.

You are talking how Tyson, Holmes and so on wasnt in their prime at the time they lose, but thats can be easy seen as excuse, and you like it or not, thats their fault.
They was also not only beaten, they was replaced. Wlad was beat, but that didnt crush him, but makes him better.
At Wlads age most of them was garbage.
So no matter how you look it, its better to lose in yours 20s, then your early or mid 30, cause you will be finish.
Wlad have 66 matches, which mean, more chance of losing. Every match is a chance of losing.
Its id*** to speak about prime, and then come and say how WLad lose 3 times. You are founding all type of excuses for other guys loses, why not look at Wlad loses and not say, loss vs Purrity was du to overpunching himself, Brewster was strange as hell, but Wlad never goes down in the match, he was hit after the bell and still was getting up, but referee end the match. And its probably normal how he run out of gass for a minutes ....
You found and excuse for everything, found one and for Sanders lose? Wlad wasn`t rdy, they was looking for other opponent, match was failing, and Corrie comes and Wlad wasnt prepare good, and was take the match lightly and his camp did not explore Sanders games.
Everyone can have bad night, and when you have one and you are not prepared you get KTFO. The things is what Klitschko do after this match, he didnt surrender, he was fighting, no matter all say his career is over, he change team, trainer, training methods, all.
He is the real deal, and everyone who not admit that is purely hater.
So dude why not find such and excuse for Wlad, like you doing it for everyone else?
4. For whatever reason Sanders drop the belt from Wlad and decide to go against his brother. What can Wlad do about it. Later he was champ, Sanders was done and was fighting low opposition and was very down in rating, Wlad can do nothing about it.
Purrity team refuse to give Wlad rematch.
5. He cant beat ATG, simply because he have all(except 1) belts in the game, so no one can become ATG, unless they beat him, but he is that good, that no one can beat him, even at 39 years old.
6. No its not. The era is pretty good and have all round and type of 240-250lbs fighters.
Speed is at top level, boxer are stronger, have better defence, technique, tactic, better training and camps, better nutrition, probably better roids and so on. Now one shot is enough to end the fight.
People are talking how Haye wasnt HW, but Cruiserweight, thats just WOW if you look at him, 1,91 with 1,98 reach and he is 210-215pounds.
A lot of past guys, would not be a HW in nowdays ....
Thats how the game is change.
And thats not only my words, even Tyson admit it.

 

you are talking about losses generally sustained during the wind down to or coming out of retirement.

larry was fighting for fun after getting beat by spinks.

wlads were prime, and to journeymen. and verybad losses too, getting destroyed in single figure rounds.

 

Thats not my problem. Record still stay. Lose is a lose, no matter if its prime or not.
Only complete idiot can say Wlad was prime in his lost against Sanders.