Wlad Klit (?sp:)) vs Holmes

I'm not exactly sure what it is that you feel Wlad has in common with either Norton or Shavers.

Wlad had an exceptional jab, size and of course power in both hands. he has shown that he can go the distance or knockout men early. I agree with anyone who says that this is a pick em' fight.

I myself have to go with Larry. Holmes proved his boxing skills and ability to take a pounding time and time again. Old age is what beat Holmes and not his first 48 fights. Larry was only taken out once in 75 outings, and that was by a prime Tyson, when Holmes was 38 and returning from a two year abscence. Wlad was beaten on 3 occasions, mainly to fighters who were smaller, weaker, older, in brutal fashion, and in the midst of his prime. Of course, he may have improved upon training with Steward, but losing by stoppage to 3 mediocre fighters up to the age of 29, is pretty bad. Not to mention, a close decision win over Samuel Peter who floored him, and was hardly a great fighter.

Holmes between 1978 and 1982, would have been much faster and more durable than Klitschko. his jab, footwork, chin, and yes even power in the right hand, would have been more than enough to lure Wlad into the later rounds before either forcing a stoppage, or winning a one sided decision. I also don't buy the theory that Wlad's right would have troubled Holmes the way that other right hands did. Wlad fought a very straight upright style that would have made it very difficult to land on Holmes.

I'll agree that Lennox Lewis would have been a nightmare for Holmes, but Wlad is one modern fighter that I don't think deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Holmes by late round stoppage or decision.

 

Larry, by late stoppage. :good

 

Yes, I also see it going the way Magoo describes...

 

Holmes never unified and avoided many in the process, For Vlad to fight guys with 10-0 10-2-2 13=0 14-0-1 14-1 and 18-9 reords, he could match Holmes in a few months but even though there a less fans, the ones of today are too smart for that, its not how many defences but against who

 

:good

Very simple: Wlad has in common with Norton that he has great boxing ability (although he can fight off the backfoot, contrary to Norton) and he has great power in common with Shavers.

Fair enough, although a one-sided decision... i don't see that happening. Certainly Wlad can do at least as good as than Norton, Witherspoon, Williams and Weaver, al of whom gave a close fight to Holmes. Stylistically, Holmes is going to have a hard time because he's not a big puncher nor a pressure fighter.

Holmes nearly always had close fights against good fighters and this is a fact, not an opinion. The only one that wasn't close was Cooney (who hadn't beat a live contender beforehand). And this is not even knowing what would've happened if he fought the best challengers of his reign, Page, Dokes, Thomas, Coetzee or Norton/Witherspoon/William rematches. So i don't see why a Wlad fight all of a sudden would be a walk in the park with a one-sided decision.

I can see a Holmes win (though i don't pick him) but he certainly will have his hands full with Wlad.

 

Has Wlad?

You have at least 3 decent fighters out there in Maskaev, Chagaev and Ibragimov. Not to mention folks give Holmes hell for not giving certain fighters rematches, still we have yet to see one with Klitschko and Peter. Also, while Holmes may have fought more than his share of green prospects, Wlad certainly fought a lot of guys out of the grave:

Corrie Sanders 38 ( who beat him )
Ray Mercer (40)
Chris Byrd (36)
Ray Austin (36)
Lamon Brewster (34) ( beat him the first time)
Davaryl Williamson (36).
Danell Nicholson (36)
Jameel Mccline (33)
Frans Botha (34)

He likely fought more aging or washed up men than any previous champion that I can think of. What's worse is he couldn't even beat them all. In my opinion, its futile to compare Wlad's resume to Holmes'.

 

That is true but Wlad still has 3-6 good years in him of fighting top East Europeans mostly.

About a Peter rematch:
Even at the general forum there was barely anyone claiming that Peter should've won (and says something, given that there are people in the GF that think RJJ isn't top100). The verdict was as decisive as it gets and on top of that, 2 of the 3 knockdowns came from illegal punches. Add to that that Peter has no belt yet and has had close fights with Toney (avenged in the rematch) and McCline so i don't think he deserved one yet. But there may still be one in the future.

