Larry Holmes Versus Vitali Klitschko

All this is irrelevant Vitali had great opportunities to beat his 2 best opponents and failed miserably, it's not like Holmes coming off an almost 3 year lay off at age 38 vs a prime Mike Tyson, or Holmes at age 42 having to fight a prime Evander Holyfield.

Vitali was in his "prime" and fought a Chris Byrd who had a weeks notice aswell as having the advantage of fighting in his backyard and still lost end of. Forget what judges had it was in Germany so Vitali got benefit of some favourable judging. But it was anything but dominant from Vitali as the punchstats were nigh on identical with Byrd landing at a much higher percentage in a very competitive fight.

As for Lewis yes again Vitali was in his prime against an aging champion who was out of shape and unprepared and still found a way to lose to his best opponent.

As for Peter ? Solid win ? I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make ? I've never not said Peter isn't a solid win ? But it's not like Peter is a stand out name or has any barring how Vitali does vs Holmes.

 

Homes UD.

 

What about fights leading up to the Holmes fight ?

1976 controversial decision loss to Muhammad Ali that a majority had Norton winning ?

1977 impressive 1st round stoppage over Duane Bobick.

1977 a good win over Jimmy Young who had recently upset George Foreman.

 

Was the question Holmes vs Vitali or whose opponents were better?

 

Norton was good against guys without tipping point power, I thought Young beat him, I thought Ali beat him, and Bobick the Bobick who was KO'd the next year by Kallie Knotzee?

Norton was also KO'd by Jose Lui Garcia and George Foreman previously and had trouble with pressure fighter with some power.

 

I don't see that you can claim Vitali's opponents are better than Holmes's.

Some of the wins you have claimed for Vitali in this thread......

Dereck Chisora = Never ranked in the top 10 a borderline journeyman/contender.

Shannon Briggs = 40 years old asthmatic lost one sidely to Sultan Ibragimov and then failed a drugs test vs Marcus McGee. Did nothing to deserve a title shot and has also lost to some pretty unremarkable opponents like Sedrick Fields, Darroll Wilson, and then you claim he could definitely beat half of Holmes's opposition which i find strange.

Kirk Johnson = A 260 pound out of shape disgrace that the commentators famously said "That whale just got harpooned"

Corrie Sanders = Semi retired at this point he was working on his handicap in golf hadn't fought for over a year and was out of shape. Also got stopped by Hasim Rahman and lost to Tony Tubbs's brother Nate Tubbs in 2 rounds.

You see how easily it is to discredit resumes ?

 

Oh ok so now me bringing up Norton's resume prior to Holmes fight you found another way to discredit Holmes's win over Norton got you.

Majority had Norton beating Ali in their 3rd fight.

Bobick was 38-0 when Norton destroyed him.

Young was on a high after many thought he beat Ali and he had recently had a great win over Foreman when Norton beat him.

Norton coming into Holmes fight was in good form hence Holmes's win over him is a good one.

 

Apart from the obvious - already pointed out by @Dynamicpuncher - you also seem fixated on what numbers an opponent did after meeting each of the boxers in question. Why?

What does this metric tell you (or anyone for that matter) about how the opponent earned their shot against either Holmes or Vitali, what their fights building up to that shot revealed in terms of their overall level (skillset, styles, tactics and challenges etc) or how proven they were going into the fight?

Briggs was a ****ing wreck by the time the Vitali fight came along. There really was no excuse for Vitali having stooped so low in the selection of Briggs as a defense. I would not have dismissed a charge of professional negligence having been considered in this case and, in any event, it was absolutely shameful.

Briggs had not been rated since 2006, when he made a brief appearance in the Ring's Heavyweight Top-10, having barely scraped by Liakhovich. By then Briggs had already stacked on the weight, going from his prime 230lbs to somewhere over 260lbs and, following the Liakhovich win, he came in at 273lbs against Ibragimov, a bout in which Briggs was thoroughly outdone and after which he retired.

Aged 38 and two and a half years after his retirement, Briggs made a comeback and, inside a year, knocked over a few nobodies and met Vitali for the WBC belt, having had less than 5 minutes of 'competitive' boxing [ ] since his return. Briggs had been only weeks away from his 39th birthday, wasn't rated and wasn't a serious contender.


Now, Bey may not have turned out to be a Heavyweight trailblazer, but in facing Holmes (who had been on the decline since Cooney) he came in as a prime, 28 year old and undefeated contender who was Ring-rated and had just beaten Top-5 Rated Greg Page.

