BoxRec

Discuss

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.

Holmes fought better men simple as - though I must say, I find it hard to envisage Wlad losing to Spinks.

Holmes was one of the most fluid fighters I've ever seen at heavyweight, and he hit hard with both hands, AND had a great chin and even greater powers of recovery. There wasn't really anything he lacked, speed, guile, power, toughness, heart, - you name it, he had it.

I think you could argue in many ways, that Holmes was the perfect heavyweight. His reign was as impressive as any heavyweight champ in history.

Forgot to mention the best jab in the history of the heavyweight division.

fergusg wrote:It’s hard to deny that Holmes’ calibre of opposition is better than Wladimir’s, but the question is this… could any of Larry’s opponents stood any chance whatsoever of defeating “Dr Steelhammer”?

Would a 6’ 3” 215lb version of Larry Holmes have defeated a 6’ 6” 245lb highly-athletic Wladimir Klitschko, when the Ukrainian is stronger and also has a much higher work-rate than the ‘The Easton Assassin’?

On a pound-for-pound basis, Holmes is greater than Klistchko, but had they fought today based on their actual physical attributes, Wladimir’s sheer size, strength, athletic prowess and very high-work-rate may have been insurmountable advantages.

Put it this way, would a 35 year old 6’6” 245lb chiselled, highly-athletic and fundamentally-sound Wladimir Klitschko have tasted defeat to a 199¾lb fleshy Michael Spinks (who previously fought as a 175lb-er three months prior)? Larry Holmes was 35 years old when he lost twice to the ‘Jinx’.

I honestly believe that fight fans suffer from excessive nostalgia, as their opinions are unduly biased due to looking at the scenario through rose-tinted glasses!

Again though, this thread is not about who beats who.. It is about their "all-time ranking", which to me means comparing the two careers.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to play imaginary match-ups... In 100 years, when your Russian Heavyweight champion is 6'10" 295 with 6% body fat, of course Wladimir will stand no chance...

fergusg wrote:It’s hard to deny that Holmes’ calibre of opposition is better than Wladimir’s, but the question is this… could any of Larry’s opponents stood any chance whatsoever of defeating “Dr Steelhammer”?

Would a 6’ 3” 215lb version of Larry Holmes have defeated a 6’ 6” 245lb highly-athletic Wladimir Klitschko, when the Ukrainian is stronger and also has a much higher work-rate than the ‘The Easton Assassin’?

On a pound-for-pound basis, Holmes is greater than Klistchko, but had they fought today based on their actual physical attributes, Wladimir’s sheer size, strength, athletic prowess and very high-work-rate may have been insurmountable advantages.

Put it this way, would a 35 year old 6’6” 245lb chiselled, highly-athletic and fundamentally-sound Wladimir Klitschko have tasted defeat to a 199¾lb fleshy Michael Spinks (who previously fought as a 175lb-er three months prior)? Larry Holmes was only 35 years old when he lost twice to the ‘Jinx’.

I honestly believe that fight fans suffer from excessive nostalgia, as their opinions are unduly biased due to looking at the scenario through rose-tinted glasses!

Higher workrate? What are you smoking? Larry in his prime kept a pace Wlad would not be able to keep up with . . .

Holmes even at 48 would have never lost to Ross Purrity . . .

fergusg wrote:

JCS wrote:

fergusg wrote:It’s hard to deny that Holmes’ calibre of opposition is better than Wladimir’s, but the question is this… could any of Larry’s opponents stood any chance whatsoever of defeating “Dr Steelhammer”?

Would a 6’ 3” 215lb version of Larry Holmes have defeated a 6’ 6” 245lb highly-athletic Wladimir Klitschko, when the Ukrainian is stronger and also has a much higher work-rate than the ‘The Easton Assassin’?

On a pound-for-pound basis, Holmes is greater than Klistchko, but had they fought today based on their actual physical attributes, Wladimir’s sheer size, strength, athletic prowess and very high-work-rate may have been insurmountable advantages.

Put it this way, would a 35 year old 6’6” 245lb chiselled, highly-athletic and fundamentally-sound Wladimir Klitschko have tasted defeat to a 199¾lb fleshy Michael Spinks (who previously fought as a 175lb-er three months prior)? Larry Holmes was 35 years old when he lost twice to the ‘Jinx’.

I honestly believe that fight fans suffer from excessive nostalgia, as their opinions are unduly biased due to looking at the scenario through rose-tinted glasses!

