Wladimir Klitschko v Larry Holmes in all-time HW rankings

[jamesmcdonnell]

Show me a guy today with as much stamina and aggression, with consistent head movement and fast punching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLg6swbJwkU

I mean Derek Chisora and Carlos Takam managed to get in the top 10 and they are C grade versions of Berbick.

Smith was big and athletic with a good jab and one-punch poer . . .skill-wise he was as good as Marco Huck who strafed Povetkin repeatedly with lunging straight punches. Weaver was 10 leagues above Travis Walker who bullied Chagaev all over the ring.

Smith conserved his energy very carefully in his fights. Volume was not his style. He was the prototype of these guys. Do very little -- jab -- clinch -- lean -- pot shot -- repeat

Chisora is limited. Berbick was limited. But Chisora would not have been so comprehensively trounced by Gordon and Mercado.

I simply don't share this reverse engineered appreciation of the 1980s HW scene.

Dude, come on, Chisora is woeful in most fights, he barely throws any punches, he just trudges around the ring with that stupid cross arm guard.

[Ezzard]

You mean like Berbick? Or Bey? Or Page? Or Coetzee?

[The Great John L]

Smith conserved his energy very carefully in his fights. Volume was not his style. He was the prototype of these guys. Do very little -- jab -- clinch -- lean -- pot shot -- repeat

demseys comments about head movement and aggression was referencing Berbick. Your comments about Smith clearly show that you saw him against Tyson. Try watching him in a few other fights. You can start with when he fough Holmes where he was anything but a slow, plodding clinching slob like most current HWs. And he actually knew how to throw body punches and didn't trip over his own feet, all despite a very limited amatuer career and a short pro resume. There were MUCH better trainers then and a lot more them, which is the biggest problem now.

Anyway try watching a few other Smith fights, when he was younger and try to be objective. And BTW, I do think Wlad is a great fighter, but Pulev is attrocious and is pretty indicative of the current HW crop. He would have a hard time beating Chuck Wepner.

[Ezzard]

Greg Page would have had a hard time beating Chuck Wepner.

[The Great John L]

Greg Page would have had a hard time beating Chuck Wepner.

C'mon are you trolling with that one?

[drunkenpiper36]

Greg Page would have had a hard time beating Chuck Wepner.

C'mon are you trolling with that one?

If Greg was in shape and didn't f-ck around he'd do away with Chuck without much trouble. But the flipside of that coin is that we've seen plenty of instances where he dropped fights against journeyman or fringe level opponents, so the other guy's comment wasn't entirely off base.

[Ezzard]

Smith was no slob. He was a clever man. If I remember right he had a university degree.

But his strategy was to survive knowing he had a potent right hand that could take it all away from his opponent at any moment. And he waited for that moment. But he was easily out-boxed. And easily out-hustled. He undoubtedly allowed that to happen. It was all part of his trap. But he was limited.

[Ezzard]

Greg Page would have had a hard time beating Chuck Wepner.

C'mon are you trolling with that one?

Okay. He beats Wepner. But he loses to the ancient and obese 1970s legend Joe Bugner.

[Ezzard]

If Greg was in shape and didn't f-ck around he'd do away with Chuck without much trouble. But the flipside of that coin is that we've seen plenty of instances where he dropped fights against journeyman or fringe level opponents, so the other guy's comment wasn't entirely off base.

Don't worry, they all know that. They are just choosing to ignore it.

[The Great John L]

But he loses to the ancient and obese 1970s legend Joe Bugner.

Bugner was ancient when he beat Page? Then what does make most of the current HW crop? And do you really think Wepners skills were similar to Bugners?

And if you're going to use that logic; Wlad gets KTFO by The Boss, a chubby Ernie Els and Lamon Brewster yet somehow has a chance agains Holmes?

[dempseyfire]

Here's Page vs LeDoux, who was clearly better than Wepner (but who would be right at home in today's division): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr9lWVAvPC0

Bonecrusher Smith vs Holmes . . .that's a much better pace than practically any HWs I see today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRT_RCxbgTU

[Ezzard]

You remember Bugner-Page? Joe had nothing left. He had no right still boxing. Anyone with a half decent output could beat him at that stage. He was far diminished even from the guy who Marvis outworked.

I'm not really here to defend Wlad. I don't have much to say about him. He's like a guy who worked out how to win a video game by doing the same move over and over and never risking the joy of playing the game itself.

[The Great John L]

If Greg was in shape and didn't f-ck around he'd do away with Chuck without much trouble. But the flipside of that coin is that we've seen plenty of instances where he dropped fights against journeyman or fringe level opponents, so the other guy's comment wasn't entirely off base.

Don't worry, they all know that. They are just choosing to ignore it.

Not choosing to ignore, just accepting the fact that most people consider hypothetical matchups when both fighters are prepared for the fight.

[chucktaylor]

Holmes.

Maybe Wladimir gets there, but the competition was just so much better in Holmes's day. Not Wlad's fault, but it is what it is. Klitschko votes are speculative IMO.