I trust you can see the difference between the above scenarios and understand why what Bey and Briggs did beforehand is a firmer basis for determining who the more appropriate and better contender was of the two. This as opposed to their respective post-title-attempt fight results.

 

Briggs was washed up when he fought Vitali.Plus, Briggs fought Vitali with one arm for 11 round due to injury.

 

Bey was horrible so please don't try and build him up to me and so were most of the heavyweights from the 80's 14 fights - I never seen such a pack of poorly conditioned heavyweights and some of them could have been good if they trained. Page, Witherspoon, Thomas, Dokes and Big John Tate but poor conditioning, drugs made them inconsistent.

Most of Holmes opponents were picked for a reason - They (Don King) bribed John Ort of ring magazine to make Tom Prator a viable contender and King controlled many of the alphabet organizations. The most corrupt era ever. Briggs may have arguably been the old Vitalis least opposition but any version of him would beat the Leon Spinks, Bey, Frazier, Ledoux, Evangelista, Zanon, etc. and would not lie down.

Holmes to his credit stayed in condition but other than Cooney did not fight anyone in their prime as Champ and the big fights for whatever reason were avoided.

Tate could have been a good unification and before the Weaver fight on a roll, Page very inconsistent but had a window and a chance because he had a right hand, Coetzee robbed vs Snipes (Snipes KD 2X) Kings judges, Coetzee would have been a good scalp (good right hand, Dokes had a window for a UNI fight. Weaver gained confidence after Holmes and his 15th rd. KO over Tate made for an interesting rematch. Thomas had a window. I'm not reading ring magazines about this I lived it and was very disappointed the real fights were not made.

Anyway, the question was who would win Holmes vs Vitali and IMO Vitali would be the best fighter that Holmes faced prime for prime.

I think Vitali wins late stop 9-15 rds.

 

Who says? Was he better head to head than Witherspoon, Norton, Cooney or Williams? You sure Vitali beats those guys?

Vitali was dominant but his resume is not impressive. We do know that Vitali lost to a faded overweight Lennox Lewis. In my opinion Holmes beats prime Lewis.

 

I believe Vitali was absolutely better than Witherspoon, Norton, Cooney and Williams, especially at the time Holmes fought them in their careers.

I also have the opinion that Lennox Lewis would pose problems for Holmes that he never experienced and think Lennox would stop Holmes.

 

That's a very poor interpretation of what I posted. In what way did I build up Bey? You explicitly focused on Bey's post-Holmes record and put a positive spin on a nothing Briggs record. I am merely filling the gaping holes that you leave in your arguments - something you've made a habit of doing.

Of the above, Holmes only fought Witherspoon who was hardly considered damaged goods when Holmes and he fought and who went on the become a World Champion.

Holmes didn't fight any of the others you list here so, what's your point?

This^ pretty much sums up your inability to make sound assertions.

You state: "Most of Holmes opponents were picked for a reason"

Then use a scandal that impacted all of US Professional Boxing, pertaining to the US Championship Tournament of initially 60 fighters and then cite a single fight on Holmes' record, related to the Tournament (and for which I very much doubt you can provide specific evidence of wrongdoing for) as the qualifier.

Moreover, the US Championship Tournament scandal relates to less than a year in the '70s, which does not typify the era - and, further still, precedes Holmes' Championship run, which was in the main conducted during the '80s.

Your reasoning is getting a little ridiculous now.

You make assertions about the poor conditioning of '80s heavyweights but continue to dignify the selection by Vitali of Briggs as a title defense who was not fit to compete at Championship level. Well done.

Briggs losses (and even his best wins) indicate that he was not in the class of Holmes' opposition.

Holmes still has a better ledger than Vitali.

Sure, but none of this is particularly relevant to a Holmes/Vitali head-to-head.

That's debatable. What isn't debatable is that a prime Holmes would be the best fighter Vitali faced.

It's a moot point anyway, adding zero weight to your case.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your arguments are imbalanced, include too many meaningless tangents and are scarcely credible.

There's no point continuing on this basis and I have nothing left to say on the matter.


Good day.

 

I feel the same about your argument, obviously you are in love with the era
I am not.
Enjoy your opinion.

 

One thing that era had was athleticism. Guys could use their legs to move around the ring. The post lewis era was filled with non athletic plodders.
Vitali never beat anyone remotely as nimble, skilled and fast as Holmes so your pick here is based on pure imagination