Wlad v Holmes your thoughts

First topic message reminder :

A few years ago I had this fantasy fight going to Holmes with ease but recently Wlad has been looking very solid as a nailed on great. It makes me wonder if Wlad is just too good as opposed to the division being very poor.

Today I see this fight going to Holmes but after a hard fought night with Holmes hitting the floor at some point but re-gathering himself a lot like he did against Snipes. Both have solid jabs as we know but Wlad's ability to stall a fight with the old Wlad and grab will make it frustrating for Holmes.

However Holmes had engaged in more wars then Wlad and would eventually find a way to penatrate Wlad's guard.

Neither of those had good chins either especially against power punchers. Just like Wlad has had problems with. There is a huge difference in hitting power, Holmes was a pure boxer with some malice but there were many guys he couldn't hurt who i don't think had any better chins than Klitschko like Williams, Witherspoon even glass chin Michael Spinks was only hurt once or twice in 30 rounds. His best opportunity would be to move around Klitschko and over 15 if he wasn't out himself Wlad would tire and he could win on points or on a mercy stoppage.

I watched a couple of Holmes fights last week against Leroy Jones and Mike Weaver and it seems like now with Wlad there was very begrudging respect for him and that he was more consistent than great. Obviously greatness with Holmes like Wlad will come with longetivity rather than quality opponents but they are so different and never fought anyone like one or the other it's just a complete stab in the dark.

What kind of wally accuses Spinks of having a glass jaw !!

The one directly above you?

Kareem61 wrote:The one directly above you?

Mentioning no names Kareem....

I don't think Spinks had a good chin at heavyweight, but to say it was glass was probably a bit harsh.

Wlad all day everyday. The guy is an athletic freak, and he can fight. If he's on hisday as I assume all these fantasy matches are, his attributes would have him favourite over most IMO

Holmes stops him in 8 rounds, think the fight is a chess match for the first few rounds before Holmes footwork, jab and, timing takes over. Holmes could hit plenty hard enough to put Wlad away and once the combo's start to land it would only be a matter of time. I doubt Wlad would be allowed to get away with his cheating against a big name like Holmes so half his defensive strategy would be out the window straight away.

He only holds guys who try to fight on the the inside (where Wlad can't effectively) or who are extremely aggressive. Holmes does neither so there wouldn't be much holding.

Id certainly back Vitali to do a number on Holmes. Too hard and too accurate. I think Holmes would be out of his depth

Aye going fifteen rounds with Norton or recovering from Shavers best shot is no preparation to go toe to toe with the conqueror of Chisora and Sam Peters.

You see i always think Vitali has a harder time with boxers, he really struggled with Byrd compared to his brother and only really fought Johnson after who was a boxer and missed a lot of punches, he seemed kind of miffed at times with any lateral movement. Though Kingpin hardly threw any punches as usual so it was an easy win. Vitali is better imo in more of a tearup, as he he can take a good punch and throws a lot more punches (albeit nowhere near as hard) as his brother. Wlad has much better footwork and technique but has can't take as good a punch which isn't as much of a problem with the likes of Ali and Holmes, Vitali i'd fancy to better against Lewis and Foreman though.

Rowley wrote:Aye going fifteen rounds with Norton or recovering from Shavers best shot is no preparation to go toe to toe with the conqueror of Chisora and Sam Peters.

 

Vitali was 41 when he fought Chisora and 37 when he fought Peter. Not really a fair comparison. Shavers was a 6 foot power puncher who would gas after 5 or 6 rounds and Norton was a 6 foot 3 pressure fighter. Apples and oranges for someone who's almost 6 foot 8. Though i think Holmes would outpoint Vitali.

Pick names from ten years previous if you want, is still a pretty uninspiring bunch, however would never be wanted to be accused of a lack of balance so am happy to replace Chisora with Danny Williams and Peter with Vaughn Bean. Would never be accused of being anything other than even handed.

Rowley wrote:Pick names from ten years previous if you want, is still a pretty uninspiring bunch, however would never be wanted to be accused of a lack of balance so am happy to replace Chisora with Danny Williams and Peter with Vaughn Bean. Would never be accused of being anything other than even handed.

