Larry Holmes: Klitschko has no jab, no heart and would be beaten by Wilder or Stivern

Wlad's reign deserves a lot of respect.

But what you've wrote above is due to circumstances.

Spinks beat Holmes in two close fights.

Would Wlad have gone 11 years undefeated, if he'd have run into the version of Tyson that Holmes fought?

 

There seem to be two schools of thought:

-Wlad in his youth was an excellent but flawed fighter. His losses inspired him to improve on those flaws, seek out a new legendary trainer, and develop into one of the most dominant Champions in history.

-Wlad remains a flawed fighter and somehow in 10 years on top of the division just hasn't ran into a fighter that can exploit his flaws again.

I think the latter is a stretch. It wasn't a particular style that upset Wlad in his youth: Sanders, Puritty, and Brewster have very little in common. All three loses however resulted from poor ring generalship.

 

What is the relevance of this question? Holmes had lost twice to Spinks and quit the sport after a mini-meltdown, prior to rushing back into the ring to lose to Tyson.

If Wlad beat Spinks and stayed active and in shape, he would have given himself a better shot at Tyson.

Holmes also artificially extended his reign by dumping titles, avoiding #1 contenders..etc.

Wlad faced his top rated boogeymen in Haye, Povetkin, and Pulev. Holmes refused to fight Coetzee, Page, Dokes, Thomas,..etc.

Also didn't rematch Weaver and Spoon after they gave him tough fights and continued to have sustained success after their meetinge. Meanwhile Wlad rematched Peter and Thompson.

 

:good

 

:good

 

The relevance of the question, is due to him stating that Wlad has gone 11 years undefeated, whereas Larry didn't.

But you can't do direct comparisons of two fighters from different eras.

Everyone's circumstances are different.

Wlad's statistics are truly great.

But statistics don't allow for circumstances.

 

Irrelevant because Holmes didn't make it to 7 years. Despite refusing #1 contender Thomas to face underdog LHW Champion Spinks.

Holmes didn't give himself a chance at Tyson. He had been out of the game for two years and went in cold against an upstart who had all the momentum.

 

I know this.

I was just suggesting that under different circumstances, Wlad may not have gone 11 years undefeated.


:good

 

Even if Wlad lost to Tyson which isn't a given, that would equal his current title reign. So very possible he could match his run in Holmes' time.

 

:good

 

In different circumstances he would still be undefeated too.:yep

 

What type of clown are you? So desperate you have to dig up a loss Larry took as an amateur?

Wlad lost to Luan Krasniqi as an amateur. What difference has that on anything

Did did you know Wlad won the Gold medal from one of the weakest SHWs there ever was in Paea Wolfgramm? Probably the weakest of them all. A guy who was a total bum as a professional.atsch

 

I'm not so sure.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1JX8NB-4QY


If Klitschko fought Louis' opposition there would be altars built and children sacrificed in Klitschko's honor.

I also think he would have a great chance going undefeated vs Holmes' own opposition.

 

Says the Brit****....look at who Audley Harrison beat for his gold, not to mention the hometown cooking that Joshua got to steal a gold. Oh that's right, the amateurs don't mean anything, UNLESS it's Wlad, then it's fair game.