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

larry holmes would never lose to lamon brewster/ross purrity and corrie sanders==== ever

 

That's probably because Holmes did not turn pro until age 24, Wlad was WBO champ at 24, fighting seasoned fighters. Holmes never came up against anyone as good as Brewster or Sanders coming up.

 

While Holmes had good reach, I disagree. Wlad is the taller man and he jabs as he moves, using his step-in to increase his range.

 

Because he was losing to Spinksy (twice).

 

I rewatched a couple of Holmes fights just to give your argument a fair chance, but you're clearly wrong.

One of Holmes better points is an excellent sense of distance. He moves so his opponent stays just barely out of reach, then move in when it suits him. That way he can dictate the pace. His jab is quick, frequent, snappy and he puts his shoulder into it and leans a bit forward, so it extends well.

But it doesn't seem noteable faster than Wlads, and unlike Wlad he doesn't feint with it or double it up. Wlad is also lighter on his feets and has the same ability to judge distance. The angle of the punches is worth consideration as well. Unless Holmes plan on impressing the judges by jabbing against Wlads chest, he must punch upwards. Wlad on the other side merely needs to extend his arm to firmly plant his glove in Holmes face. There is no way Holmes would win a war of jabs with Wlad. He would get caught by the jab over the top over and over again.

And Holmes favourite right hand shot is the hook. He wouldn't reach Wlad with it, but Wlads thunderbolt right cross surely reaches him.

Holmes get eaten alive on the outside. That's what there is to it.

 

No body punching? Byrd 1 and Peter 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2zB9qmsvQ

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Wladimir+Klitschko+Sam+Peter+1

 

People said Byrd would make an utter clown of Robotko too:smooch before they fought.

BTW, you call a guy who can do this "Robotko"???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF8dcFvMEJs

 

a hook jab ....lol .....

 

tell wlad to go fight roy tiger williams on 10 days notice .....and get back to me ...
**** wlad was scared **** less of darvl touch of sleep williamson after tasting the deck a few times / larry holmes would never get decked by a cruiserweight built darvyl sleep williamson

 

he was past his prime but at least even loosing he didnt hit the deck like wlad did

 

When Holmes was 23, in 1972, a year before going pro, he was STOPPED twice, once in three rounds, and in the next meeting in one round by amateur Nick Wells. I think you should STFU to be honest. Holmes would have his ass handed to him by Brewster and Sanders when a young gun.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Nick_Wells

Holmes didn't like southpaws, eh, imagine 03 Sanders on him early in his career.

"By 1972, I'd won several eastern titles and was invited to Minnesota to compete in a tournament that was said to figure heavily in the selection of the U.S. boxing team. I made it all the way to the finals there, only to run up against a left-handed slugger named Nick Wells. It was the first time I'd fought a lefty. It threw my reactions off. I was hesitant and ended up being an easy target for Wells, who had good power. Good enough to give me the worst beating of my career and stop me in the third round. My first-ever defeat. The way things unfolded, I had another opportunity against Wells in a later tournament in Texas. This time I managed to find left-handed sparring partners to get ready for him. Guess what? It didn't matter. Not one bit. That guy Wells had my number, and he beat me again. Badly."

 

This isn't a response my post, this is someone having a breakdown as they are typing. The occasional typo is fine, we all do it, but I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.

I will address "try using Holmes prime" I wasn't the one who brought Tyson, Holyfield, and Spinks. Take it up with the other guy.

But I have no idea what this means...

"Holmes/Povetkin gets his ass kicked by Holmes"?


"Byrd also..and one punch at a time Haye would get beaten"

 

lordlosh,

I'm really enjoying this debate.

But you seem to be getting a little defensive. Although there's no need to, Wlad's a great fighter, and he has my respect.

But I'm just pointing out certain aspects of his career that may affect his standing when he retires.

When an*lysing any fighters career, you have to be fair and use the exact same criteria.

Now what you've wrote above, is very true.

But statistics don't allow for circumstances.


Tyson's losses to Douglas and Holyfield hurt his overall ranking. But his losses to Lewis, Williams and McBride don't. Because everybody knew that he was shot by then. But although Douglas and Holyfield both beat him, Douglas was a very good fighter on his day, and Holyfield was a great fighter. Mike didn't even need to try and avenge those last three defeats, because they weren't important.

