Nikolai Valuev vs. Larry Holmes you know because size is more important than skill

Holmes would outjab the barn door ten to one. Watch what a bum like Larry Donald did to Valuev.

 

Larry Donald was a bum now?

Look what that bum Tim Witherspoon did to Holmes.

 

Larry Donald was a bum as compared with Holmes. That fight alone proves the Valuev jab was too slow to be effective vs the best Holmes. Obviously!

 

Too slow? Valuev won.

Witherspoon's jab was effective against Holmes. (Spoon's jab wasn't better or faster than Donald's. Donald outjabbed him when they fought.) Weaver's jab was effective against Holmes. (Weaver got out jabbed by basically every name he fought with the possible exception of Scott Ledoux.) Williams' jab was effective against Holmes. (Williams' jab wasn't better than Spoon's when they fought.) Norton's jab was effective against Holmes. (Norton got out jabbed by Lorenzo Zanon for god's sake. Hell, Zanon's jab bothered Holmes and Zanon, unlike Valuev, was as soft as they come.)

They were all out jabbed by people. That didn't mean they couldn't effectively jab with Holmes.

Look at Holmes' swollen eyes against Witherspoon and Carl Williams ... both the result of eating jabs all night ... and get back to me.

Valuev's jab was effective against everyone he fought. Effective to the point that he was never in trouble in any fight until the last round of his last match, and the only two people to earn a decision over him barely got past him.

There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have been effective against Holmes, too.

 

Those 220 pound hwts give or take all had quicker more effective jabs and punches in general than the barn door. Valuev would be beaten to a pulp by Larry's jab. Valuev was too slow to be effective with any punch vs the best Holmes. He could not avoid Larry Donald's jab for gods sake and Donald had no issues avoiding most of Valuev jabs. That a Larry Donald! We are talking The Best Holmes! Think for once in your life!

 

My suggestion to you is that you watch more than the three Valuev fights you've apparently watched.

Arguing with you is like arguing with someone who has only seen Ali's fights against Jimmy Young and Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick, and insisting he had enough info on Ali to make an honest assessment on the guy's career.

You can easily watch 50 Valuev fights - amateur/pro - online. Insisting Valuev was slow because you saw him racked with arthritis at the tail end of his career, and he looked slow, is missing the point entirely.

Valuev gave EVERYONE problems because he was a very effective fighter.

And guys FAR WORSE than Valuev gave Holmes plenty of trouble.

By the way, when was this mythical prime of Holmes where he was this untouchable force? I followed his entire career from 1977 on as it happened, and it seemed like someone gave him trouble in some fight nearly every year during his reign.

 

I've watch just about all major hwt championship bouts since 1970 whether on TV, PPV or live. A fighter Valuev size is not going to be quick....and he wasn't. He fought Donald four years before his final bout and Donald, a bum, had no issues landing or avoiding the jab. Which is to be expected. A great boxer like Holmes at his best is not having a tough fight against a fighter who cannot stop any blow prime Holmes wishes to land. There is no "argument". This is a massacre.

 

Norton and Spoon were both better than Valuev imo.

Weaver had a purple patch but it wouldn't be fair ranking him over Valuev so I'll give you that one.

 

Valuev couldn't land a glove on Haye all night where was his jab ? Holmes would totally destroy Valuev. massacre.

 

Ah.. Now I see why this flash in the pan topic has turned into a huge debate. People like you actually believe that the men who either beat valuev or fought him to close and often contested decisions were as good as the men who bothered Larry. So you seriously Think that a 45 year old Holyfield who had been mostly inactive in recent years and was shot to hell was better than Ken Norton was in 1978? Or that a 40 year old Larry Donald was better than Tim Witherspoon was in 1983 ? Or that Ruslan Chagaev was better than Michael Spinks ? Not only was Holmes list better, I'd wager that those guys would have also beaten valuev himself.

 

If valuev were fighting in his prime in the 1980s I might give him a chance at winning some close decisions over the likes of guys like Quick Tillis, James Broad, a declining Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb and most of the European contenders like Alfredo Evangelista, Lucien Rodriguez, Lorenzo Zanon, etc. so in other words he wouldn't be terrible. Just good enough to be fringe. But I'd say a Greg Page or a Trevor Berbick type fighter would outpoint him in a close fight. Guys like Witherspoon, Thomas and Tucker win wide on points. But placing him in the ring with Holmes shouldn't even need mention

 

When did I say a 45-year-old Evander Holyfield was better than Ken Norton in 1978? I didn't. So don't ask me I really believe that. It sounds like I said that. And I never did.

