Carlos Takam = modern day Evander Holyfield

[Mr Objecitivity]

Holyfield was a great counter puncher . He counter punched Tyson to death when Tyson then ,stopped using head and footwork . This was the deciding factor bc Holyfield was always a great anticipator of blocking shots while firing back , defeating a square Tyson just standing there most rounds walking straight in was a gift.

Had HW's been no bigger than 6'3 he may have never lost when healthy at that time . Bowe and Lewis were true SHW's with skills and styles making it difficult .

I consider Tyson in the 80's the best counter puncher with Holyfield close second . Holyfield took more shots then he should have bc he stayed in the pocket in one spot willing to trade more than he should have .

I see what the OP is saying , i probably agree as far as simularities to Takam and Holyfield ,they even have the left hook . But Holyfield is more skilled and Takam has no where near the determination .

Had Takam had that he may have defeated Parker with just a few rnds seperating them. Im not sure Takam being excellent counterpuncher but he would resemble Holyfield the most today . People really need to study footage to see it which i know is a no no on here . lol

Good points but the bout against Parker was very close. Takam could've even arguably won that bout and if he was younger, he would've most likely performed even better because by the time he fought Parker and Joshua, he was gradually declining.

Also, Holyfield lost many bouts himself at an old age too. Such as against Ruiz, Ibragimov and etc.

[juggernaut666]

Good points but the bout against Parker was very close. Takam could've even arguably won that bout and if he was younger, he would've most likely performed even better because by the time he fought Parker and Joshua, he was gradually declining.

Also, Holyfield lost many bouts himself at an old age too. Such as against Ruiz, Ibragimov and etc.

Holyfield had much more wear and tear on him than Takam . Takam looks to be the same as he was ,he hasnt been in as many wars .

Qawi 2x /Cooper /Bowe 3x /Mercer / Stewart /Foreman were taxing fights . Taking flush Lewis and Tyson punches wouldn't help either .

Takams resume isnt all that great . The fact is Povetkin and Joshua are better fightes . Parker probably isnt even as skilled as Takam but has the power / speed /more length than Takam has to get him by fights he shouldn't even be struggling in .

We dont really know if Takam is done hes a ranked top 10 fighter still and you cant base it off of Povetkin ,certainly not Joshua . I think hes still around that Parker level . I dont have him in top 10 but its unclear if he gets a top win ,he really doesnt have one .

[Mr Objecitivity]

Holyfield had much more wear and tear on him than Takam . Takam looks to be the same as he was ,he hasnt been in as many wars .

Qawi 2x /Cooper /Bowe 3x /Mercer / Stewart /Foreman were taxing fights . Taking flush Lewis and Tyson punches wouldn't help either .

Takams resume isnt all that great . The fact is Povetkin and Joshua are better fightes . Parker probably isnt even as skilled as Takam but has the power and speed advantage to get him by fights he shouldn't even be struggling in .

We dont really know if Takam is done hes a ranked top 10 fighter still and you cant base it off of Povetkin ,certainly not Joshua . I think hes still around that Parker level . I dont have him in top 10 but its unclear if he gets a top win ,he really doesnt have one .

I see your point. I see a lot of potential in Takam but he is certainly unproven or less proven than Holyfield because he hasn't fought any other top opponent other than Povetkin in his younger prime years. And it's unfair to judge him as a boxer who isn't capable of beating other top boxers based on his sole losses to Joshua and Povetkin because these two were the two most skilled heavyweights at the time he lost to them. He may have beaten Joseph Parker in a rematch like how Holyfield beat Rid**** Bowe in a rematch and I agree that both Takam and Parker are more or less at a similar level and it's arguable that a prime Parker in his younger years was probably an even better boxer than Parker.

Holyfield lost to both Rid**** Bowe and Lennox Lewis like how Takam lost to Povetkin and Joshua. If we were to solely judge Holyfield for his losses to those two boxers and suppose he retired without facing any other top boxer as he did, then his resume would be more or less the same as Takam's.

[juggernaut666]

I see your point. I see a lot of potential in Takam but he is certainly unproven or less proven than Holyfield because he hasn't fought any other top opponent other than Povetkin in his younger prime years. And it's unfair to judge him as a boxer who isn't capable of beating other top boxers based on his sole losses to Joshua and Povetkin because these two were the two most skilled heavyweights at the time he lost to them. He may have beaten Joseph Parker in a rematch like how Holyfield beat Rid**** Bowe in a rematch and I agree that both Takam and Parker are more or less at a similar level and it's arguable that a prime Parker in his younger years was probably an even better boxer than Parker.

Holyfield lost to both Rid**** Bowe and Lennox Lewis like how Takam lost to Povetkin and Joshua. If we were to solely judge Holyfield for his losses to those two boxers and suppose he retired without facing any other top boxer as he did, then his resume would be more or less the same as Takam's.

The lighter more aggressive Takam in the Joshua fights would have defeated Parker bc he fought like he wanted to win , the much heavier Takam in the Povetkin fight would have forced a brawl and gave him better odds. Would he win against Parker in a rematch ? IDK .

If he could beat him once and Parker doesnt fix whats wrong he wins.