True, Vitali does not have a good resume, at least he was much more impressive in those fights than the likes of Chisora when he'd had about a million injuries and was in his 40s.

I genuinely like both the brothers Monty an whilst I don't agree with it I don't particularly mind if someone believes Vitali beats Holmes, it was the language which stuck in my craw a bit (not yours) that Holmes finds himself out of his depth with Vitali.

The harsh reality, largely through not fault of his own, but the reality all the same is that Vitali has fought one fighter who will ever be regarded as great and that was an aging Lewis and he lost. Holmes is an all time great fighter, almost certainly top five in the division, the idea he is "out of his depth" with anyone in the division seems fanciful at best.

Vitali is bigger, faster, stronger and mentally tougher than Larry. I think Larry goes into his shell and feels sorry for himself. He would be out of his depth against a guy is all round tougher than he is. I wouldnt bet my house on it. Could easily be wrong. But you do get one sided fights even between two greats. That is my fantasy prediction. No need to get uptight over it

Larry Holmes would go into his shell, he had an abundance of self confidence and I doubt in his prime he'd be intimidated by anyone. Vitali may be bigger and stronger but he certainly isn't faster or mentally tougher than Holmes who had to constantly live with being in the shadow of Ali.

Have you only seen his fight with Mike Tyson or something?

Its a bold prediction no doubt. Would certainly be in the minority to predict it. But the minority predicted Douglas to beat Tyson and Sanders to beat Wlad. Funny things can happen in heavyweight boxing. Doesnt mean I dont know much about Holmes to make an outrageous prediction. Too many on here quick to play the superiority card. Guess thats why you here allday. Dont you think there could ever be an unpredictable result in fantasy match ups. Far too busy trying to sound smart

Right that makes perfect sense.

Can't see vitalI beating holmes. Someone pointed out above that Vitali would beat brawlers and Wlad would beat boxers and I think that's pretty much spot on. They won't be winning every time against greats but I don't think theyd be as out of place as some would believe. Think Ali comes out top pretty much against most greats and Foreman too. The earlier guys suffer I think in head to heads Marciano probably being the biggest loser but I wonder if Jeffries causes a few upsets.

Marciano and Dempsey I doubt beat any of the other top 15, too small, far too easy to hit and also they're to be outboxed. Foreman hits far too hard, is far too tough, far too strong to lose many and came up short against the only man capable of neutralising him. Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson, Liston and Foreman are the head to head top six for me.

I've always thought Ali would come out top in head to heads with Lewis, assuming hes at his best coming in second. I think he had the tools to beat almost anyone. Possibly Foreman third. I think Vitali would be tough for anyone. Hes never been outboxed. But I think Wlad would be beaten by any of the top ten greatest heavyweights

Rowley wrote:Aye going fifteen rounds with Norton or recovering from Shavers best shot is no preparation to go toe to toe with the conqueror of Chisora and Sam Peters.

Whey lad. Some of this stuff is comical.

Kiltschko's best opponent was a shot Lennox Lewis and he couldn't even get past him. Holmes would have boxed his lugs off.

Based on styles I’d make Holmes a firmer favourite over Vitali than I would over Wladimir. Suffice to say that Vitali doesn’t get disgraced, and Larry knows he’s been in a fight afterwards, but I think Vitali’s heavy legs and lack of mobility compared to his brother put him at too great a disadvantage against a mover and good outside boxer like Holmes.

Vitali’s tougher and more durable than his brother and he has a bit more of a nasty streak in the sense that he’ll happily take a shot to land a few of his own, but against a similarly very tough, very durable guy like Holmes I don’t think that’s a deal breaker here. I can see a pattern similar to the Cooney fight only without the stoppage – Holmes has stylistic problems early and takes a while to suss Vitali out, perhaps even getting hurt once or twice, but eventually takes over from about the tenth onwards after lasting the pace better. Holmes UD.

Lance wrote:Vitali is bigger, faster, stronger and mentally tougher than Larry. I think Larry goes into his shell and feels sorry for himself. He would be out of his depth against a guy is all round tougher than he is. I wouldnt bet my house on it. Could easily be wrong. But you do get one sided fights even between two greats. That is my fantasy prediction. No need to get uptight over it

Yeh, a guy that tell's Marciano's family that Rocky isn't fit to carry his jock-strap, that's a guy short on self-confidence and likely to go into his shell......