Holmes lost to Spinks and Tyson, but those losses aren't as damaging as Wlad's. Because the Spinks defeats were close, controversial fights, and he was 38, and had been inactive when he fought Mike at the peak of his powers. His other defeats came when he was past his best, fighting into his 40's. So they aren't really damaging to him.

Ali lost to Frazier, but he'd been inactive, and Frazier was a very good-great fighter. He also lost to Ken Norton, but that was on an SD in a close fight, and Norton was a good fighter. But Ali beat Frazier and Norton over a series of fights. His last three losses to Leon Spinks, Holmes and Berbick, don't mean anything. Those losses didn't damage his legacy and affect his overall ranking in any way. Because everyone knows that he should never have been fighting at that point.

Joe Louis's loss to Schmeling has to be taken into account, but Schmeling was a good fighter, and Joe destroyed him in the rematch. His losses to Charles and Marciano don't really hurt his resume, because he was past his best and at the end of his career at that point.

Do you understand?

It's all about the circumstances.

Wlad's defeats hurt him a lot more than any of the fighters above. Because he was knocked out by three fighters who weren't great, and he wasn't washed up at the end of his career. He was 22, 27 and 28. For whatever reason, he only avenged one of those defeats.

Lennox Lewis was knocked out by Rahman and McCall, and those were damaging to Lennox's resume. But he avenged both of the losses.

So those defeats are going to hurt Wlad a lot.

Ross Puritty had 13 losses on his resume before he beat Wlad.

Corrie Sanders had lost to Tubbs and Rahman before he fought Wlad, and he'd been inactive for over a year, before icing Wlad in just 2 rounds.

So you have to take into account:

The level of the opponent.

The manner of the defeats.

Wlad's age, and where he was in his career at the time.


All things considered, those were bad defeats for him.

They're not excuses, but you have to make allowances, when Tyson knocked out a 38 year old, inactive Holmes while he was prime. That wasn't a crushing defeat for Larry, due to the circumstances.

I'm not making excuses for Mike, I was just pointing out that although he was young when he fought Douglas, he wasn't at his best.

How is it better to lose in your 20's, rather than your mid 30's?

You've got that the wrong way round.

I'm willing to take on board everything that you've said above. But those losses still hurt Wlad a lot, due to all of the factors that I've listed above.

Did Wlad want to rematch Sanders?

Maybe you're right, maybe circumstances meant that he couldn't avenge all of his losses. But it still hurts him nonetheless.

He's a great fighter. But he's never beaten any great fighters. If you add that to his bad defeats, and today's weak era, it will greatly affect him.

This current era is exciting, with lots of potential great fights to be made, with some colourful characters. But just list the top 20 guys at the weight. It is weak. I don't how you can argue otherwise. Go and list the best fighters of the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's, and do a comparison.

You're making a generalisation that today's HW's are better, with better techniques etc.

Which simply isn't true, as a whole.

This current crop of HW's are no better than the HW's of Holmes's era, from 30 years ago.

Today's HW's:

Wlad Kiltschko
Povetkin
Wilder
Stiverne
Fury
Pulev
Arreola
Tarver
Jennings
Solis
Chisora
Glazkov
Hammer
Cunningham
Brown
Joshua
Charr
Wach

Now are you going to tell me that the guys above, are better than the following guys, as a whole?


Mike Tyson
Pinklon Thomas
Mike Weaver
Evander Holyfield
Tim Witherspoon
Michael Spinks
Trevor Berbick
James Douglas
Greg Page
Tony Tucker
Larry Holmes
Carl Williams
Frank Bruno
Tony Tubbs
Bonecrusher Smith
Renaldo Snipes
Gerry Coetzee


:good

 

who cares if holmes got knocked down inthe amatuers....rid**** bowe got stopped by gonzales as an amatuer look what happened in the pros...mike tyson got beaten 2times by henry tillman in the amatuers= tillman got devoured as a pro....amatuers dont mean **** / ill even say this the 42 yr old holmes who beat ray mercer would also beat a prime lamon brewster ...no problem

 

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Nick_Wells


Holmes vs club southpaw. Ouch.