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

Was Wlad prime when he was losing to random dudes or when he was on one of the most dominant undefeated championship runs in history? Well, that's sure a tough one! Holy mackerel, dude. Get a grip.

 

I think Wlad was in his physical prime when he lost to Brewster aged 28, yes. I think Wlad became a better boxer overall later, yes.

Mercer was both at an age a HW is typically in their physical prime when he fought Holmes and was actually at his peak as a boxer, too. By 41, when he fought Wlad, both his natural physical prime and his overall prime as a boxer were so far behind him, he couldn't see them in his rear view mirror.

I answered your question. Brave enough to answer mine on whether Wlad was prime when AJ beat him aged 41?

 

Holmes

 

Ray Mercer wasn’t green.

He’d just beaten Tommy Morrison.

Also, Larry was nearly 43 years of age.

 

Apply the relevant context.

Wlad fought a pre-prime Joshua.

Whereas Larry fought a prime Mike Tyson.

So the difference is night and day.


Larry could have beaten that same version of Joshua.

Yet the version of Wlad who fought Joshua could never have beaten the prime version of Mike Tyson who Larry fought.


No. Losing to Spinks wasn’t that bad. As again, most people believe that he shouldn’t have lost, and Spinks was a great fighter.

So how was Larry at 35 plus, losing controversial decisions to a great fighter, worse than Wlad losing twice in his 20’s, to non great fighters?

Also, one of Wlad’s losses was to a guy who wasn’t even a world class fighter.

So Wlad lost in his 20’s to a Euro level fighter.

 

You have no idea how brave I am with my forum reputation on the line. Ask anyone here. I have never shied away from a fight or been afraid to live in controversy or loss of reputation here. I even fear not looking stupid. Not only do I THINK Wladimir was in his prime...I know it. I wouldn't tell you this if I was not or even were not certain. AJ knows. Wlad knows. The American people-the most relevant people-also know. Wlad even understood that Mercer made his face look different than anyone else's because his jab was so good, so strong, so fast, so coordinated. Watch the fight over again. Do your own research. Physical, schmysical. He was the best boxer he could be at the right times for those of which and who coincide with my own personal favorite boxers.

Yes, beating Tommy Morrison while green and holding his own with a prime Holmes when he was still green is an incredible achievement, you are right.

 

Why are you guys bothering to make these outlandish cases to support your own obvious biases?

 

You fear not looking stupid? That explains your posts.

 

Nobody is saying that it was an incredible achievement.

A prime Holmes?

At 43?

Ha!

A 43 year old Holmes beating a prime Mercer, who many believe beat Lennox just a few years later, was an excellent win.

Nobody who’s objective would dispute that.

 

You’re clearly trolling for a joke.

 

Oh, don't you dare turn this around on me.

 

How was AJ not in his prime when Klitschko fought him but Mike Tyson was at 21 or whatever years old he was when he fought Holmes?

And no, I'm not taking 40-year-old Holmes over the Joshua who fought Wlad. Most likely Holmes get KTFO out again like he was against Tyson.

Yeah, young Mike Tyson beats Wladimir Klitschko, I never said he wouldn't have.

And Spinks was a great LHW, he wasn't a great HW. His resume is far too thin for that. Yeah, Holmes was a long-reigning champion but he already arguably lost to Tim Witherspoon and his fight with Norton was razor thin. Otherwise, his resume was pretty thin. And I say the same thing about Klitschko, his resume was thin too. And he had losses to subpar opposition. But it was no worse than losing to a career LHW. Again, if Wlad lost to David Haye or Mormeck you might have a point. But he didn't. The only men he lost to were heavyweights, and good-sized ones at that.

 

RIP to your dad

 

This content is protected

 

You know that everyone ages differently.

We know that that was Mike at his best in the mid 80’s.

Anthony had only had around 17/18 fights when he fought Wlad. He may have been in his prime. But it doesn’t really matter does it.


I would have given an early 90’s version of Larry a good chance to have beaten Anthony.


Sure, Michael Spinks’ HW resume was thin. He only had 4/5 fights. But did he not prove how competent he was in his 2 fights against Holmes??

We know that Larry was still a great HW at that point.

We know that 6-7 years later, he was still a top 10 HW in the early 90’s, where he beat Ray Mercer.

We know that they were very close and controversial fights against Spinks.

So an average HW could never have beaten Holmes or had such close fights with him back in 1985 and 1986. Only a very good-great HW could do that. So despite his HW resume being thin, Michael Spinks proved that he was a very credible HW. It’s a shame he didn’t have more fights there. But it’s disingenuous to label him as being a blown up LHW. He wasn’t.


So I’d like you to explain to me, how Holmes losing to a great fighter, in 2 very close and controversial decisions, was MORE embarrassing than Wlad getting knocked out by a Euro level fighter in Ross Purrity?

Michael Spinks was an ATG fighter who proved his worth at HW, whereas Ross Purrity wasn’t ever a world level fighter. And Wlad also lost to Sanders and Brewster too.

Losing to Purrity, Sanders and Brewster all by knockout whilst in his 20’s, was much worse than Holmes losing controversial points decisions in his mid to late 30’s. It can’t be seen any other way.

However, I agree that both fighters have good resumes, which both rank on a similar level.