Who has a better resume, Wladimir Klitschko or Larry Holmes?

There’s a big difference to Larry having fought a prime Mike Tyson, to Wlad having fought Anthony Joshua.

Larry losing to Spinks, wasn’t as bad as Wlad having lost to Sanders, Brewster and Purrity. Especially as the losses to Spinks, were very close and controversial.

 

You can’t just refer to him as a LHW though.

He proved that he was a credible HW.

Spinks was also a great fighter.

So how can losing two very close and controversial decisions against a great fighter when you’re past your prime, be worse than losing to 2 non great fighters when you’re in your 20’s?

 

It works both ways.

I’m sure that Norton, Mercer and Witherspoon etc, could have beaten most of Wlad’s opponents.

 

I think it’s close.

It’s a good debate.

 

It’s very close.

 

Larry beat a green Mercer. Wlad beat a grown man. You like no seasoning on your food? I don't.

 

Mercer was 2 months shy of his 31st birthday when Holmes beat him. In his previous fight he had secured what remains today as his career best win, Tommy Morrison.

He was 41 when Wlad beat him and way, way past his best.

 

BS. Ali was shot to pieces. What a joke.

 

You're right, Wlad nearly beat AJ while Holmes got KTFO.

And losing to Spinks is just as bad. He beat a journeymen in Cooney, beat Holmes twice, and got demolished by Tyson and promptly retired. He spent the majority of his career at LHW. If Haye beat Wlad, it would comparable because Haye was a career Cruiserweight but he had more fights at HW than Spinks.

 

Listen, I don't know if you're trolling me or just being ironic in a good-natured (doubt it) way or what but do you really not get that heavyweights mature later than other divisions? Be honest.

 

The joke is you and Wlad’s record.

 

Agree that it is close. I can see arguments for both guys. For me what swings it are the prime losses that Wlad had.

That said, I also think that the field that Wlad fought was better than Holmes' opponents. Not by that much but enough to make it a debate.

FWIW I have Holmes at #4 and Wlad at #5 at HW. But I've always thought that when you get to the very top of the HW division you can make arguments for any of the top guys as being actually ranked higher or lower depending on your criteria.

For example I tend to rank guys with lots of losses lower than guys with a cleaner record.

 

Holmes and I dont think it's close.
Wald had a lot of sub par opponents on his record and his best wins were probably Peter, Povetkin and Haye and also lost to some poor opposition. The loss to Purity that wasn't avenged really hurts him.
Holmes has wins over the likes of Ali, Shavers and Norton while mostly coming to the end of their careers at the top even his lesser wins Cooney, Thomas, Berbick would add to Wlad's resume. Holmes has bigger names and more depth.

 

There's only 1 of us trolling. 30/31 is typically physical prime for a HW, 41 is most certainly not.

If you disagree, was Wlad prime for losses to Fury and AJ, aged 39 and 41 respectively?

 

I say Holmes and i don't think it's close