Wladimir Klitschko v Larry Holmes in all-time HW rankings

[Leonid]

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.

Yeah, that's fair, to pick apart one of Wlad's worst fights, where he came back from 2 ko losses and not yet changed his style that made him what he is. I do admire Holmes, but how about: undefeated dominant champion Larry Holmes, "best jab in history", being outjabbed and outboxed by Carl Wiliams, a future HOFer, wait, yep, that's right - journeyman. And he took 9 rounds and busted champ's face. Wlad has advantage in height and weight, has more ability, better jab, better right, better left hook, more competitive...It has to be Wlad in this match.

[KBB]

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.

Yeah, that's fair, to pick apart one of Wlad's worst fights, where he came back from 2 ko losses and not yet changed his style that made him what he is. I do admire Holmes, but how about: undefeated dominant champion Larry Holmes, "best jab in history", being outjabbed and outboxed by Carl Wiliams, a future HOFer, wait, yep, that's right - journeyman. And he took 9 rounds and busted champ's face. Wlad has advantage in height and weight, has more ability, better jab, better right, better left hook, more competitive...It has to be Wlad in this match.

This is boxing and anyone can hurt anyone, especially in the HW division. Chris Byrd was the softest punching HW probably of all time and look how he stopped Klitschko.

One fighter beating another analogy proves nothing, size disparity proves even less. Personally I'd take Holmes because he's fought guys that are far better than the Bag of Donuts type of fighters that Wlad and his brother has beaten and he's shown better foot movement, defense and ring generalship.

[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.

Yeah, that's fair, to pick apart one of Wlad's worst fights, where he came back from 2 ko losses and not yet changed his style that made him what he is. I do admire Holmes, but how about: undefeated dominant champion Larry Holmes, "best jab in history", being outjabbed and outboxed by Carl Wiliams, a future HOFer, wait, yep, that's right - journeyman. And he took 9 rounds and busted champ's face. Wlad has advantage in height and weight, has more ability, better jab, better right, better left hook, more competitive...It has to be Wlad in this match.

I reckon many wouldn't agree with you that Wlad had a better jab or was more competitive. As I stated on earlier posts Holmes was at his best 1977/78 - 1982/3 - I would pick this Holmes versus any version of Wlad.

I also think calling an undefeated young fighter going in against Holmes a 'Journeyman' is stretching the truth. I watched this fight last night funnily enough and it was a poor performance by Larry's standard. He was at the end of his proper career.

Opinions make the world go around I guess...you are welcome to yours...

Evrenb

[Leonid]

I reckon many wouldn't agree with you that Wlad had a better jab or was more competitive. As I stated on earlier posts Holmes was at his best 1977/78 - 1982/3 - I would pick this Holmes versus any version of Wlad.

I also think calling an undefeated young fighter going in against Holmes a 'Journeyman' is stretching the truth. I watched this fight last night funnily enough and it was a poor performance by Larry's standard. He was at the end of his proper career.

Opinions make the world go around I guess...you are welcome to yours...

Evrenb

And I would pick prime Wlad over any version of Holmes H2H))) But as I wrote before, they are comparative in a historic standing.
By "journeyman" I was kinda referring to his whole carrear, which I thought was implied following the "future HOFer" joke.

To KBB: "size disparity proves even less" - No. Good bigger fighter beats equally good smaller fighter. That's why we have divisions.
"better foot movement, defense" - it did not help Haye win. And I'd give Haye 50/50 chance vs Larry H2H. You think I must be trolling. I'm not.

I just don't exaggarate past fighter's abilities, while in many minds here legends can't be questioned. Holmes having the best jab in history can't be questioned by the mentioned fact of him being outjabbed by a not so good fighter. Shavers having the hardest punch (per biased statements of those he lost to) can't be disproved by the fact he didn't win those fights despite landing some of his best bombs, while we often say that at HW even not the biggest punchers have fair chance to stop better boxers. Ali can't be disproved as the best skilled and simply the very best HW by the fact that he had competitive fights with guys like abovementioned very limited puncher, hell, even young and so fast and so skilled Clay had very even fight with Jones, not so special fighter either.

Opinions, opinions... there should be some respect, but there should be some logic too.

[tiny_acres]

I reckon many wouldn't agree with you that Wlad had a better jab or was more competitive. As I stated on earlier posts Holmes was at his best 1977/78 - 1982/3 - I would pick this Holmes versus any version of Wlad.