Physicall prime, couldn't beat an ageing Lewis, but apparently makes Larry Holmes cower and be out of his depth....

Well, Ray Arcel said Holmes was short on self-confidence. Self-confidence isn't mouthing off about how great you are.

I think he struggled in Ali's shadow and being a sparring partner for so long.

Don't think there's much doubt that Holmes carried some mental issues with regards to that kind of stuff. To this day he loves to recite his achievements and statistics, take a pop at some of the names rated ahead or around him in the all-time Heavyweight stakes, complain that he never got the full respect he deserved etc. Certainly plenty of evidence to go with Arcel's testimony that Holmes was a bit of a needy character who liked to be reassured by others of his worth.

That said, he always seemed able to leave those kind of problems completely outside the ropes once he'd climbed through them. Unlike a Tyson (or a Mosley from more recent times) he had that ability to regularly show his best when his back was really against the wall and he certainly never started feeling sorry for himself when the going got tough - the Norton, Shavers (II), Cooney, Witherspoon and Mercer fights are all prime examples of that. Appreciate that, as Lance has said, everyone has their own opinion on these things but even if he were to beat Larry I certainly can't see Vitali intimidating him, or making him lose heart to the point where he mentally capitulates.

Outside of a top two (Ali, Louis) it's always tricky rating the Heavies but in recent years I've tended to feel happy putting Holmes at number three. I'm not sure he's top three in any specific individual criterion - level of opposition beaten or lost to, how he'd fare in head-to-head match ups, all-round ability and skills, overall achievements / longevity etc. But unlike just about all of the other candidates, he scores solidly and consistently across all areas, rather than being absolutely outstanding in one area and then poor in another. If you look at an overall blend of the above factors I tend to think he's the best of the rest outside of the big two.

Someone once made an interesting point about Holmes that often gets overlooked. The generation he fought in is frequently known as the lost generation of heavyweights. With King's various shenanigans most heavyweights of the era, all of who had talent, frequently allowed their talents to wane through disinterest, cocaine or both. Despite enduring as much BS as anyone from King Holmes had the ability to put it aside and perform when it mattered over a prolonged and consistent basis.

Whilst Larry may have had a chip on his shoulder the size of a small country, but I think any claims of mental weakness are misplaced and harsh.

"Me and Don had a love-hate relationship; I loved getting the money off him and he hated giving it to me."

- Larry Big Pants.

Think I might have to revisit Holmes-Mercer again soon. One of the best 'golden oldies' moments caught on film, for me. Keeping in mind that Mercer was an Olympic gold medal winner and unbeaten in the pros, his quote after losing that fight speaks volumes: "Right, I guess I'd better learn how to box again, then." Definitely one of the best examples of an old master teaching the pupil a couple tricks and lessons. That victory was all about experience, craftiness and ring smarts.

Some great clowning from Holmes at times, too! Brilliant stuff.

88Chris05 wrote:"Me and Don had a love-hate relationship; I loved getting the money off him and he hated giving it to me."

- Larry Big Pants.

Think I might have to revisit Holmes-Mercer again soon. One of the best 'golden oldies' moments caught on film, for me. Keeping in mind that Mercer was an Olympic gold medal winner and unbeaten in the pros, his quote after losing that fight speaks volumes: "Right, I guess I'd better learn how to box again, then." Definitely one of the best examples of an old master teaching the pupil a couple tricks and lessons. That victory was all about experience, craftiness and ring smarts.

Some great clowning from Holmes at times, too! Brilliant stuff.

Mercer had become right hand happy - there's a video out there somewhere where he knocks out a journeyman with about 22 right hooks - and become lax in training (his late career resurgence under original trainer Tommy Parks was fantastic).

Holmes old manned him that night - and while his boxing was excellent, his heart and guts was admirable also. He fought at some clip (was that the fight he lost his lunch on the final bell or the Holyfield fight?)

Yeah, it was the Holyfield fight where he chucked up at the final bell, Haz. Was also the fight in which he had the letters 'B.U.M' across his shorts, I believe (think Mercer oddly enough had the same sponsorship on his shorts against Damiani, too, though I might be mistaken on that one). Not sure what the initials of that company stood for but it just had to be boxing they managed to get their exposure from, didn't it!?