Parker has done zero in ability to advance (which is why i know Joshua is going to win ) along with all the other obvious factors going into that one .

Parker is two years out from the level he needs to be ,he has so many holes it may take him two years after he loses to Joshua just to fix them if Barry stays his trainer .

[billeau2]

Holyfield was a great counter puncher . He counter punched Tyson to death when Tyson then ,stopped using head and footwork . This was the deciding factor bc Holyfield was always a great anticipator of blocking shots while firing back , defeating a square Tyson just standing there most rounds walking straight in was a gift.

Had HW's been no bigger than 6'3 he may have never lost when healthy at that time . Bowe and Lewis were true SHW's with skills and styles making it difficult .

I consider Tyson in the 80's the best counter puncher with Holyfield close second . Holyfield took more shots then he should have bc he stayed in the pocket in one spot willing to trade more than he should have .

I see what the OP is saying , i probably agree as far as simularities to Takam and Holyfield ,they even have the left hook . But Holyfield is more skilled and Takam has no where near the determination .

Had Takam had that he may have defeated Parker with just a few rnds seperating them. Im not sure Takam being excellent counterpuncher but he would resemble Holyfield the most today . People really need to study footage to see it which i know is a no no on here . lol

I think Holyfield is very coachable. I think he listened to his corner and thats what allowed him to beat Bowe the second time (?). Left to his own devices he likes to slug it out and overwhelm with activity...Don't see him much as a counter punching guy, in the sense that he catches his man while in mid to just before completion of the punch... as someone like Toney does for example.

Again with Tyson, pushing him back off triangulation while punching was a strategy and Holy listened and was excellent so doing. You could say he countered Tyson in that fight by catching him going back instead of forward, I'll give you that.

Ok if we are going to talk the best Holyfield and the secret sauce that makes that Hoyfield? He has incredible combo punching, determination for sure, but when he beat Bowe and Tyson? what really did it for him and let him put it all together? For me it was his ability to listen to his corner...as much as Holy likes, and resorts to sluggin it out, he is really good when he boxes and has shown he can execute a strategy under duress.

[Rubber Ducky]

My first response to this was, WTF.

But having thought about it more I can kind of see where OP is coming from. Both moved a lot, both boxed behind a jab, both countered well, both came in with their head lol.

But that doesn't mean Takam is anywhere near Evander's level, just like Larry Donald isn't anywhere near Ali's level or Broner is not near Mayweather's. Evander did some things noticeably differently to Takam too which took him to another level as a fighter.

Holyfield was much faster, his combinations in his prime where far superior. Holyfield also had a far better left hook. While Takam relied on his right hand counter more.

Takam moved laterally more waiting for guys to come to him while Holyfield was lighter on his feet and used more in and out movement and so could do what Takam did but also rush fighters more effectively. Evander also bounced on his toes more to switch angles on fighters better, while Takam's attacks are more straight forward.

Holyfield's had better stamina and conditioning. He could bring an intensity level Takam never could even in his prime.

They fight very differently on the inside. Takam uses a philly shell, he tucks up behind his shoulder, he's pretty exposed on the inside in comparison to Holyfield, who preferred to work inside in a clinch to break guys down.

Punching technique, Holyfield's is better. His straight right hand is straighter and sharper, his hooks more compact compared to Takam's wider hooks.

[mlac]

lmao of course the local crackpot juggernaut666 votes yes

[STREET CLEANER]

I wonder who are the two that said yes and the undecided one

[STREET CLEANER]

This thread is a lame attempt to prop a former AJ opponent as a very worthy one

[juggernaut666]

I think Holyfield is very coachable. I think he listened to his corner and thats what allowed him to beat Bowe the second time (?). Left to his own devices he likes to slug it out and overwhelm with activity...Don't see him much as a counter punching guy, in the sense that he catches his man while in mid to just before completion of the punch... as someone like Toney does for example.

Again with Tyson, pushing him back off triangulation while punching was a strategy and Holy listened and was excellent so doing. You could say he countered Tyson in that fight by catching him going back instead of forward, I'll give you that.

Ok if we are going to talk the best Holyfield and the secret sauce that makes that Hoyfield? He has incredible combo punching, determination for sure, but when he beat Bowe and Tyson? what really did it for him and let him put it all together? For me it was his ability to listen to his corner...as much as Holy likes, and resorts to sluggin it out, he is really good when he boxes and has shown he can execute a strategy under duress.

Holyfield had Manuel Steward in the 2nd Bowe fight . Which was less toe to toe .

Its what Tyson didnt have in against Holyfield . Had he still remained patient he may win ,he unraveled fast ? He didnt throw many combos ,he rocked Holyfield with an upper cut briefly in the beginning ,the old Tyson would have been all over him . Lets keep in mind too the neck size of Holyfield in those fights ????????????


Basically one counter puncher was better at that point . Timing is the most important thing in that aspect , it made Tyson look bad in contrast to what he was . Holyfields longer reach and frustrated clinches of letting him pick and choose when to punch sealed the deal.

Holyfield catches shots on the glove then reacts ,great at slipping counter tactis ,maybe the occasional eat a punch to land his own .

I would say counter punching in itself is reaction to a punch even in motion ,not necessarily having to land .