I also think calling an undefeated young fighter going in against Holmes a 'Journeyman' is stretching the truth. I watched this fight last night funnily enough and it was a poor performance by Larry's standard. He was at the end of his proper career.

Opinions make the world go around I guess...you are welcome to yours...

Evrenb

I'd give Haye 50/50 chance vs Larry H2H. You think I must be trolling. I'm not.

Holmes having the best jab in history can't be questioned by the mentioned fact of him being outjabbed by a not so good fighter. Shavers having the hardest punch (per biased statements of those he lost to) young and so fast and so skilled Clay had very even fight with Jones, not so special fighter either.

I damned near give up on current scene.With comments like these this site is doomed

[Leonid]

I reckon many wouldn't agree with you that Wlad had a better jab or was more competitive. As I stated on earlier posts Holmes was at his best 1977/78 - 1982/3 - I would pick this Holmes versus any version of Wlad.

I also think calling an undefeated young fighter going in against Holmes a 'Journeyman' is stretching the truth. I watched this fight last night funnily enough and it was a poor performance by Larry's standard. He was at the end of his proper career.

Opinions make the world go around I guess...you are welcome to yours...

Evrenb

I'd give Haye 50/50 chance vs Larry H2H. You think I must be trolling. I'm not.

Holmes having the best jab in history can't be questioned by the mentioned fact of him being outjabbed by a not so good fighter. Shavers having the hardest punch (per biased statements of those he lost to) young and so fast and so skilled Clay had very even fight with Jones, not so special fighter either.

I damned near give up on current scene.With comments like these this site is doomed

I was pretty sure you would treat it as stupid post and humiliate me immediately. But its not posts like this or even obvious trolls that's killing current scene and all english-speaking forums. Its lack of quality american champions (and not only in HW, guys like Floyd, Ward, Hop are a bit boring). Russian forums are quite lively on the same time, since former USSR now have great (Wlad) and exciting (Kovalev, Golovkin, Provodnikov, Lomachenko) champs. When Wlad vs. Povetkin fight was building up for a few years, the dedicated thread had 10,000 pages of posts. Now that's pretty impressive.

[tiny_acres]

I reckon many wouldn't agree with you that Wlad had a better jab or was more competitive. As I stated on earlier posts Holmes was at his best 1977/78 - 1982/3 - I would pick this Holmes versus any version of Wlad.

I also think calling an undefeated young fighter going in against Holmes a 'Journeyman' is stretching the truth. I watched this fight last night funnily enough and it was a poor performance by Larry's standard. He was at the end of his proper career.

Opinions make the world go around I guess...you are welcome to yours...



I'd give Haye 50/50 chance vs Larry H2H. You think I must be trolling. I'm not.

Holmes having the best jab in history can't be questioned by the mentioned fact of him being outjabbed by a not so good fighter. Shavers having the hardest punch (per biased statements of those he lost to) young and so fast and so skilled Clay had very even fight with Jones, not so special fighter either.

I damned near give up on current scene.With comments like these this site is doomed

I was pretty sure you would treat it as stupid post and humiliate me immediately. But its not posts like this or even obvious trolls that's killing current scene and all english-speaking forums. Its lack of quality american champions (and not only in HW, guys like Floyd, Ward, Hop are a bit boring). Russian forums are quite lively on the same time, since former USSR now have great (Wlad) and exciting (Kovalev, Golovkin, Provodnikov, Lomachenko) champs.

Kovalev, Golovkin, Provodnikov, Lomachenko are exciting fighters.No one argues that.And for the millionth time
I could care less where a fighter is from.
I just think your comments are ignorant and lack any knowledge of the sport or its history.

[evrenb]

I reckon many wouldn't agree with you that Wlad had a better jab or was more competitive. As I stated on earlier posts Holmes was at his best 1977/78 - 1982/3 - I would pick this Holmes versus any version of Wlad.

I also think calling an undefeated young fighter going in against Holmes a 'Journeyman' is stretching the truth. I watched this fight last night funnily enough and it was a poor performance by Larry's standard. He was at the end of his proper career.

Opinions make the world go around I guess...you are welcome to yours...

Evrenb

And I would pick prime Wlad over any version of Holmes H2H))) But as I wrote before, they are comparative in a historic standing.
By "journeyman" I was kinda referring to his whole carrear, which I thought was implied following the "future HOFer" joke.