Again though, this thread is not about who beats who.. It is about their "all-time ranking", which to me means comparing the two careers.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to play imaginary match-ups... In 100 years, when your Russian Heavyweight champion is 6'10" 295 with 6% body fat, of course Wladimir will stand no chance...

Boxing is a sport… and I chose to gauge “greatness” in terms of in-ring ability.

If you’re only considering this concept in terms of historical contribution due to their accomplishments, then you could argue that Holmes & Klitschko hold an equal standing as they both cleaned out the heavyweight division and were unappreciated during their reigns.

The only significant difference between the two... is that Klitschko is a relatively anonymous fighter in the US, due to his fights taking place in Germany. Also, the Ukrainian’s dominance in the modern era has rendered the weight class as uncompetitive and irrelevant. So this accomplishment may have actually had a negative impact on his legacy.

Klitschko’s dominance as the heavyweight champion is so strong, is that people prefer to assume that this is because the division is appallingly weak, rather being willing to consider the fact that it’s probably because Wladimir’s so much better than everyone else!

You don't have to "assume" the division is weak; just watch the HW fights between non-Klitschko heavyweights; by and large they are atrocious in both skill level and entertainment value.

fergusg wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Higher workrate? What are you smoking? Larry in his prime kept a pace Wlad would not be able to keep up with . . .

Look at the Compubox stats... and actually watch both men fight.

dempseyfire wrote:Holmes even at 48 would have never lost to Ross Purrity . . .

The Ross Purity defeat happened almost 16 years ago… and are you refusing to recognise the fact that fighters learn their trade and improve? Just take a look at Bernard Hopkins fight record and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Holmes early in his career wouldn't have lost to him either. With less fights than Wlad had when he fought Ross, Holmes beat the far superior Roy Williams.

Yes, I've seen both men fight. Holmes in his prime threw far more punchers per round than Klitschko does (and notably rarely initiated clinches)

fergusg wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:You don't have to "assume" the division is weak; just watch the HW fights between non-Klitschko heavyweights; by and large they are atrocious in both skill level and entertainment value.

Are you an expert on the fights involving contender level boxers from 1973 until 1986?

Are you?

fergusg wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:You don't have to "assume" the division is weak; just watch the HW fights between non-Klitschko heavyweights; by and large they are atrocious in both skill level and entertainment value.

Are you an expert on the fights involving contender level boxers from 1973 until 1986? Have you watched an awful lot of fights involving second-tier fighters from that era or do you hold a lemming-like opinion (as you're simply following common misconceptions held by the masses)?

Yes, I've seen practically all filmed fights between HW contenders in that time period. And it was a much deeper, stronger crop of fighters. Which makes sense because you had many more prospective athletes going into boxing (not just in the US, but worldwide).

The fact of the matter is boxing is going down the toilet as a sport, and has already gotten there in the higher weight classes where divisional depth is a thing of the past. Guys who would've been decent gatekeepers at best in deeper eras are now top 10 title contenders.

Had this discussion with my father earlier today, as we were discussing last night's match... Dad said, "I don't think Klitschko could of beat Larry Holmes," to which I said, "The problem with Vladimir is he is so large, that he doesn't look as athletic or as fluid or as skilled even as much smaller fighters who came before, like Holmes." He doesn't look all that great or impressive on film, because he isn't as lithe or nimble as men smaller than himself. However, that doesn't mean he isn't every bit as good or great as others before him--- and really, when one thinks about it, how many heavyweights can you name being capable of facing a man with all the qualities of Klitschko? Because of his size, strength, talent, ability, and style--- he would make EVERY champion that ever came before him look bad.

And that is the key operative word here, is "look bad"... I'm not saying "win"... but in all honesty, I can see 6'7" 245 pound Klitschko, whose been unbeaten in a decade, with 17 consecutive title defenses even making Muhammad Ali look dull or boring in the ring with him. And Ali would have trouble with him. No one can deny that. Anyone who does, either doesnt know anything about boxing--- or they are just fans of Ali the person, and Ali the legend, and Ali the symbol rather than Ali the fighter.

As of this time... however... Klitschko is three title defenses away from tying Holmes' 20... and eight away from tying the world record set by Joe Louis of 25... In all reality, if you have 3 voluntary defenses and 5 mandatories, or vice versa, I can see it being done... its not that the division today is so poor, as it is that we have a division with a champion whose skillset and abilities are so far and away from the rest of the field. Because, believe you me, if Klitschko was gone--- we would have one slugfest after another, and it would be called a rather entertaining time in the heavyweight division, even if there wouldnt be a clear cut champion in the mix.

