Larry Holmes (1978-1985) vs. Wladimir Klitschko (2006-2014) the ultimate poll

'Cutting it close' isn't salient factor here - but, even so, you are referencing a fight that took place two years after Holmes/Witherspoon, and the former's last win before his first retirement, as some kind of benchmark.

So, not only are you using scorecards to define the quality of a fighter and the fighters therein, you are also comparing bouts fought under quite different circumstances.

 

Dominance counts because I said so.

Wlad beat everyone fairly easily until he lost to Fury (a h2h beast) while almost 40.

 

Wlad went life and death with Sam Peter who was a HW version of Jeff Lacy.

His Povetkin win is on par with Sven Ottke's win over Robin Reid.

Carlos Takam swept more rounds from Povetkin with clean boxing technique than Wlad did. Wlads skill deficiency forced him to jump all over Povs back every 5-10 seconds.
Holmes wouldn't need to shame himself like Wlad did to beat Povetkin

 

Wlad was way more dominant and beat better fighters whereas Larry had several close fights that he could have lost and even in fights where he should have easily won had his difficulties so overall I would say Wlad for being more consistent and dominant

 

He never dominated someone on par with Povetkin sooooooo......

 

David Haye didn't really have much of a career at Heavyweight he had a brief stint of 5 fights in total before he retired for 4 years comeback and lost to Bellew twice as he was ravaged with injuries.

Ibragimov had a draw against Ray Austin in his "prime years" who was an unremarkable Heavyweight. And his list of wins was not that strong his best win is arguably Shannon Briggs unless you count the win over a very ancient shot Holyfield as a better win.

As for your other examples none of them have gave an ATG Heavyweight a very close fight in a high quality fight. Neither have beaten as many former Heavyweight champions as Witherspoon did. And most importantly neither have won as many title fights as Witherspoon did.

 

C’mon now. If you arent impressed by, “top 6 of the 1980’s” you aren’t impressed by anything

 

Loads of people thought Povetkin lost to Marco Huck

 

Because his opposition was, in the main, mediocre (and that's being kind). Anyone with even a little bit about them - namely Povetkin - was hugged to death by Wlad - a man holding on for dear life.

Whether Fury is a head-to-head "beast" is debatable - but, regardless, he pretty much embarrassed a man who'd forgotten how to box, which'll happen if you fight sub-par opposition for too long - and Wlad did just that.

 

And? I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion

 

When Larry Holmes was a pot bellied shadow of his former self he boxed Mercers ears off , showing ring IQ and remnants of his great jab and boxing skill.
Mercer was better than Sam Peter and Peter felled prime best ever Wlad 3 times

This content is protected

 

Yeah being top 6 in the 80s is really laughable but let's be impressed by the forgettable Heavyweights of the late 2000s, early 2010s, which is considered the dullest era in Heavyweight history got any other amazing insights for us ? like telling us how overrated Holmes is and how much you dislike him in every thread like an obsessive troll i think that's the only laughable aspect.

 

Peter 1 wasn't during his reign, chief.

Takam got brutally knocked out while down on the cards.

Your feelings.

 

Revisionism 101.

 

Commenting on fights you don’t watch & remarking on statements never made.

Stop it.