I completely explained why I thought Valuev would do fine against Larry Holmes. Styles make fights. Holmes had a problem with guys who jabbed back at him ... AT EVERY POINT IN HIS CAREER.

You can say "A young Holmes would do this" or a "Young Holmes would do that." A young, middle-aged, and old Larry Holmes ALWAYS had problems with guys who jabbed with him.

Valuev jabbed constantly. Valuev would've jabbed with him ... for 12 or 15 rounds, however long it took.

Valuev was never stopped. Valuev was never shut out. Valuev gave everyone he fought a tough night ... amateur and pro. Holmes couldn't say the same.

Valuev has the style to give ANY version of Holmes a bad night because of his size, his ability to take a punch and MOST IMPORTANTLY ... he'd JAB with Holmes all night long.

I've seen Holmes have problems with ordinary fighters who could jab with him. There's no reason to believe he'd suddenly have an easy night or score a shutout or stop Valuev. That's ridiculous.

I'm sure Valuev would've lost to lesser guys who weren't as bothered by jab. Some guys assumed they'd get hit with jabs in every fight. Some guys ate jabs knowing that was the only way they were going to work their way inside.

Holmes wasn't that guy. When you jabbed with Holmes, he had to reset. He couldn't work off his jab like he wanted.

Holmes was a great fighter. He had a lot of skills. But the chink in his armor was the fact that he wasn't good at slipping jabs and he had to reset when he got hit with one. So guys that jabbed with him gave him A LOT of problems.

Valuev would pose all the problems in the world to Holmes because of Valuev's size, his ability to take a punch, his ability to jab, the lack of "dog" in him (he wasn't a quitter like some guys Holmes fought), his enormous physical advantages.

Holmes was really bothered and getting smacked around by Weaver when he landed an uppercut that turned the fight. He never landed that punch against guys like Norton, Spoon, Williams, even Maurice Harris, so he had to rely on the judges in fights that were toss-ups.

Since he was never going to land one punch and turn the fight with Valuev, I see it being a close decision ... just like all the fights Holmes engaged in where guys matched him jab or jab.

I said I'd take Holmes to win. But I have an open mind. I know why certain guys gave Holmes problems. And I think Valuev would've been one of those guys. I don't think Valuev was awesome, but I don't kid myself into thinking ANYONE was going to have an easy night with him ... especially Holmes.

That's why HOLMES DIDN'T FIGHT MANY OF THOSE GUYS. He knew the style gave him problems.

If Holmes and Valuev fought in the same era, I doubt Holmes would even take the fight. (Just like he didn't take fights with Dokes and Thomas and Page, etc.) Valuev was a bad style matchup. Holmes didn't fight those types of opponents unless he "made a mistake" in choosing them (as in the cases of Weaver, Spoon and Williams) or he had to (in the case of Norton).

Otherwise, he avoided them entirely.

He chose guys who he could work the jab against. It was smart. A lot of guys do that.

 

David Haye stood so far out of reach to avoid Valuev's jab that Haye couldn't land anything, either. That's why they both landed about three or four punches a round for 12 rounds, until Haye landed one hard shot in the last minute of the fight (like Bonecrusher against Tyson).

Haye's is one who said in the postfight that Valuev's jab was surprisingly fast and hard. That's why Haye laid back all night.

I like David Haye as a fighter. I think he's very exciting. I think he's a great puncher. He is truly a fast-punching heavyweight. But, other than his "bad toe" fight against Wlad, Valuev made Haye look awful because Valuev's jab kept him out of punching distance.

Valuev dictated the pace and the distance in that entire fight with his jab, whether it landed or not. And Valuev was totally done by that point in his career. He'd never fight again.

If Holmes stood that far outside against Valuev, their fight would go the distance too with only a couple shots landing per round.

Another tossup fight left in the hands of the judges for Holmes.

 

I can see some truths in what you're saying. I haven't checked the stats but I think Holmes had more arm length than Haye along with a better jab, superior footwork, work rate, stamina, and virtually everything accept power which is moot because I don't think there are very many fighters who can knockout valuev anyway. I think Larry would out point Nikolay on being more busy. For god sake an aging John Ruiz fought him on Even terms