Say what you will about the BoxRec rating system, but one thing it is good at, is gauging competition.

More competition equals more rating points... that's just the way it is. With the Heavies, there's not going to be much interference from other divisions... There's also not much of a chance for unnatural rating inflation w/ the system, so that's out the window... so it can't really mean anything else.

Larry Holmes maintained a rating near or above 2000 and went undefeated until fight 49. Has Klitschko ever come close? Compare opponent points.

One could bring up Marciano, but that's a different ballgame as I'd argue he wouldn't even be a Heavyweight in today's realm.. same goes for many of his opponents.

This is just part of the puzzle, but an important part.

dempseyfire wrote:

fergusg wrote:It’s hard to deny that Holmes’ calibre of opposition is better than Wladimir’s, but the question is this… could any of Larry’s opponents stood any chance whatsoever of defeating “Dr Steelhammer”?

Would a 6’ 3” 215lb version of Larry Holmes have defeated a 6’ 6” 245lb highly-athletic Wladimir Klitschko, when the Ukrainian is stronger and also has a much higher work-rate than the ‘The Easton Assassin’?

On a pound-for-pound basis, Holmes is greater than Klistchko, but had they fought today based on their actual physical attributes, Wladimir’s sheer size, strength, athletic prowess and very high-work-rate may have been insurmountable advantages.

Put it this way, would a 35 year old 6’6” 245lb chiselled, highly-athletic and fundamentally-sound Wladimir Klitschko have tasted defeat to a 199¾lb fleshy Michael Spinks (who previously fought as a 175lb-er three months prior)? Larry Holmes was only 35 years old when he lost twice to the ‘Jinx’.

I honestly believe that fight fans suffer from excessive nostalgia, as their opinions are unduly biased due to looking at the scenario through rose-tinted glasses!

Higher workrate? What are you smoking? Larry in his prime kept a pace Wlad would not be able to keep up with . . .

Holmes even at 48 would have never lost to Ross Purrity . . .

You beat me to it - NO WAY does Wlad have a higher workrate than Holmes.

I don't think that the extra height and weight would have been a factor in the fight, Larry had a longer reach, and was A LOT quicker than Wlad - and put his punches together better, his movement was also way better.

Bigger is better only to a degree, Wlad is light on his feet for a man of his size, but he is far from balletic in his footwork. Larry used to float around the ring, not quite like Ali of course, but he was fluid and mobile.

I suggest people go and watch some holmes fights, if they think Wlad has a higher workrate -

HomicideHenry wrote:Had this discussion with my father earlier today, as we were discussing last night's match... Dad said, "I don't think Klitschko could of beat Larry Holmes," to which I said, "The problem with Vladimir is he is so large, that he doesn't look as athletic or as fluid or as skilled even as much smaller fighters who came before, like Holmes." He doesn't look all that great or impressive on film, because he isn't as lithe or nimble as men smaller than himself. However, that doesn't mean he isn't every bit as good or great as others before him--- and really, when one thinks about it, how many heavyweights can you name being capable of facing a man with all the qualities of Klitschko? Because of his size, strength, talent, ability, and style--- he would make EVERY champion that ever came before him look bad.

And that is the key operative word here, is "look bad"... I'm not saying "win"... but in all honesty, I can see 6'7" 245 pound Klitschko, whose been unbeaten in a decade, with 17 consecutive title defenses even making Muhammad Ali look dull or boring in the ring with him. And Ali would have trouble with him. No one can deny that. Anyone who does, either doesnt know anything about boxing--- or they are just fans of Ali the person, and Ali the legend, and Ali the symbol rather than Ali the fighter.

As of this time... however... Klitschko is three title defenses away from tying Holmes' 20... and eight away from tying the world record set by Joe Louis of 25... In all reality, if you have 3 voluntary defenses and 5 mandatories, or vice versa, I can see it being done... its not that the division today is so poor, as it is that we have a division with a champion whose skillset and abilities are so far and away from the rest of the field. Because, believe you me, if Klitschko was gone--- we would have one slugfest after another, and it would be called a rather entertaining time in the heavyweight division, even if there wouldnt be a clear cut champion in the mix.

