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

The difference is insane. The fighters are not that open and dont go wild and forget about defence and open themself. The defence now is on another level, same goes for tactic.

 

It was exciting to see Tyson flatten Holmes but since Tyson was during the Tyson era instead of the Holmes era, I figured it would be more logical to use fighters who were active and highly ranked when Holmes was the actual kingpin of the heavyweight division. To me it looks like Coetzee and Spinks were wild, unskilled brawlers while Povetkin and Chagaev threw noticeable shorter punches, kept their guards tight and effective and maintained their balance. Put succinctly they were much more technically superior than Holmes' competition.:hi:

 

Dino thinks they are the worst ever.:rofl

 

You seem to have some malfunction. Why are you putting Coetzee and Leon Spinks forward of top 80's HW's :huh

Maybe in Klitscho fantasty land Povetkin and Chaggy are better than:
Holyfield
Mike Spinks
Witherspoon
Douglas
Tucker
Foreman
Weaver
Dokes
Williams
Page.
Not in the real world son.

 

Coetzee was a beltholder in the 80's and why on earth are you putting Holyfield in with that group? :rofl Or Foreman for that matter he was retired during Holmes reign atsch

 

This list makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about. For example, Holyfield was a 1984 Olympian. And most of those names aren't from Holmes' era. Spinks was a light heavyweight until he took Larry's belt away from him. Douglas--Tyson era, Tucker--Tyson era, Dokes sucked, Williams robbed by judges against Holmes, Witherspoon good fighter and actually in Holmes' era but some people think he was robbed in his split decision loss to Holmes. You might as well put the legendary Tex Cobb in there:hi:

 

Dino is moron, no one cares about him. This guy should not be even here. He lost ban bet for life time. But thats show how much he know about boxing and what dumb **** he is.
Douglas is pro, cause beat Tyson, but Sanders is just a bum. :yep
If it was the other way Sanders would be a god, that would kill most of the ATG, and Douglas would be called a journeyman bum.

 

Foreman had 20 wins in the 1980's and would have knocked Chaggy out cold.

Holyfield was a top rated HW since 1988.

 

I guess Dino missed the part of the Coetzee-Spinks video that listed the top guys when Larry was king. He rejects reality and substitutes his own.

 

1980's wasn't Holms' era. His reign began in the 70's and his best opponents were from the 70's era.

Im comparing now to the 1980's era. Why could you not understand that?

 

Your prime if when you're fighting to the best of your abilities. People say Mike was prime, due to his age. But he wasn't at his best for Douglas. Likewise with Wlad. I've no issue with anyone saying that his prime was after his losses. But all I'm saying is, those losses hurt him, especially as he was (almost) 27 and 28 for the Brewster and Sanders defeats.

I agree with you.

It was actually a blessing for Wlad.

But I think it will hurt his legacy, due to the manner of the defeats and that he didn't avenge them all.

It hurts Lennox's legacy to a certain degree, that he lost to McCall and Rahman, and he never beat an ATG while prime.

I think the same will happen with Wlad.

That's correct. But you are only looking from Wlad's perspective.

Although he's a great champion, who deserves an enormous amount of respect, it doesn't change the following factors:

1. He's lost to three fighters who weren't great, and he didn't avenge all of them.

2. He's never beaten an ATG.

3. Today's era isn't as strong as previous eras.

They're great statistics.

But those statistics alone may not put him in most people's top three.

Because again, there's many factors to consider when rating someone.

Statistics don't allow for circumstances.

It's unfair to direct comparisons to Joe Louis, because there was only 1 belt per division when Joe was the champ. Whereas today, there's four.

But again, it all depends what your criteria you apply.

Wlad could end up having the best statistics on paper, out of any former HW, but he'd never be ahead of a guy like Ali in my opinion.

Because I think Ali was a better fighter, I think he'd have beaten Wlad in a fight, and he won in a much tougher era, while he was past his best.

For me, those factors outweigh the number of title defences made etc.

 

Well this is hardly objective is it?

Holmes lost two close and controversial decisions to Spinks, who proved himself to be a good HW. He wasn't merely a LHW.

So what if Tyson knocked him out at 38, after he'd been inactive?

I could debate in the same manner as you, just purely looking at the negatives.

Wlad was beaten by a guy with 13 losses on his resume.

He was beaten by Sanders who'd been inactive, in just 2 rounds. Sanders had been beaten by Tubbs and Rahman.

He was was also beaten by Brewster.

He also struggled with Williamson.

He also struggled with Sam Peter.


That doesn't look good does it?

 

Today's best HW's:

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


The best HW's of the 80's:

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


Which era was the strongest?


:good

 

Flawed and unfair misstep that you often seen in these threads.

You are comparing a present moment in time to what is literally the "Best of a Decade"

A fair contrast would be two individual years or two "Best of the Decade" round ups.

 

That sort of misleading since we are really talking about eras in terms of Holmes' respective competitors compared to Klitschko's respective competitors, not necessarily a chronological decade. Many of those names do not meet the criteria. One could even make the argument that Holyfield fits more into Klitschko's era than Holmes' era, after all, Holy fought Ibragimov and Byrd didn't he while he didn't fight Ali etc.