Larry Holmes Versus Vitali Klitschko

After Holmes, Norton lost focus and partied when he wanted to,he put up a hell of a fight against Holmes as good as he ever performed imo.
The Cooney loss was 3 years later in Norton's last fight.

 

The fact that you include Briggs in your list of Vitali's competitive opposition is telling.

 

Norton had an all time great skill-set but had weaknesses. . He's a nightmare for boxer types with his speed , punching angles and herky-jerky movement. He gave Ali absolute hell 3 times.
Its fair to say he was never the same after that 15 round war with Larry.

Produce a name better than Norton that was beaten by Vitali.
Produce a name better than Witherspoon, Carl Williams , Ernie Shavers , Jerry Cooney , Mike Weaver.

Vitali's resume is closer the to post Tyson loss , grandfather years of Larry Holmes than his prime years.

 

Closer but, then again, Vitali doesn't even have a win on the level of Mercer on his ledger.

 

And Kevin Johnson his record was 36-22 which is a journeyman type record.

I don't think either of those names he mentioned being are as good as Tim Witherspoon.

As I said nothing wrong with him believing Vitali would win even though I disagree, it's the fact hes just focusing on all the negatives of Holmes's resume and not Vitali's.

I mean mentioning a 40 year old asthmatic Briggs, 36-22 Kevin Johnson, and a 260 pound Kirk Johnson, as good wins. Yet Holmes's wins over Witherspoon, Norton, Berbick, Shavers, aren't good wins according to him is just being biased.

 

Holmes by UD or late stoppage. One of those opponents where I think Wlad matches up hitter than Vitali.

 

Oh, for sure. He's been called out on the bias from the outset. But, then again, when one is so comfortable putting rouge on a corpse, you have to wonder whether they genuinely believe Vitali's ledger is flawless.

Kirk Johnson's best win is probably Ol-egg shell Maskaev, three years and 30lbs prior to getting in the ring with Vitali.
Kevin Johnson's best win is probably a 41 year old Bruce Seldon.

Briggs shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a Championship ring. His best win against an ancient Foreman (with a decision most people dispute) was almost 13 years before getting his undeserved shot at Vitali.

There's not a lot to be said in response to these guys being compared to Shavers, Norton, Berbick and Witherspoon.

 

This would have been very very tough for Holmes but I see him winning a competitive decision. He’s a top 5 ATG heavyweight for me and I think there’s only a handful of guys who would beat him at his best.

 

No the point is Holmes has a better resume than Vitali.

 

Why Briggs had only lost one fight in his last 17 and although he took a severe beating from the past prime Vitali, I can see that Briggs easily beating the likes of 14 fight David Bey, (who lost 12 of his next 16 fights from Holmes on.

I could also see Briggs beating Cobb, Smith, Frazier, Williams, Rodriguez, Leon Spinks, Zanon, Ledoux, Ocasio, Leroy Jones and others.

Holmes fought a sorry bunch.

 

fought Holmes 6/09/78, LSD close fight

Ko'd in 1 by Earnie Shavers 3/23/79 - 9 months later

controversial draw with Scott Ledoux 8/19/79 dropped 2X, 14 months after Holmes.

TKO 1 by Cooney 5/11/81

 

He was well ahead vs Byrd but dislocated his shoulder, in Byrds next fight 6 months later he was soundly beaten by Vitalis brother, dropped 2 X.
Vs Lennox Vitali was ahead but suffered an unfortunate cut. Vitali wanted to continue and that fight vs Lewis gave him confidence. Vitali became a better fighter.

Vitali wanted the rematch; it was a big money fight, and it was Lennox Lewis that declined, his mother had a premonition that Lennox would get KO'd.

I know you will say Lennox was 37 but Vitali was up there in age when he came back after 4 years off and fought Sam Pete,
You can't have it both ways.

 

Vitali was better than anyone one Holmes beat on his resume, that's the point and the reason he could possibly beat Holmes, prime to prime.

 

Again though you keep doing the samething over and over you focus only on negatives on Holmes's resume when Vitali had a worse one ? How can you not see your logic is flawed ? I'm baffled ?

You're so one sided in your arguments its ridiculous you tried to claim wins over 260 pound Kirk Johnson is a good win, aswell as 40 year old asthmatic Shannon Briggs. But yet all of Holmes's wins you find some way to discredit it.

As for Shannon Briggs beating most of Holmes's opposition ? The same Briggs that lost to journeyman Sedrick Fields ? The same Briggs who got KO'ed in 3 rounds by Darrol Wilson ? And yet you believe a 40 year old asthmatic beats half of Holmes's opposition ? Keep dreaming.

Vital also fought "a sorry bunch"

 

And Holmes is far better than anyone Vitali beat ? So doesn't the same logic apply ? Especially when Holmes has a better resume ? you make 0 sense.