Agree with that last point, when you have hugely dominant champions for a long time, the division grows stale, the contenders queue up for their shot, get beaten, and then slip back down into the pool - the problem right now is the contenders aren't fighting one another often enough, they are just feasting on bottom-feeders, until they can get a shot.

HomicideHenry wrote:Had this discussion with my father earlier today, as we were discussing last night's match... Dad said, "I don't think Klitschko could of beat Larry Holmes," to which I said, "The problem with Vladimir is he is so large, that he doesn't look as athletic or as fluid or as skilled even as much smaller fighters who came before, like Holmes." He doesn't look all that great or impressive on film, because he isn't as lithe or nimble as men smaller than himself. However, that doesn't mean he isn't every bit as good or great as others before him--- and really, when one thinks about it, how many heavyweights can you name being capable of facing a man with all the qualities of Klitschko? Because of his size, strength, talent, ability, and style--- he would make EVERY champion that ever came before him look bad.

And that is the key operative word here, is "look bad"... I'm not saying "win"... but in all honesty, I can see 6'7" 245 pound Klitschko, whose been unbeaten in a decade, with 17 consecutive title defenses even making Muhammad Ali look dull or boring in the ring with him. And Ali would have trouble with him. No one can deny that. Anyone who does, either doesnt know anything about boxing--- or they are just fans of Ali the person, and Ali the legend, and Ali the symbol rather than Ali the fighter.

As of this time... however... Klitschko is three title defenses away from tying Holmes' 20... and eight away from tying the world record set by Joe Louis of 25... In all reality, if you have 3 voluntary defenses and 5 mandatories, or vice versa, I can see it being done... its not that the division today is so poor, as it is that we have a division with a champion whose skillset and abilities are so far and away from the rest of the field. Because, believe you me, if Klitschko was gone--- we would have one slugfest after another, and it would be called a rather entertaining time in the heavyweight division, even if there wouldnt be a clear cut champion in the mix.

What are these great skilled slugfests between the contenders? Pulev-Thompson . .snore. Jennings-Perez . . snore. Chagaev v anybody . . snore. Wilder vs the latest garbageman they brought back from the grave . . .snooze.
Povetkin-Takam and Arreola-Stiverne were OK but far from great fights.

dempseyfire wrote:
What are these great skilled slugfests between the contenders? Pulev-Thompson . .snore. Jennings-Perez . . snore. Chagaev v anybody . . snore. Wilder vs the latest garbageman they brought back from the grave . . .snooze.
Povetkin-Takam and Arreola-Stiverne were OK but far from great fights.

You are not thinking 4th-dimensionally...

If Klitschko wasn't around, the emphasis would be more on Stiverne, Wilder, Fury and others with exciting styles. Imagine a world without Klitschko in it--- pretend he doesn't exist at all--- who would be heavyweight champion today, then? Both brothers not around--- the world is either a very bleak one, or we would have dozens of attractive fights with action in them.

Problem with the fights you mentioned earlier--- is boxing is in a stalemate because of promoter gridlock, and fighters being difficult to begin with. And it also comes down to politics--- which is why you have these meaningless, boring, unattractive, unimportant fights being made.

That being said, I could be wrong--- if the Klitschko's didn't exist, there would be more gridlock, etc. and we would be in essentially the dark ages--- cus no one would really care about the division one iota. However, I happen to think the division in the last year or so has been more competitive and interesting than it has been. If Klitschko retired tomorrow... imagine these fights: Stiverne/Wilder faces the winner of Fury/Chisora... that winner would then face a power puncher like Glazkov in what would make for an entertaining contest... at the same time, you would have guys like Jennings and Pulev and Povetkin going into over time to get ranked as the top contenders, and those fights would be interesting to see, because there is a sense of urgency--- alot of people dont believe they can beat Klitschko, but they sure as hell get excited when they picture the belt on someone else.

Then of course, Haye may come back. There may also be a heavyweight "Prizefighter" season or two. The division, for all intents and purposes, would be revitalized. No, it will never regain the sort of image or prestige as it had in the 70s or even the 90s, but it would be the shot in the ass that it would need. And you cant deny that there isnt people out there with talent and ability--- to pull it all off. Because, without Klitschko, the division really opens up and it becomes competitive.

I really respect Wlad and rank him among the greatest heavyweights of all time. But I can't rank him (and Lewis fro that matter) above Larry Holmes. Larry hasn't lost to the fighter of Sanders/Brewster/McCall/Rahman caliber until he was 45 y.o. And it was a very, very close decision loss to the same Oliver McCall who just knocked out Lewis in 2 rounds in his previous fight. Larry was more skilled than Lewis and Wlad also. In his prime Holmes wasn't any less dominant than any of them despite the fact that he had neither power they have/had nor their size.

