Without going into a huge rehash, I think with Holmes you had a very experienced and well trained campaigner, facing a lot of very young, fresh fighters. He navigated a lot of unfashionable fighters, who were probably all peaking for Larry. Guys like Renaldo Snipes, who you may scoff at but try getting in a ring with them when undefeated and they are ready to go!Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 07:11Every era gets called a horrible era including the 90s and 70s at the time. Haye and Povetkin are probably better than anyone Tyson beat. Who did Larry Holmes beat that was so good? Norton? Witherspoon? Cooney? Not too much difference in quality. Wlad took plenty of zeros too.Billy Tully wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 06:34Klitschko fans always talk numbers, they never talk names. Understandable when his big wins are Sam Peter, Chris Byrd and David Haye. Talk about being King of the Dung Hill. Horrible, horrible era.Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 06:07
How is this Fury's fault. Fury wanted a 35yo Wlad and Wlad said if he beat Chisora he'd box Fury but then avoided him for 4 years. Also a 39yo Wlad had still barely lost a round in a decade, is the best 39 year old heavyweight ever and is still pretty close to his prime given his physical condition. There was no sign ofobvious decline going into the Fury fight. He would also be outboxing AJ 2 years later at 41
I’m not sure about Holmes and Fury, but could Tyson handle 15 rounds in the heat of Africa against Ali? It’s kind of unknown. I’m not sure I like people writing off Bowe too easily. He had a lot of tools in his arsenal, and if you had chinks in your armour he would probably capitalise. Too much for a pre-Stewart Lewis in my opinion.