Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

You're just denying objective reality right now. Mariusz Wach was definitely a SHW. Ray Austin too. He also fought Jameel McCline before his reign as the champion.

 

Okay.

No problem.

My mistake.

I forgot about those guys.


But the point is, Master has clearly exaggerated, where he's said that Wlad's reign was much harder.

No. It was not.


Yes, Wlad fought SHW's and southpaws, whereas Larry didn't.

However, that still doesn't mean that Wlad's opposition was MUCH harder.


I don't want to disrespect any fighters, but to my knowledge, Wach never beat a top level fighter in his entire career.

Who did Ray Austin beat?

An end of career Golota?

Who else?


So those SHW's weren't top level guys.

And of course, Wlad himself was also a SHW, as well as being an ATG fighter.


He then fought some southpaws.

Obviously Byrd was a very good fighter. I was a fan myself.

However, Thompson, Chagaev and Ibragamov had barely beaten anyone.

Hardly any world level guys.

So they also weren't top level fighters.


So whether they were SHW's or southpaws, Wlad and Larry both fought comparable opposition.

There's no evidence whatsoever to say that Wlad had the much better/harder opposition.

It's just a statement that carries no weight.

 

Pulev was a legitimate, skilled superheavy who Larry would've hated fighting.

 

Why?

He was big, but not huge.

He's a B level guy.

Who did he beat?

Chisora and Peter?

Who else?

 

That's not entirely true. Peter himself, around 2005, was a very dangerous, wild fighter. He had a style that Wlad hated, and he also dealt heavy fouls, and Klitschko was in the process of changing his style; he hadn't fully matured yet. Look at what happened in the second fight. In my opinion, Wlad severely damaged Peter in that fight, and although he was on the ground several times, he was in control the entire time.

I'm not a fan of Wlad. I think his resume is better than he was, and a few unpleasant defeats must diminish his value, but in my opinion, it's not wrong to put him on par with, or slightly above, Larry. I actually rank Holmes higher, but that's not something I'm certain of.

 

Thompson, Ustinov, and Dimitrenko.

Stop pretending like Holmes beat guys who were above B level.

 

Apply the same scrutiny to Holmes' opponents and let me know what you come back with.

 

I didn't say that he wasn't dangerous.

All I said, was that Wlad struggled with him, hence the 3 knockdowns.

Now if you want me to be more specific, then I'll say that he struggled with him at various stages.

Is that better?

 

I never said that Larry didn't beat B level guys.

I'm saying that just because Wlad fought SHW's like Wach, and southpaws like Thompson and Chagaev etc, that does not mean that Wlad's opposition was MUCH HARDER.

The quality of the fighters has to be taken into account.

If he'd have beaten guys like Fury and Usyk etc, then it would obviously be different.

But Wlad did not fight much harder opposition.

And it goes without saying that he was an ATG himself, as well as a SHW.

So he wasn't facing any huge noticeable disadvantages.

 

Harold Ledderman who scored the fight said Wlad deserved to lose by DQd for the amount of fouls he dealt. You ignore Wlads fouls which means youre biased.
More , Wlad is the only guy in history who was still developing 40 plus fights into his career.

Sam Peter as evidenced by the Jameel MCline fight was a shot fighter.

You highlight Wlads improvement but ignore how worse Peter had gotten. You also ignore, again , the amount of fouls Wlad dealt against a washed up Peter. Fouls that were called out by his own trainer.
Fat middle Toney pushing 40 boxed peters ears off in that first fight and got robbed. He didn't commit a single foul.

Wlad - Peter 1 was fought on even terms , prime Vs prime , and he went through hell.

 

I don't have to do that at all.

Because I have never claimed that Larry's opposition was superior.

I have never said that Larry fought much harder opposition.

I have repeatedly said that their opposition was comparable.

It's Master who's trying to claim that Wlad's opposition was much harder, and mainly due to the fact that he fought SHW's and southpaws, whereas Larry didn't.

Yet that's not the case.

Because most of those SHW's and southpaws weren't top level opposition, and he was a SHW himself, meaning that he didn't face any significant physical disadvantages etc.

 

This is great.

 

On the other hand Jim Lampley, George Foreman and Larry Merchant say he shouldn't be disqualified. All of them, including Lederman, also pinpointed that Peter could have been disqualified for his fouls.

So you're the one biased here. As always.

 

Everything you just posted is a lie.

 

Produced evidence of those guys saying he shouldn't be disqualified.