Larry fought a few guys who were better than Wlad's best opponents. But I disagree with the statement " The competition was SO MUCH BETTER in Holmes' day." Of Larry's 19 or so title defenses about a dozen or more included guys like Evangelista, Rodriguez, Ledoux, Ocasio, Zanon, L. Spinks, Tex Cobb, David Bey, Marvis Frazier, and a thoroughly diminished Ali. He also took on a lot of guys who were simply too green when he fought them and at times left the crowds wondering if he even deserved the decision against such men. Again I rate Holmes higher than Wlad on an all time list and might even give his comp the nod as being a "bit" better. But the difference is marginal at best.

The difference isn't marginal, it's substantial. He had big wins against Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon. Even his win over Mercer in the early 90's compares with Wlad's best wins. Not to mention that the fights were actually entertaining and merit watching again. I watched the Haye, Povetkin and Byrd fights once, as they happened, and I don't plan on ever watching them again.

[drunkenpiper36]

The difference isn't marginal, it's substantial. He had big wins against Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon. Even his win over Mercer in the early 90's compares with Wlad's best wins. Not to mention that the fights were actually entertaining and merit watching again. I watched the Haye, Povetkin and Byrd fights once, as they happened, and I don't plan on ever watching them again.

As I said, Holmes fought a few men who were better than Wlad's best, but most of the challengers Holmes met were no better, and some of them even worse. Also the list of fighters you mentioned look good on the surface but require closer examination. Tim Witherspoon had 15 pro fights and a short amateur career going into that match. He was out of the ring for nearly a year prior to facing Holmes and had his jaw broken in his last outing against Snipes who many thought beat him. He fought Holmes to a close verdict that some felt Larry lost. Norton was past his prime and again it was a razor thin verdict. Shavers blew hot and cold, often losing to lesser men and flooring Holmes is one of the things he's best known for. Cooney saw 54 seconds of boxing action in two years going into the Holmes bout. Ray Mercer was a great win given Larry's age and status coming out of retirement, but hardly a great opponent. Still I might rate these wins higher than a lot of Wlad's best wins, but their resumes against quality comp is still marginal in my opinion.

[chucktaylor]

The difference isn't marginal, it's substantial. He had big wins against Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon. Even his win over Mercer in the early 90's compares with Wlad's best wins. Not to mention that the fights were actually entertaining and merit watching again. I watched the Haye, Povetkin and Byrd fights once, as they happened, and I don't plan on ever watching them again.

As I said, Holmes fought a few guys who were better than Wlad's best, but most of the men Holmes fought were no better and some of them even worse. Also the list of guys you listed looks good on the surface but requires closer examination. Tim Witherspoon had 15 pro fights and a short amateur career going into that match. He was out of the ring for nearly a year prior to facing Holmes and had his jaw broken in his last fight against Snipes who many thought beat him. He fought Holmes to a close verdict that some thought Larry lost. Norton was past his prime and again it was a razor thin verdict. Shavers blew hot and cold, often losing to lesser men and flooring Holmes is one of the things he's best known for. Cooney saw 54 seconds of boxing action in two years going into the Holmes bout. Ray Mercer was a great win given Larry's age and status coming out of retirement, but hardly a great opponent. Still I might rate these wins higher than a lot of Wlad's best wins, but their resumes against quality comp is still marginal in my opinion.

If you are going to discredit Larry's best wins... Haye was a cruiser and barely beat Valuev before facing Wlad. Povetkin was taken to the limit by another cruiser (I thought he lost). And Byrd lost every round to Vitali, but stuck around and was fortunate VK injured himself. The second time he had recently barely beaten McCline and was in a legendarily bad fight against Williamson. So much for Wlad's best wins then, plus they were all horrifically boring fights, unlike Larry who treated the fans to a few classics throughout his career. Round 15 of Holmes-Norton had better action than in all of those Wlad fights combined.

[drunkenpiper36]

The difference isn't marginal, it's substantial. He had big wins against Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon. Even his win over Mercer in the early 90's compares with Wlad's best wins. Not to mention that the fights were actually entertaining and merit watching again. I watched the Haye, Povetkin and Byrd fights once, as they happened, and I don't plan on ever watching them again.

As I said, Holmes fought a few guys who were better than Wlad's best, but most of the men Holmes fought were no better and some of them even worse. Also the list of guys you listed looks good on the surface but requires closer examination. Tim Witherspoon had 15 pro fights and a short amateur career going into that match. He was out of the ring for nearly a year prior to facing Holmes and had his jaw broken in his last fight against Snipes who many thought beat him. He fought Holmes to a close verdict that some thought Larry lost. Norton was past his prime and again it was a razor thin verdict. Shavers blew hot and cold, often losing to lesser men and flooring Holmes is one of the things he's best known for. Cooney saw 54 seconds of boxing action in two years going into the Holmes bout. Ray Mercer was a great win given Larry's age and status coming out of retirement, but hardly a great opponent. Still I might rate these wins higher than a lot of Wlad's best wins, but their resumes against quality comp is still marginal in my opinion.