The Holyfield fight was one better forgotten about, wasn't it? Think Holmes thought he could rope-a-dope Evander the same way he'd done to Mercer....But Evander being a counter-puncher was never likely to fall in to that trap and play in to Holmes' hands. Larry's legs were totally gone at that point and all Holyfield really needed to do was tap away with the jab, play it safe at distance or tie Holmes up inside in the rare instances they did get up close.

Mercer did look a bit soft for the Holmes fight Haz, agree there. He was even more blubbery when he fought Lewis a few years later though, and was still (in my eyes) a little unlucky to come away with less than a draw. Not seen a great deal of Mercer in his amateur / Olympic days or his very early professional career so will bow to your knowledge on that one, but you could argue that the writing was on the wall that he was neglecting his skills a little in the Damiani fight (as a side note, Damiani actually showed good skill and hand speed in that fight which belies his status as one of the most derided Heavyweight title holders ever) where he basically didn't win a round before flattening him with that uppercut. He also looked as if he couldn't fight on the inside for love nor money.

Think Mercer's increasing weight and also the Jesse Ferguson farce when he attempted to fix a fight while it was still ongoing adds credibility to the idea that he was out of love with the sport. He missed out on some good opportunities in the years of Tyson's prison stint; Iron Mike out of the way, Lewis still a bit shaky, McCall, Moorer, Bruno and Seldon all holding titles while being very beatable etc. Must do his head in a little when he looks back at it.

88Chris05 wrote:Yeah, it was the Holyfield fight where he chucked up at the final bell, Haz. Was also the fight in which he had the letters 'B.U.M' across his shorts, I believe (think Mercer oddly enough had the same sponsorship on his shorts against Damiani, too, though I might be mistaken on that one). Not sure what the initials of that company stood for but it just had to be boxing they managed to get their exposure from, didn't it!?

The Holyfield fight was one better forgotten about, wasn't it? Think Holmes thought he could rope-a-dope Evander the same way he'd done to Mercer....But Evander being a counter-puncher was never likely to fall in to that trap and play in to Holmes' hands. Larry's legs were totally gone at that point and all Holyfield really needed to do was tap away with the jab, play it safe at distance or tie Holmes up inside in the rare instances they did get up close.

Mercer did look a bit soft for the Holmes fight Haz, agree there. He was even more blubbery when he fought Lewis a few years later though, and was still (in my eyes) a little unlucky to come away with less than a draw. Not seen a great deal of Mercer in his amateur / Olympic days or his very early professional career so will bow to your knowledge on that one, but you could argue that the writing was on the wall that he was neglecting his skills a little in the Damiani fight (as a side note, Damiani actually showed good skill and hand speed in that fight which belies his status as one of the most derided Heavyweight title holders ever) where he basically didn't win a round before flattening him with that uppercut. He also looked as if he couldn't fight on the inside for love nor money.

Think Mercer's increasing weight and also the Jesse Ferguson farce when he attempted to fix a fight while it was still ongoing adds credibility to the idea that he was out of love with the sport. He missed out on some good opportunities in the years of Tyson's prison stint; Iron Mike out of the way, Lewis still a bit shaky, McCall, Moorer, Bruno and Seldon all holding titles while being very beatable etc. Must do his head in a little when he looks back at it.

Holyfield was absolutely vilified during his first three title defences (against Cooper, Foreman and Holmes) - unfairly so in hindsight. He still cited Holmes as the cleverest guy he ever fought I believe - said Larry would set traps constantly.

Mercer started as part of a "Triple Threat" team (or that could have been the name of the gym) with Charles Murray and Al Cole but looked an accident waiting to happen against Cooper, Damiani and Morrison (who was beating him all ends up until he started blowing and Mercer began hitting him back). After Holmes he drifted but pulled it back together to virtually go evens up with Holy, Lewis and Witherspoon (who also rolled back the years for a spell - around the time Tyson came back and everyone jockeyed for position to try and land a huge payday).

The Lewis fight could easily have been scored a draw. Shame Mercer didn't land the Bowe fight directly afterwards (just at the point Bowe began to slip).