To KBB: "size disparity proves even less" - No. Good bigger fighter beats equally good smaller fighter. That's why we have divisions.
"better foot movement, defense" - it did not help Haye win. And I'd give Haye 50/50 chance vs Larry H2H. You think I must be trolling. I'm not.

I just don't exaggarate past fighter's abilities, while in many minds here legends can't be questioned. Holmes having the best jab in history can't be questioned by the mentioned fact of him being outjabbed by a not so good fighter. Shavers having the hardest punch (per biased statements of those he lost to) can't be disproved by the fact he didn't win those fights despite landing some of his best bombs, while we often say that at HW even not the biggest punchers have fair chance to stop better boxers. Ali can't be disproved as the best skilled and simply the very best HW by the fact that he had competitive fights with guys like abovementioned very limited puncher, hell, even young and so fast and so skilled Clay had very even fight with Jones, not so special fighter either.

Opinions, opinions... there should be some respect, but there should be some logic too.

Where is the logic lacking friend?

[Leonid]

Kovalev, Golovkin, Provodnikov, Lomachenko are exciting fighters.No one argues that.And for the millionth time
I could care less where a fighter is from.
I just think your comments are ignorant and lack any knowledge of the sport or its history.

And thanks for taking the time to point that out every time. I'm pretty sure where a fighter is from is not the last factor for the general public, I wasn't talking about you there, surely you are very special.

[evrenb]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

[tiny_acres]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

I agree that his best win is Haye. I also agree that too many people look past those 3 loses.
But I do think he has the talent to give any fighter in history a tough night.His size and power alone would cause
even the most sturdy chinned fighter to be cautious. Klitschko is one hell of an obstacle for anyone.
But he is beatable.

[evrenb]

Yep I agree with you

[chucktaylor]

I was pretty sure you would treat it as stupid post and humiliate me immediately. But its not posts like this or even obvious trolls that's killing current scene and all english-speaking forums. Its lack of quality american champions (and not only in HW, guys like Floyd, Ward, Hop are a bit boring). Russian forums are quite lively on the same time, since former USSR now have great (Wlad) and exciting (Kovalev, Golovkin, Provodnikov, Lomachenko) champs. When Wlad vs. Povetkin fight was building up for a few years, the dedicated thread had 10,000 pages of posts. Now that's pretty impressive.

That's terrible, but pretty funny too. The disappointment had to be epic. 10K pages (250K posts assuming its 25 per page) and it turned out to be one of the worst HW championship fights of all time and one of the worst championship fights at any weight I've ever seen.

[tiny_acres]

I was pretty sure you would treat it as stupid post and humiliate me immediately. But its not posts like this or even obvious trolls that's killing current scene and all english-speaking forums. Its lack of quality american champions (and not only in HW, guys like Floyd, Ward, Hop are a bit boring). Russian forums are quite lively on the same time, since former USSR now have great (Wlad) and exciting (Kovalev, Golovkin, Provodnikov, Lomachenko) champs. When Wlad vs. Povetkin fight was building up for a few years, the dedicated thread had 10,000 pages of posts. Now that's pretty impressive.

That's terrible, but pretty funny too. The disappointment had to be epic. 10K pages (250K posts assuming its 25 per page) and it turned out to be one of the worst HW championship fights of all time and one of the worst championship fights at any weight I've ever seen.

I blame the ref.He allowed the most holding and rough house tactics in history.

[Leonid]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

Logic is lacking in heads of many posters here, who would laugh at most of my statements above without even considering it. I wasn't adressing your previous post with this since it was not unreasonable. But "demolished three time in his prime" is unreasonable, at least 1 of them was very clearly not in his prime and ther other 2 were pre-prime as well IMO, before Wlad changed his style and became who he is. And as I said earlier I'd give Haye 50/50 chances with Larry H2H. Who's his the best win? Would you confidently take over Haye a past-it Norton, or inexperienced and very limited Smith, or his ko1 victim Spoon, very limited Shavers, or unsuccessful big white hope, or 19-8 Weaver? Who it would be?

