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

lordlosh,

Leon Spinks is a poor example.

Ken Norton, Larry Holmes etc would be two of the best fighters in today's division along with Wlad. We've just seen Stiverne vs Wilder fight for one of the titles.

You could throw the 70's HW's into today's mix also.

The best HW's of today, are no better than the best HW's of the 70's, IMHO.

No, because we know Mike wasn't fully fit and focused even before he entered the ring against Douglas.

Mike was going downhill before he even fought Douglas.

That's nobody else's fault, but it's true.

His love of boxing and trying to emulate the greats of the past, was replaced by money and women, to massage his ego and to fund his crazy life style.

When Rooney and Cayton went, and King and the money came, he'd lost his focus, and his will to train and better himself.

:good

Yes, it's been said before.

But you're not telling me that there's an insane gap between today's guys, and guys of the past.

Of course, but it's better for your legacy if you go back and avenge the defeats.

It doesn't alter what happened initially, but it's better than not avenging them.

Lennox's legacy would have suffered without beating McCall and Rahman.

I'm glad Wlad settled the score with Brewster and beat Byrd after the Byrd vs Vitali fight.

:good

 

I wondered where you were from.

Your English is great!

:good

 

My initial point was to prove that as a whole, today's HW's aren't better than the HW's of years ago.

There isn't an insane gap.

You can say that Chag/Povetkin are better, that's fine.

I can also do that by comparing the likes of Pulev and Arreola to guys from the past.

Again, you can chose whatever period you want.

The only reason why I did 2005-2015, is because it's obviously 2015 today, and we're only half way through the decade.

But if you want me to be specific, I'll say this:

Wlad's been dominant for 10-11 years. But during that period of 2004-2015, the fighters as a whole, haven't been as strong as in previous eras.

IMHO, Wlad would not have gone ten years undefeated in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

I think he's dominant today, because he's a great fighter, but also because his competition isn't that great.

 

Marius Wach versus Randall "Tex" Cobb, who wins?:think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aoMdr7mPSU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyV0WViIX_g

 

Don't go down that road, we'll be here all month, throwing fights back and forth.

 

Again we are talking the same s**** all over again.
I get your point, but thats your opinion and i cant agree with it.

I also dont see a guy from 70, who can be at today best level or at Lennox Lewis time.
You dont get it, arent you? As much as you dont want it, todays guy is still fast, but they have better defence, they are not open as past guys(70 for example) and they are better prepared. They probably do more sparr and examine figthers betters, as well as nutrition, training is also imrpoved and they are supperior in tactics as well.
You can dream as much as you want that under a 200lbs guy will be competive now, but it wont be. You dont get how hard is to fight someone who is taller then you, and he is fast and outweight you by 40-50 pounds of muscle. In the same time this guy possess tremendous skills and movement.

And for Tyson, you make a thread before his fight with Douglas and in that thread you say how Tyson is not 100% rdy and would probably lose the match? No, right ? Then this is id**** excuses.
Or you probably watch too much Tyson movies .... Movies is 1 thing, reality is other.
Prime Tyson lose it, weather you like it or not. He was beaten. And guess what you are as good, as your opponent allow you. Thats what happen to Tyson, not something else, all other thing is b*** excuses.
Still you can say as much as you want that he was not prime and blq, blq, blq, that just dosnt matter.
Klitschko father was dying in hospital when he fought with Haye, but he still win it right ? Klitschko beat the living s**** out of Wach, and you know who die before that match.
So how id*** would be if Klitschko lose that match and we starting to make excuses for him, that he is not in his prime, du to idii*** excuses.

And for ATG list dude, everyone have their opinion and that's a personal type of view.

 

No, you specifically listed "Holmes' era" "Wlad's era" and misrepresented both.

No worse than the period of fighters that Holmes ruled over from 78-85. Which is why Butch's contrast of both men's title challengers was spot on and more telling in this discussion. It would appear that regardless of "era", Wlad has defended the title against equal or better competition overall.

 

lordlosh,

There's some guys today that are better technically and have a better defence that HW's of the past, yes.

But as a whole, there is not some insane gap.

Why are they superior in tactics and better prepared?

Again, you are generalising.

Did you not see Arreola vs Stiverne for example?

If you transported some of the HW's from the 70's, and put them in today's mix, they'd cause havoc.

I never said I thought he would lose. I was only ten at the time.

What I'm saying is, Mike wasn't fully fit and focused for the fight. If he had've been, and he'd have fought to his full capabilities, Douglas may still have beaten him. But Mike wasn't prime. Again, you're just looking at his age.

Again, Douglas might have beaten him regardless. But he wasn't fighting to his full capabilities that night. Not just because Douglas wouldn't let him, but because of Givens, King and not training properly etc.

That's fine. Everyone is different. Douglas's Mum passed away just before he fought Mike, and he used that as a positive. He had a will of iron that night.

:good

 

We're going around in circles.

I mentioned Holmes's era, because this thread is regarding Holmes.

But I could have used other examples.

And it's ok you saying 'it's not fair to compare whole decades to the present day' but again, I was replying to losh.

He said there was an insane gap between fighters of today, and fighters of the past.

In some cases, yes. But as a whole, no.

The way he talks, is that no guy from the 70's would stand a chance against a guy of today, because today's guys are far superior.

 

How could Holmes' era be better than today when an entire segment of the World, was not even allowed to compete?

 

presupposing that including a region raises the competition, presumes that region has better competition.

personally I'd not claim it works either way without some evidence.

 

Yeah, yeah Tyson fans, he was prime when winning, in 1 moment he was outboxed by Douglas and was not in his prime. You can say it as much as you wont, but he still lost in his prime.
You cant know what was his physical and mental condition. He can say he was not at 100% ready, but that is just a s*** excuses. If he was not ready, he should not fight, thats the main line.

 

Glass jawed Michael Spinks would get destroyed by Tyson Fury for Christs sakes. Wilder would take his head clean off. K brothers would murder him and goto jail for assault and battery.

 

That is some ****. Ever heard of Goerge Foreman.

Norton, Frazier Ali all beat up your boy Wlad.

Wlad only fights bums

 

What about glass jaw Wlad