In fairness, the whole world wanted the Tyson fight, so seeing Holyfield defending against a run of Foreman-Cooper-Holmes (given where Foreman and Holmes were at that stage of their careers) was a bit underwhelming in comparison. He also got hit way, way too often against an old, slow Big George (albeit Foreman himself was arguably saved by the bell twice, at least once) and Cooper which a) caused doubt about whether he could have hung with an all-time great such as Foreman had he been closer to his peak, and b) suggested that maybe he wasn't quite top-drawer as a Heavy in any case. It could be argued that his magnificent losing effort against Bowe earned him more praise than any of his Heavyweight wins up to that point.

Tough fighter to rate at Heavyweight is Holyfield, I find. In terms of the names he beat more great Heavies or top, top fighters than anyone aside from Ali, the downside being that they were seldom in or around their prime. His really outstanding wins are Bowe, who still went 2-1 against him and could easily have retained his titles in their middle fight with a different set of judges, and Tyson. By rights, he should be ahead of Tyson every day of the week as he whooped his backside as a big underdog - but while the evidence before those fights suggested Holyfield being the washed up one of the pair, the evidence during the fight suggests that Tyson had deteriorated even more. Easy to be wise after the even though, I guess. A few losses on his record, but how much of that is simply down to facing top-line competition, the kind which Marciano, unbeaten in comparison, simply doesn't have on his record?

I've heard compelling arguments for him to be inside the top ten Heavies of all time, ahead of the likes of Frazier, Marciano, Liston etc, but also compelling ones to have him outside the top ten, behind those guys. I've tended to put him in the latter position, usually something like 11th or 12th, but it's not one of those placings I've ever felt totally comfortable with.

88Chris05 wrote:In fairness, the whole world wanted the Tyson fight, so seeing Holyfield defending against a run of Foreman-Cooper-Holmes (given where Foreman and Holmes were at that stage of their careers) was a bit underwhelming in comparison. He also got hit way, way too often against an old, slow Big George (albeit Foreman himself was arguably saved by the bell twice, at least once) and Cooper which a) caused doubt about whether he could have hung with an all-time great such as Foreman had he been closer to his peak, and b) suggested that maybe he wasn't quite top-drawer as a Heavy in any case. It could be argued that his magnificent losing effort against Bowe earned him more praise than any of his Heavyweight wins up to that point.

Tough fighter to rate at Heavyweight is Holyfield, I find. In terms of the names he beat more great Heavies or top, top fighters than anyone aside from Ali, the downside being that they were seldom in or around their prime. His really outstanding wins are Bowe, who still went 2-1 against him and could easily have retained his titles in their middle fight with a different set of judges, and Tyson. By rights, he should be ahead of Tyson every day of the week as he whooped his backside as a big underdog - but while the evidence before those fights suggested Holyfield being the washed up one of the pair, the evidence during the fight suggests that Tyson had deteriorated even more. Easy to be wise after the even though, I guess. A few losses on his record, but how much of that is simply down to facing top-line competition, the kind which Marciano, unbeaten in comparison, simply doesn't have on his record?

I've heard compelling arguments for him to be inside the top ten Heavies of all time, ahead of the likes of Frazier, Marciano, Liston etc, but also compelling ones to have him outside the top ten, behind those guys. I've tended to put him in the latter position, usually something like 11th or 12th, but it's not one of those placings I've ever felt totally comfortable with.

Think it was more down to the fact Holyfield wasn't Tyson. After Mike, everyone wanted the heavyweight champion to be as exciting, as thrilling, as devastating. Evander toiled in his shadow for years. And yeah, he received way more kudos in losing to Bowe than he ever did as champion. It seems strange now but at that point Holyfield's career appeared to have ran its course. He was more or less written off after his lacklustre return against Alex Stewart.

Rating Holyfield is tough (Ring Magazine got a bit excited after he defeated Tyson and rather rashly ranked him 3rd!!). I tend to rate fighters on how they fared in their own era; how much good work did they get done? Did they take on their toughest challenges? Holyfield fought everyone in the 90s and scored monumental wins over Bowe and Tyson - he was the heavyweight of that decade. I find it tough to ignore the Evan Fields stuff mind you.