[drunkenpiper36]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

His devastating defeats to Purity, Sanders and Brewster will always prevent him from reaching the top five in most people's eyes, including my own. But we should also ask ourselves, how many fighters would have the grit necessary to come back from such defeats and establish the kind of career that he's had? And with an 11 year winning streak, some 24 world title fights ( many of which alpha strap defenses ), and an overall record of 63-3-0-53 along with an olympic gold medal, he's on the brink of making my top 10. His opposition wasn't stellar by any means, but probably not the weakest in history. Lot's of big men, former olympians, undefeated records and title holders of one kind or another on that list.. He isn't the prettiest fighter to watch either and a lot of his performances were flat, but also decisive in most cases. He's never gotten a decision that I didn't feel he deserved. And after 35 years from about 1980 onward, in a division where we've seen more than our fair share of unmotivated and deconditioned heavy's, its a breath of fresh air to see a champion who even at the age of 38 shows up consistently in great shape. Sure I can understand criteria for having others ahead of him. But boxing is a subjective sport and in truth there are probably 20-25 heavyweights in history who in "theory" could make a top 10 list.

[cold187]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

His devastating defeats to Purity, Sanders and Brewster will always prevent him from reaching the top five in most people's eyes, including my own. But we should also ask ourselves, how many fighters would have the grit necessary to come back from such defeats and establish the kind of career that he's had? And with an 11 year winning streak, some 24 world title fights ( many of which alpha strap defenses ), and an overall record of 63-3-0-53 along with an olympic gold medal, he's on the brink of making my top 10. His opposition wasn't stellar by any means, but probably not the weakest in history. Lot's of big men, former olympians, undefeated records and title holders of one kind or another on that list.. He isn't the prettiest fighter to watch either and a lot of his performances were flat, but also decisive in most cases. He's never gotten a decision that I didn't feel he deserved. And after 35 years from about 1980 onward, in a division where we've seen more than our fair share of unmotivated and deconditioned heavy's, its a breath of fresh air to see a champion who even at the age of 38 shows up consistently in great shape. Sure I can understand criteria for having others ahead of him. But boxing is a subjective sport and in truth there are probably 20-25 heavyweights in history who in "theory" could make a top 10 list.

lennox lewis got kod by mccall, and only one rematch as mccall cried. for sure mccall wouldnt have got stopped.

tyson lost to williams, mcbride ok he was past it, but a priime tyyson lost to buster douglas

[chucktaylor]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

Logic is lacking in heads of many posters here, who would laugh at most of my statements above without even considering it. I wasn't adressing your previous post with this since it was not unreasonable. But "demolished three time in his prime" is unreasonable, at least 1 of them was very clearly not in his prime and ther other 2 were pre-prime as well IMO, before Wlad changed his style and became who he is. And as I said earlier I'd give Haye 50/50 chances with Larry H2H. Who's his the best win? Would you confidently take over Haye a past-it Norton, or inexperienced and very limited Smith, or his ko1 victim Spoon, very limited Shavers, or unsuccessful big white hope, or 19-8 Weaver? Who it would be?

Wlad was in his athletic prime when he was getting KO'd, but not the peak of his skills. And I wouldn't confidently take Haye over Ray Mercer (look at the Lewis or Holyfield fights or what he did to Morrison), let alone Norton, and Larry was fat when he took Mercer to school.
Larry not needing an extensive amateur background or to be KO'd 3 times by B and C level fighters before hitting his 'prime' does count for something. Also, he had to take a more difficult route to the top, but still got there before Wlad. Larry wasn't afforded nearly the same opportunities as Wlad throughout his early life and career. Wlad had tons of support from the start to get him where he is, whereas Larry, as a boy, fought other kids while blindfolded in smokey bars for food because he was impoverished and hungry. I find it unlikely that Wlad would be where is now if instead of having all the support in the world, he was as disadvantaged as Larry.
Its incredible that Larry accomplished what he did, despite all the factors against him. Wlad had so many advantages, yet Larry still accomplished more in the sport.

[evrenb]

...the refusal to take a doping test bothers me too....

[evrenb]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

Logic is lacking in heads of many posters here, who would laugh at most of my statements above without even considering it. I wasn't adressing your previous post with this since it was not unreasonable. But "demolished three time in his prime" is unreasonable, at least 1 of them was very clearly not in his prime and ther other 2 were pre-prime as well IMO, before Wlad changed his style and became who he is. And as I said earlier I'd give Haye 50/50 chances with Larry H2H. Who's his the best win? Would you confidently take over Haye a past-it Norton, or inexperienced and very limited Smith, or his ko1 victim Spoon, very limited Shavers, or unsuccessful big white hope, or 19-8 Weaver? Who it would be?

I haven't got a clue what your talking about. Please re-write so I can understand your point.

