Contrast Holmes' reign with Klitschko's.

Given a fortuitous showing against Alexander Povetkin this autumn, Wladimir Klitschko will be a single IBF defense away from tying Larry Holmes' 16 consecutive WBC defenses. Klitschko has already surpassed Holmes in terms of calendar length of reign.

It has some people wondering...

Comparing strictly their contiguous reigns... (the IBF for Klitschko and WBC for Holmes, leaving aside Holmes' later brief IBF run and Klitschko's earlier WBO tenure)


Holmes beat:
(

This content is protected

)
Scott Frank
Tim Witherspoon
Lucien Rodriguez
Tex Cobb
Gerry Cooney
Reynaldo Snipes
Leon Spinks
Trevor Berbick
Muhammad Ali
Scott LeDoux
Leroy Jonez
Lorenzo Zanon
Earnie Shavers II
Mike Weaver
Ossie Ocasio
Alfredo Evangelista
(

This content is protected

)
Ken Norton


Klitschko beat:
(

This content is protected

)
Francesco Pianeta
Mariusz Wach
Tony Thompson II
Jean Marc Mormeck
David Haye
Samuel Peter II
Eddie Chambers
Ruslan Chagaev
Hasim Rahman
Tony Thompson
Sultan Ibragimov
Lamon Brewster II
Ray Austin
Calvin Brock
(

This content is protected

)
Chris Byrd

Let's start by tossing away the bull**** defenses. Ever play the board game from the 80's/90's, “Guess Who?”? You flip down the candidates going through process of elimination. So let's go through man by man and flip down those we can rule out as high-quality defenses or even refer to, loathe though we may be to utter such a disrespectful term, as bum challengers. We'll put the duds in bold, and reasons for keeping or discarding in parentheses.

For Holmes:

• Evangelista - IB's take: not a bum (the gourd-headed Uruguayan actually did much better than he is given credit for in the Ali loss, although it was admittedly the rickety old down-slide version of Ali. The Lynx got in plenty of body shots on the aging champ that neither Cossell nor the judges seemed to care about while preoccupied with their swooning. He was strong and tough, and fought very successfully at Euro level, with half of his prime losses coming in steps up to challenge ATGs for world titles and the other two coming to Zanon, which is nothing to be ashamed of. He went 3-1 with three knockouts against Lucien Rodriguez and well past his prime beat Snipes. So, not a terrible contender but neither does he carry much wow factor…especially since Holmes put on a violent jabbing clinic making absolute mincemeat of Evangelista’s face without breaking a sweat…)
• Ocasio - IB's take: not a bum (posting back to back conquests over Jimmy Young – even if they were both stinkers, and Young’s morale having already begun flagging – still meant something around then. Even with those being the only things Ocasio achieved at heavyweight – before or since, with all his glory days to come after dropping to Cruiser – he was poised and ‘worthy’ to contend on their basis. Did anyone view him as problematic for Holmes? No…but he was undefeated, had gotten himself legitimately ranked, and Holmes pounded him out like pizza dough…)
• Weaver I - IB's take: not a bum (let alone that Herc wasn’t as poor a foe as his ignoble record implies – by his peak in the late 70’s/early 80’s he was a handful in the ring for anyone in the upper echelon. It’s the ugliest prior record on paper of any Holmes challenger, but it can’t be discounted that Weaver put on a Herculean effort that put to shame many offered by some of Holmes’ challengers with prettier & unblemished ones – nor can be the fact that he would later go on to win a title and defend it a few times.
• Shavers II - IB's take: not a bum (the man could hit, damn it! His eighteen months between Holmes I & II weren't quite as productive as Holmes' - with Holmes capturing the world heavyweight title and defending it thrice and whatnot - but, he kept the pimp hand strong with a 100% KO rate, all early...and most importantly he destroyed Ken Norton, from whom Larry had wrested the belt going life and death. It was obviously no mismatch, considering how close Holmes came to being KTFO before courageously rallying...)
• Zanon – IB’s take: not a bum (weak chin and not packing much thunder, but a clever mover with fast hands. He was Evangelista’s daddy and was soundly boxing the ears off Norton and Quarry – and we’ll stop a bit short of saying he was doing so with Holmes, but nonetheless doing very well and bagging some rounds – before his chin **** the bed on him. Give the Italian a hefty punch and the ability to absorb one without folding and he ceases to be a name you never hear nowadays…)
• Jones - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (padded zero; his only meaningful exploit being a robbery over Mike Weaver despite having several inches and nearly five stone on him. The class disparity showed when Holmes mutilated him...)
• LeDoux - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (undersized and unathletic pure brawler, honestly not cut out for much beyond the Midwestern circuit, with asterisks next to pretty much all his professional "successes" - most of which are draws with former or future champs. He was a wild attacker without much defensive guile and not only a bit chinny but a bleeder. Holmes took out the rubbish here...)
• Ali - IB’s take: not a bum (it’s ALI. Yes, he was old and should have already called it quits, but he was raging against the dying of a light and even a shot old Ali can’t be considered a bum – especially where he withstood such a beating from his protégé and kept on stubbornly raging and never quitting until he was relieved of duty. This version was twice as good as the Ali who met Berbick the next year, and even there at his physical worst ever he put up a feisty argument. Let’s keep in sight the fact Ali had just avenged his loss to Neon Leon and regained the world heavyweight title, joining Patterson in boxing lore and the “Gimme That Back!” club..)
• Berbick - IB’s take: not a bum (skirting very close to borderline - his CV was honestly awful heading in, really all filler besides Tate, but he did make it through fifteen with the champ as the previous eight contenders failed to do...and of course he would go on to collect some notable scalps, not least of which is Ali...dubiously laudable though it may be...)
• Spinks - IB’s take: not a bum (yes, the Coetzee embarrassment had already taken place, but the wheels had yet to completely fall off for poor Leon. He still had the confidence to knock out the likes of ranked guys like Evangelista and Mercado, the latter of which bought him a chance to regain the belt and the glory - neither of which fate would deign to confer again. Given his pedigree, you can't label this early a Leon Spinks a "bum" - and he did in all honesty do alright for the first couple of rounds...)
• Snipes - IB’s take: not a bum (he came in on a nice little roll, and proved to be very competitive. So much so that a rematch was probably warranted...although Snipes would take a prohibitive downturn for the remainder of Holmes' reign...)
• Cooney - IB’s take: not a bum (listen...forget all the race bull****. Cooney was a good fighter. He deserved the shot, having stopped three consecutive longtime world class fixtures - even if they were all shopworn. He fought his guts out and was by no means in too deep with Holmes. Even Larry respects the guy, and boxing fans should take his cue...)
• Cobb - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (with all due respect to Cobb, who really was a character and truly a fighter down to his marrow - he simply wasn't a very classy boxer. His stoppage of Shavers wasn't all that creditable, having more to do with Shavers' health and years of wear than anything Cobb did. After that, he stepped up twice and lost twice. Between those losses and his challenge of Holmes he let Bernardo Mercado survive the distance - unlike all his other conquerors - and crushed a pair of cans. Horrifically undeserving of his shot, and famously outmatched - enough to make Cossell lose his lunch and further appetite for boxing. So thanks for that, Randy...)
• Rodriguez – borderline (despite having enjoyed a nice year with the four Euro title defenses including finally getting his revenge on Evangelista for three knockout losses, this was a massive leap up in class for the stiff and weakly Moroccan-Parisian...he shouldn't have been near the WBC title...it was a gimme defense for Holmes and his gift to his loyal hometown fans. Final determination: neither a bum nor a creditable defense...toss it out with the other garbage...)
• Witherspoon - IB’s take: not a bum (unbeaten, solid talent...future 2x world champ...the only thing you can knock about this defense is that Holmes may have gotten lucky. Spoon definitely proved his mettle even if he was unproven heading in...)
• Frank - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (another padded zero. Beating Wepner and drawing with Snipes ought not be enough to get the big-league call up. He answered the call and, to stretch the baseball analogy, proved to be a real 'cup of coffee'...easily thrashed by Holmes and dismissed from public view forevermore...)

 

(...cont.; over the character limit for 1 post...)

For Klitschko:

• Brock - IB's take: not a bum (underrated, although Klitschko detractors will often claim the opposite. Brock had banked – if you’ll pardon the pun – solid performances against Big Time McCline in a fun televised romp by HW standards and the Black Rhino, whose head he mounted over his fireplace. He was coming off his career-best result, but in a lackluster affair, over previously unbeaten Timur “not quite Sultan” Ibragimov. Brock had skills, and based on what he showed h2h more than any depth in his resume, dismantling him so thoroughly as WK did was no trifling matter.
• Austin - IB's take: not a bum (there was nothing special about the late bloomer, and nothing to suggest he could topple WK except having a bit of size to him…and he didn’t have many feats to his name besides close scrapes with Donald, Beck and Iggy – but he was passing fair and counted among the crop of top contenders of the day, such as it was – and WK destroyed him exclusively with his weaker hand using a punch nobody really considered part of his arsenal. That alone elevates this one from ‘borderline’ – the sheer unexpectedness of the method by which brutality was dispensed&#8230
• Brewster II - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (Brewster was legally half blind, and had permanently ruined himself in the Liakhovich war)
• Ibragimov - IB's take: not a bum (light-hitting and not terribly athletic but still did perhaps the best of any of the “small” heavies against WK. Very intelligent game plan, if aesthetically displeasing for the fans. Solid heavyweight – not better than Chagaev or Haye, but his performance when he got his shot trumped either of theirs.)
• Thompson I - IB's take: not a bum (big rangy fox-smart southpaw. Slow of hand but making up for it with nice timing and instincts, very comfortable and relaxed in the ring. Nuff said. This had the looks of a trickier night than usual for WK, and indeed it was&#8230
• Rahman - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (beyond shot by this point, and would have been a sucker for the WK 1-2 in his prime)
• Chagaev - IB's take: not a bum (yeah, there was the hepatitis and he wasn’t quite the same as when he beat Valuev or during his rise up the ranks – but he was still damn good, the legitimate WBA champion and IMO was still the #2 h2h in the division at that point)
• Chambers - IB's take: not a bum (tiny but more skilled than anyone else in the available field of contention, was game but couldn’t solve the puzzle or avoid the hammer)
• Peter II - IB's take: not a bum (it wasn’t the same Peter that had used WK for a basketball a few years earlier, but he was still dangerous enough and had that psychological edge of having come very near inducing a panic attack)
• Haye - IB's take: not a bum (loses some luster because of Haye's complete negativity and refusal to engage, but it was still the #1 threat on the horizon and it was a shutout – so highly creditable given how the champ performed under the conditions that presented themselves)
• Mormeck - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (fine champ at Cruiser but never meant for heavy, old, fat, shot, and had secured his contender berth with gifts over middling back-end top 25 types)
• Thompson II – borderline (Thompson wasn’t all that much different from their previous encounter and indeed has gone on to do well since, but he didn’t bring anything new and Wladimir already knew he could get to him eventually. Thompson earned his rematch and ‘deserved’ it more than contemporary ranked heavies, but it was still pointless and the repeat outcome inevitable. Thompson didn't learn or bring any new tricks and WK already had taken his full measure. Final determination: neither a bum nor a creditable defense...toss it out with the other garbage...)
• Wach - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (giant PED-fueled heavy bag of no real use in the ring)
• Pianeta - IB's take: garbage, non-creditable victory (feather fists, slow, not very mobile – basically a sitting duck)

So now we'll take our leftover non-bums and grade them (subjectively) using the academic lettering system.

For Klitschko we are left with:

Brock B
Austin B-
Ibragimov A-
Thompson I B+
Chagaev A-
Chambers A-
Peter II B-
Haye B+

Eight truly creditable defenses, three in the A range and none above A minus.


For Holmes, we are left with:

Evangelista B-
Ocasio B-
Weaver B-
Shavers II B+
Zanon B
Ali B-
Berbick B-
Spinks B
Snipes A-
Cooney A-
Witherspoon A

Eleven truly creditable defenses, three in the A range, one straight A.

Toss in the men at whose expense they began their reigns: Ken Norton and Chris Byrd. I rate Norton higher, probably A- to Byrd at B+. So twelve worthwhile names for Holmes in his WBC kingship compared to nine for Klitschko with his IBF. (et. al., over time)

Klitschko handed five challengers their first pro defeat - three of them very good. Holmes did the same to six - four of them very good.

IMO, Larry had more quantity and quality to his reign...not to mention quantity of top quality. Of course, dominating Povetkin (despite Sasha looking very mortal against Huck and having looked on his way to a loss to Chambers in the first half of their encounter all those years ago before Chambers did him a favor and imploded mentally) would nudge Klitschko up much closer to Holmes...both going by the numbers and the merit of what they stand for. It would be Klitschko's best coup, and right up there with the best handful of Holmes'. :good

 

I'm looking forward to watching our experiment play out.

Really except for those I flagged borderline (one for each) I'm pretty solid in standing behind my ruling on the creditability of their respective defenses. I'm curious to see which ones people challenge me on.

Obvious stuff like "Weaver is a bum lol, see that record?! atsch" and "Chambers is a substandard Cruiser! :tong" is to be expected...but it'll be interesting to see what more serious appeals come about...for instance, someone making a case for a Cobb or an old Rahman being creditable...or reinforcing old platitudes about Cooney being a lamb to slaughter or not having paid any dues, lumping him in with the other "empty 'white hopes' Larry whooped on" (Cooney is a CLEAR level above the likes of Cobb and LeDoux, IMO - and if we count the white Europeans he still brought more dimensions than a Rodriguez or even Zanon...) or the old chestnut about how Brock is the worst #1 contender in history...

 

:stir