What would you say was a trademark win for Holmes that best demonstrates his skills.

I vote for holmes. wlad is a great fighter but I have holmes at 5 or 6 all time and wlad at 9 or 10.

holmes also had a rather weak era but he beat norton and an old ali, plus his chin was less vulnerable than wlad who had some KO losses earlier in his career.

Holmes was certainly better considering his era, opposition level, entertainment value. He went 48-0, putting together his 19 title defense run in that span, with a small amount of amateur fights and a very difficult early life due to poverty, and still had a decent career for many years after he lost. Athletes are just bigger now across the board- Holmes was relatively well sized for his era and huge athletes like Wlad hardly existed, whereas they are common in many sports today.
Holmes had a some very memorable fights (Norton, Shavers II, Cooney, Witherspoon), which Wlad seriously lacks. They both had some weak competition during their long title reigns, but at least Holmes has some stand out wins. Wlad's best win is what? The snoozefest with Cruiserweight champ Haye or one of the worst championship fights in recent memory against Povetkin? A fat old version of Holmes beat undefeated Ray Mercer- even that compares with Wlad's best wins. Some of his fights lacked great entertainment value, but he was part some epic battles and never subjected fans to something like Wlad vs Povetkin. He showed incredible fighting heart and resolve in the ring many times over that Wlad has only come close to once in his first fight against Sam Peter. He was also never beaten up and knocked out by a B level fighter (C in Purrity's case), especially in his athletic prime.

fergusg wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Higher workrate? What are you smoking? Larry in his prime kept a pace Wlad would not be able to keep up with . . .

Holmes even at 48 would have never lost to Ross Purrity . . .

You beat me to it - NO WAY does Wlad have a higher workrate than Holmes.

I don't think that the extra height and weight would have been a factor in the fight, Larry had a longer reach, and was A LOT quicker than Wlad - and put his punches together better, his movement was also way better.

Bigger is better only to a degree, Wlad is light on his feet for a man of his size, but he is far from balletic in his footwork. Larry used to float around the ring, not quite like Ali of course, but he was fluid and mobile.

I suggest people go and watch some holmes fights, if they think Wlad has a higher workrate -

http://heavyweightpunchcounts.blogspot. ... e.html?m=1

http://www.BS.com/compubox-rev ... hts--77131

http://www.BS.com/klitschko-pu ... iew--84290

You understand Larry's "stats" were an average of 7 fights, 5 of which were when Larry was past the age of 35, and 3 in which he was in his 40s. Only one fight (Norton) is from his prime. That those numbers say MICHAEL MOORER had the most active jab of that group shows you that website's numbers/methodology are beyond crapola.

Tarkus wrote:What would you say was a trademark win for Holmes that best demonstrates his skills.

His greatest victory and fight was vs Norton. In terms of a display of skills probably the fight vs Leroy Jones or the first fight vs Earnie Shavers . .watch that fight and then watch any recent Klitschko fight and tell me who is the great fighter.

dempseyfire wrote:

Tarkus wrote:What would you say was a trademark win for Holmes that best demonstrates his skills.

His greatest victory and fight was vs Norton. In terms of a display of skills probably the fight vs Leroy Jones or the first fight vs Earnie Shavers . .watch that fight and then watch any recent Klitschko fight and tell me who is the great fighter.

I agree with you 100% that Holmes is the way better boxer.But you are never going to convince these people
of this.You are fighting a losing battle.

dempseyfire wrote:

Tarkus wrote:What would you say was a trademark win for Holmes that best demonstrates his skills.

His greatest victory and fight was vs Norton. In terms of a display of skills probably the fight vs Leroy Jones or the first fight vs Earnie Shavers . .watch that fight and then watch any recent Klitschko fight and tell me who is the great fighter.

Thanks, I'll watch them.

considering who has been able to beat wladimir ', holmes for sure

Wlad is undoubtedly a better heavyweight in his late 30s than Holmes was. But comparing prime-to-prime, the only advantages Wlad has are his size and power, Holmes is better in every other way and he DEFINITELY had better stamina and a higher workrate.

Holmes must rate higher for greatness as he faced much tougher competition, although head-to-head, unless Holmes is in his absolute prime and on top of his game, I think Wlad has a good chance of winning.