If you are going to discredit Larry's best wins... Haye was a cruiser and barely beat Valuev before facing Wlad. Povetkin was taken to the limit by another cruiser (I thought he lost). And Byrd lost every round to Vitali, but stuck around and was fortunate VK injured himself. The second time he had recently barely beaten McCline and was in a legendarily bad fight against Williamson. So much for Wlad's best wins then, plus they were all horrifically boring fights, unlike Larry who treated the fans to a few classics throughout his career. Round 15 of Holmes-Norton had better action than in all of those Wlad fights combined.

I am neither discrediting Holmes' best wins nor disputing the shortcomings of Wlad's.. Only pointing out that the margin of difference between the two wasn't THAT wide. I already said Holmes edges Klitschko on comp. Is that not enough? Why try to make something bigger of Holmes' comp than it really was or completely piss all over Wlad's in an effort to diminish it to a lower degree than it is? And how does Holmes being in more entertaining fights make the quality of his opposition any better? Just because Arturo Ghatti and Mickey Ward looked great together doesn't mean that those men were better than pernell whitaker or Mike McCallum who were often less exciting to watch...

[evrenb]

I find it hard to rate Klitschko knowing he refused a drugs test for Pulev. What does that tell you??

[SNG]

I find it hard to rate Klitschko knowing he refused a drugs test for Pulev. What does that tell you??

That he didn't want to take a drugs test after he fought Pulev.

[JCS]

I find it hard to rate Klitschko knowing he refused a drugs test for Pulev. What does that tell you??

That he didn't want to take a drugs test after he fought Pulev.

When you look at Wladimir's physique.. do you really need to see the test results?

[chucktaylor]

I am neither discrediting Holmes' best wins nor disputing the shortcomings of Wlad's.. Only pointing out that the margin of difference between the two wasn't THAT wide. I already said Holmes edges Klitschko on comp. Is that not enough? Why try to make something bigger of Holmes' comp than it really was or completely piss all over Wlad's in an effort to diminish it to a lower degree than it is? And how does Holmes being in more entertaining fights make the quality of his opposition any better? Just because Arturo Ghatti and Mickey Ward looked great together doesn't mean that those men were better than pernell whitaker or Mike McCallum who were often less exciting to watch...

It doesn't, I'm just having a hard time understanding why someone would rank Wlad ahead all-time, being that Larry was overall vastly more entertaining to watch on top of having a better resume.

[drunkenpiper36]

I am neither discrediting Holmes' best wins nor disputing the shortcomings of Wlad's.. Only pointing out that the margin of difference between the two wasn't THAT wide. I already said Holmes edges Klitschko on comp. Is that not enough? Why try to make something bigger of Holmes' comp than it really was or completely piss all over Wlad's in an effort to diminish it to a lower degree than it is? And how does Holmes being in more entertaining fights make the quality of his opposition any better? Just because Arturo Ghatti and Mickey Ward looked great together doesn't mean that those men were better than pernell whitaker or Mike McCallum who were often less exciting to watch...

It doesn't, I'm just having a hard time understanding why someone would rank Wlad ahead all-time, being that Larry was overall vastly more entertaining to watch on top of having a better resume.

I don't rank wlad ahead of Holmes. That was never my position.

[chucktaylor]

I was referring to the ones who did vote for Wlad

[evrenb]

I do greatly admire Wlad but here is the but. I do not believe he has the stamina, guts and toughness if it came down to a tough fight. Once challenged he didn't react well...I am citing, Sanders, Williamson, Purrity. He doesn't have a great chin. When it came to a battle against an all time great are you telling me he wouldn't have to go in to the trenches at some point. I wouldn't bet on him in this position. What he has done is perfect an awkward style where he doesn't fight to entertain but win...a bit like Mayweather in that respect. He fights scared. When I watched the Williamson fight I saw Larry in there...he was 6feet 3 also similar weight but tonnes of more ability, better jab, better right (the punch that Wlad was dropped by in this fight) more competitive...It has to be Larry in this match...I do not doubt myself now. I have spent a few nights watching both guys in action and I am certain in my mind now. If the referee was fair of course.

[Ricky_]

I do greatly admire Wlad but here is the but. I do not believe he has the stamina, guts and toughness if it came down to a tough fight. Once challenged he didn't react well...I am citing, Sanders, Williamson, Purrity. He doesn't have a great chin. When it came to a battle against an all time great are you telling me he wouldn't have to go in to the trenches at some point. I wouldn't bet on him in this position. What he has done is perfect an awkward style where he doesn't fight to entertain but win...a bit like Mayweather in that respect. He fights scared. When I watched the Williamson fight I saw Larry in there...he was 6feet 3 also similar weight but tonnes of more ability, better jab, better right (the punch that Wlad was dropped by in this fight) more competitive...It has to be Larry in this match...I do not doubt myself now. I have spent a few nights watching both guys in action and I am certain in my mind now. If the referee was fair of course.

Good post.