In Holmes' fights with Williams, Witherspoon and Norton, there were plenty of people that fought Holmes lost, in Peter-Wlad this wasn't the case.

 

Wlad got his ass kicked by worse fighters than the ones you just listed, and far more decisively than by just a questionable decision, which not everyone felt Holmes lost. In addition, he lost those fights when he was in his 20's, to guys in their 30's, whereas Holmes was actually past his prime in the Witherspoon and Williams fights. Also, as I stated in another post this morning, Wlad's best list of wins came against fighters who were 35+, while Holmes defended his belt against young rising prospects. Take your pick as to which group of challengers you think are better, but personally, I think its a no brainer.

 

How will Wlad cope with Larry's side-to-side?

I don't see Klitschko ever getting set in this match. He'll be ill at ease throughout and Holmes will catch him at odd angles.

 

Well no one here claimed that Wlad's resume is better than Holmes'.

My point is that Holmes took them when they had very little fights whereas the real deserving challengers could only dream of a shot at the title when Holmes was reigning.

Imagine if Wlad fought Alexander Povetkin (13-0) next weekend, beat him by a razor thin decision and then ducked a rematch for many years while Povetkin keeps ranking up wins and experience. That was the case with Witherspoon and Holmes, Weaver and Holmes.

Anyway, i choose Wlad because of stylistic reasons, not because he has the bette resume because that he doesn't have.

 

Yeah, imagine if Holmes got knocked out in a mere 2 rounds, by a 38 year old man, fighting on average once per year, had few or no previous big wins, and was juggling a golfing career on the side. Then, regained a belt and never gave him a rematch. I think we'd have far more to criticize than winning a close decision over a young prospect, and failing to meet him again.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

The thing is though, how can you say the other belt holders didn't duck Holmes? You are just pinning it all on Holmes because he was the dominant ATG, not taking turns getting beat by other challengers. The way Witherspoon fought that night was one of his best performances, you'd think he'd had 50 fights with the way he fought. Things like that you leave out. A lot of the guys had their best showings against Holmes. Holmes truly brought the best out of his oppenents. Even in sparring he made sure they were fighting their best by putting a $10,000 bounty on his head. If you knocked him down, he would give you $10,000. No one decked him, but still, thats just the kind of guy Larry was. Always trying to make sure in training they were doing their absolute best.

 

I've always felt that Holmes never got the recognition that he deserved as he certainly is an all time great. As far as Holmes vs Vlad goes, I would'nt want to make a prediction but one thing about this matchup makes me think that Vlad could take it and that is that Larry always had trouble with tall fighters, or at least fighters that were roughly the same size as him. Witherspoon, Williams, Snipes, Berbick and even Cooney troubled Holmes quite a bit and either had him down and close to being KOed or frustrated him by jabbing back at him or getting right in his face. Snipes and Witherspoon were rather green when they both fought Holmes and both gave him a hard time as did Williams and all were the same size as Larry. Cooney was virtually untested as a pro and made to the 13th round in a pretty tough fight with Larry. Now throw Vlad in there....we're talking 6'7" 240 lbs of solid athletic mass with good boxing skills to boot and also posseses a good stiff jab. I think it's fair to say that Vlad is better than any of the previously mentioned fighters and quite a bit bigger also. If those men could give Larry a hard time then it's not inconceivable to think that Vlad could beat him. I'm not saying that he would win for certain but you can't count him out. This guy can box and punch with power and he's got 2 good hands instead of 1 ala Cooney. It would be a good fight to watch is all I'm gonna predict.

 

I dont think McCline is in the grave,in fact a Peter rematch may be more inviting,for Vlad, other than the back of the head KDS (illegal) Wlad dominated Peter..Byrd was 40-2-1 and totally outboxed Tua, and defended vs a few of the big guys(Vlad Dominated him) Vlad dominated Brock,Austin (who DREW with Sultan)Brewster,McCline...and Vlad is at least trying to unify