[cjdragon]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

His devastating defeats to Purity, Sanders and Brewster will always prevent him from reaching the top five in most people's eyes, including my own. But we should also ask ourselves, how many fighters would have the grit necessary to come back from such defeats and establish the kind of career that he's had? And with an 11 year winning streak, some 24 world title fights ( many of which alpha strap defenses ), and an overall record of 63-3-0-53 along with an olympic gold medal, he's on the brink of making my top 10. His opposition wasn't stellar by any means, but probably not the weakest in history. Lot's of big men, former olympians, undefeated records and title holders of one kind or another on that list.. He isn't the prettiest fighter to watch either and a lot of his performances were flat, but also decisive in most cases. He's never gotten a decision that I didn't feel he deserved. And after 35 years from about 1980 onward, in a division where we've seen more than our fair share of unmotivated and deconditioned heavy's, its a breath of fresh air to see a champion who even at the age of 38 shows up consistently in great shape. Sure I can understand criteria for having others ahead of him. But boxing is a subjective sport and in truth there are probably 20-25 heavyweights in history who in "theory" could make a top 10 list.

I fully agree, well said.

And regarding losses in general, throughout the years even "journeyman" have had their bell rung, changed trainers, learned from their defeats to become champions.
Losing is never good of course, but he did indeed learn from his early losses. He doesn't tire anymore, doesn't punch himself out anymore, doesn't make his chin an easy target anymore, etc. He actually took his losses seriously and overcame the very things that caused him to lose in the first place.
And look at what he has accomplished since his last defeat ages ago...he's pretty darned good. :)

[drunkenpiper36]

It's funny that a guy who was demolished three times in his prime, all by knockout, all by average fighters is being considered alongside the great Easton assassin. I don't get it. Klinchkos best performance was against Haye in my opinion. That is the best fighter he has fought.

His devastating defeats to Purity, Sanders and Brewster will always prevent him from reaching the top five in most people's eyes, including my own. But we should also ask ourselves, how many fighters would have the grit necessary to come back from such defeats and establish the kind of career that he's had? And with an 11 year winning streak, some 24 world title fights ( many of which alpha strap defenses ), and an overall record of 63-3-0-53 along with an olympic gold medal, he's on the brink of making my top 10. His opposition wasn't stellar by any means, but probably not the weakest in history. Lot's of big men, former olympians, undefeated records and title holders of one kind or another on that list.. He isn't the prettiest fighter to watch either and a lot of his performances were flat, but also decisive in most cases. He's never gotten a decision that I didn't feel he deserved. And after 35 years from about 1980 onward, in a division where we've seen more than our fair share of unmotivated and deconditioned heavy's, its a breath of fresh air to see a champion who even at the age of 38 shows up consistently in great shape. Sure I can understand criteria for having others ahead of him. But boxing is a subjective sport and in truth there are probably 20-25 heavyweights in history who in "theory" could make a top 10 list.

I fully agree, well said.

And regarding losses in general, throughout the years even "journeyman" have had their bell rung, changed trainers, learned from their defeats to become champions.
Losing is never good of course, but he did indeed learn from his early losses. He doesn't tire anymore, doesn't punch himself out anymore, doesn't make his chin an easy target anymore, etc. He actually took his losses seriously and overcame the very things that caused him to lose in the first place.
And look at what he has accomplished since his last defeat ages ago...he's pretty darned good. :)

He's not the greatest of all time and never will be. But we can't deny that there are precious few who could have replicated what he's done.

[birdman77]

My only brother loves both fighters. Younger Holmes was great champ. Older Holmes - very good fighter. Ancient Holmes - crafty, gritty, fundamental.

I have knocks on both fighters. Spinks I and II. Then lopsided defeats for Wlad. Those will never escape in most historians memory. Sure, Steward taught him well. He's very very good now. I'll take Vitali any day though.

Holmes top 10 HW. Wlad top 15 for now

[dempseyfire]

OMG so now people are claiming Haye has a 50/50 chance vs Holmes??

This thread has gone to hell. You younger posters know jack squat. Haye would lose to (more than) a handful of Holmes victims. I wouldn't confidently pick Haye against Renaldo Snipes.

[tiny_acres]

OMG so now people are claiming Haye has a 50/50 chance vs Holmes??

This thread has gone to hell. You younger posters know jack squat. Haye would lose to (more than) a handful of Holmes victims. I wouldn't confidently pick Haye against Renaldo Snipes.

That was the biggest problem I had on the entire thread.No way in hell does Haye have a 50/50 chance.
That may have been one of the most uneducated posts in the history of boxrec.