Controversial statements on boxing that you stand by...

I think the Bernard Hopkins of the pre-Trinidad fight era, with the aggressive & at times quite reckless style, would have had more chance of beating Calzaghe than the more refined version of their 2008 fight.

Personally, I love the style B-Hop has now, it's great to watch IMO and makes him a better fighter than he was around the start-middle of his middleweight reign. But vs. Calzaghe, I just think it hinders him in the sense that the most effective way of beating the current Hopkins is by outhustling him which Calzaghe was excellent at doing.

I had the 2008 fight very close regardless but I genuinely think if Hopkins had fought Calzaghe a number of years earlier like he did vs Brown or Echols for example, he would have been a heavy favourite.

 

Great to see Liverpool's finest in such a star studded list :happy

 

I Cringe at the way he mispronounces everyones names. other than that Buffer is a G. like the OP said LGR2R is legend

 

That's because he was that good.

Probably one of the most gifted operators of all time, regardless of nationality. Hence why I get so peeved when peeps discredit him!

 

Not controversial, just plain wrong. Once again, Larry Holmes massively, massively, massively overrated. And I am most certainly not a fan of either Klitschko.

Holmes would have lost to Tyson at any point in his career. Spinks did him twice. A focused Lewis would KO him. Wlad`s jab would outpoint Holmes`s jab.

Larry Holmes = decent champ, career to be proud of. All time great? No way. :bbb

 

'Spinks did him twice' :rofl

 

Nah, my mahn. Larry Holmes was all that and a bag of skittles. And although i do somewhat agree that after being underrated for so many years, it's tended to go the other way among some people, but to say he's not an ATG is just plain off base.

Larry is a lock for the top 5/6 all time heavyweights. He has the best jab in heavyweight history and up there in all round skillset, amazing recuperative powers, will/heart/chin, footwork, brillient IQ and no worse then 50/50 against anyone.

Klitscho's can't really hold a candle to him, especially Wlad. Vitali is at best 60/40 with Holmes. The only reason being Larry was vulnerable at times because he had average head movement. Holmes was an awesome 15 round fighter as well, he fought incredibily well under extreme fatigue. He would almost certainly beat if not dominate Wlad and would edge out Vitali, who would start to lose form as the fight went on and Larry got his second wind.

 

Losing to Tyson at any stage of his career does not make him any less of a heavyweight. That statement is one that can be made for a lot of capable heavyweight operators, Tyson is just that good. 'Spinks did him twice', yeah.......no he didn't. That's a stupid statement. I don't think a focus Lewis KO's him, I don't think any Lewis KO's Holmes, in fact I think Larry would probably get the better of Lennox if they met prime for prime. Klitschko would be screwed against Holmes with the speed and jab of Larry.

You just made vague statements there, matey. Care to break them down a bit?

 

The first part of this is what I mean - though he`s gone from underrated to vastly, vastly overrated. People need to watch his fights - and I perfectly believe that most people who are now waaaaay up his ass simply haven`t seen many at all. The big four of the late 80s/90s were far better - plenty of people drone on about how good he was against Holy, well the version that got obliterated by Tyson can`t have been that washed up.

Top 15 heavy is fair enough and, in fairness, I do think he would beat Wlad.

 

Tyson is the one getting underrated nowadays. I don't buy into Larry being 'washed up', the argument has always been that he didn't have much time to prepare (recently debunked on the Classic IIRC) and, fact is he went on to come through a bad early round against the monsterous Mercer, and pick up a good win after Tyson.

Tysons win over Holmes was terrific. It doesn't mean Holmes wasn't 'great', unfortunately, too many seem to consider Tyson as a myth nowadays. No excuses for Larry there: Mike was a BEAST!

I've seen pretty much all ofLarrys fights. Sure, he had some close ones, sure he got badly hurt. But his era of HWs was a good one, the likes of Witherspoon, Weaver, Dokes were good, solid professionals. Marvis Frazier is also quite underrated based on the fact people think he was a complete joke, he was also a solid contender.

Vitalis era/resume/performances=Dreadful by comparison.

 

Apart from Wilfred Benitez I'd happily change my full name by deed poll with any of those guys just to sound a bit cooler (with it being irrelevent that they were **** hot at boxing.)

 

Would it make any difference if you were going under 'El Radars' real name of Wilfredo Benitez? :hey

 

Oh thats good Flea. I had to google it but then that just makes it better! :good

 

Holmes wasn't exactly "off the couch". He did a 15 round exhibition 3 rounds before Tyson.

 

Take The Test !