View Full Version : Is Wlad an All Time Great Heavyweight?


Dubious-Dutch
06-11-2009, 04:47 AM
Wlad has Knocked out more opponents in heavyweight world titles (200+ lbs) than Joe Louis, Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson or Rocky Marciano.

He has a higher KO ratio than Mike Tyson.

He has also won more world title fights than Evander Holyfield.

Is one of the heavies (with 50+ fights) with the least unavenged losses ever.

Obama
06-11-2009, 05:02 AM
But his best win is Chris Byrd and he was KOed 3 times...

Numerically an ATG Heavyweight, substance wise no. But there's still time for him to earn making the top 30.

Richie-G
06-11-2009, 05:28 AM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

lol I think that he has done all he can in this era, but was fighting inferior opponents to those of foreman, louis etc. i dont think samuel peter or sultan ibragimov can be compared to max schmelig or frazier.

billionaire
06-11-2009, 06:23 PM
he beat alltime greats like sultan ibragimov and ray austin so yes......

FreshPrince
06-12-2009, 03:21 AM
He'll most likely win the rest of his fights fairly easily. I don't see him staying around and fighting past his prime. There really are any good fighters out there for him to beat to solidify himself as one of the greats. If Haye could beat Vitali and then Wlad beat Haye, that's a great win for the resume. A Valuev win does some good, but not much in terms of history.

spittle8
06-28-2009, 01:12 AM
He's already top 20 IMO. H2H he's deceptively good, especially now that his jab is can ****ing poleaxe grown men. He likes to string guys along too much but he's probably the most formidable giant boxer in history and his fighting skills are underrated. His jab and cross are better than Lennox's, and he's great at controlling distance. His power is immense and he also has a great left hook. If he fought as he does now and mixed it up a bit as he did earlier in his career, he'd definitely be a top 20 guy h2h.

RightCross94
06-28-2009, 02:33 AM
if you look at the plain numbers(which mean nothing), yes he is greater than evander and those guys

but look at his level of comp, and who his best wins are over

then you will see the truth

theghost#1
06-28-2009, 02:45 AM
I think so. People always critize his resume, But he has fought the same level of opposition as Joe louis, Tyson, And Holmes. His fighting style is his biggest negative if you ask me. He Ko's pretty much all of his opponents, But he is just not fun to watch like Tyson was. when his career ends he'll defiently be a top 20 HW. Possibly top 15 or even 10.

CCobra
06-28-2009, 03:36 AM
I think so. People always critize his resume, But he has fought the same level of opposition as Joe louis, Tyson, And Holmes. His fighting style is his biggest negative if you ask me. He Ko's pretty much all of his opponents, But he is just not fun to watch like Tyson was. when his career ends he'll defiently be a top 20 HW. Possibly top 15 or even 10.

Fought the same level of competition as Joe Louis? That's not true at all.

Louis beat Baer, Carnera, Schmeling, Braddock, Conn (x2), Walcott (x2), Lewis, Galento, Levinsky, Farr, Uzcudun, Sharkey, Bivins.. the guys competition isn't slightly superior, it's FAR superior to the guys that Wlad faced. It isn't even close.

Both Holmes & Tyson beat superior opposition as well.
Holmes defeated; Norton, Shavers (x2), Weaver, Ali, Berbick, L. Spinks, Cooney, Cobb, Witherspoon, Snipes, Williams, Smith & Mercer.. he lost only to Spinks & Tyson in which both times he was past his prime for the Spinks fight and 2 years of inactivity as well as being past prime for Tyson. Aside from that he remained a good Heavyweight after that beating the undefeated Mercer and losing a very respectable decision to a prime and undefeated Evander Holyfield. It isn't even close!

Tyson beat Spinks, Williams, Thomas, Tucker, Smith, Biggs, Holmes, Ratliff, Bruno (x2), Tillman, Stewart, Ruddock (x2), Seldon, Golota, Nielsen, Tillis, Green..

Wladimir Klitschko has beaten more or less the top heavyweights of this particular era, but his era is unfortunately among the worst (if not the worst) heavyweight eras in living memory.

sonnyboyx2
06-28-2009, 04:15 AM
Wlad would have very little trouble in taking care of Lennox Lewis, Wlad would have a field day with the Canadian and i think he would put Lewis to sleep around the 4th round with a big right-hand bomb

Esquire Dale
06-28-2009, 04:39 AM
Fought the same level of competition as Joe Louis? That's not true at all.

Louis beat Baer, Carnera, Schmeling, Braddock, Conn (x2), Walcott (x2), Lewis, Galento, Levinsky, Farr, Uzcudun, Sharkey, Bivins.. the guys competition isn't slightly superior, it's FAR superior to the guys that Wlad faced. It isn't even close.

Both Holmes & Tyson beat superior opposition as well.
Holmes defeated; Norton, Shavers (x2), Weaver, Ali, Berbick, L. Spinks, Cooney, Cobb, Witherspoon, Snipes, Williams, Smith & Mercer.. he lost only to Spinks & Tyson in which both times he was past his prime for the Spinks fight and 2 years of inactivity as well as being past prime for Tyson. Aside from that he remained a good Heavyweight after that beating the undefeated Mercer and losing a very respectable decision to a prime and undefeated Evander Holyfield. It isn't even close!

Tyson beat Spinks, Williams, Thomas, Tucker, Smith, Biggs, Holmes, Ratliff, Bruno (x2), Tillman, Stewart, Ruddock (x2), Seldon, Golota, Nielsen, Tillis, Green..

Wladimir Klitschko has beaten more or less the top heavyweights of this particular era, but his era is unfortunately among the worst (if not the worst) heavyweight eras in living memory.

Sums it up.

Wladimir has been knocked out three times aswell by people low on the rankings, well into his career too. That's never happened to any other great heavyweights.

he beat alltime greats like sultan ibragimov and ray austin so yes......

lol. I hope that was sarcasm :P

Wlad is top 50 at best.

knn
06-28-2009, 05:16 AM
Louis beat Baer, Carnera, Schmeling, Braddock, Conn (x2), Walcott (x2), Lewis, Galento, Levinsky, Farr, Uzcudun, Sharkey, Bivins..
Let's check whom you compare to Wlad's competition:


Schmeling - a cruiser opponent
Braddock - a cruiser opponent
Conn (x2) - a cruiser opponent (actually sub-cruiser)
Walcott (x2) - a cruiser opponent
Lewis - a cruiser opponent
Galento - a 79-26 featherfist
Levinsky - a cruiser opponent
Farr - a 81-30 featherfist
Uzcudun - a 50-17 featherfist
Sharkey - a cruiser opponent
Bivins - a cruiser opponent

DONT EVER COMPARE these opponents to the opponents of Klitschko.

Compare Joe Louis with David Haye or with Juan Carlos Gomez, not with Klitschko.

And too bad that the 2 heavies left (Max Baer 68-13 and Primo Carnera 89-14) were also not involved in a heavyweight fight with Joe Louis, since Louis himself was below 200.

the guys competition isn't slightly superior, it's FAR superior to the guys that Wlad faced. It isn't even close.
Unfortunately for you, I ACTUALLY CHECKED the FACTUAL RECORDs.

Both Holmes & Tyson beat superior opposition as well.
Yes, Holmes and Tyson you can compare indeed to Klitschko. They are real heavyweight ATGs.

Wladimir Klitschko has beaten more or less the top heavyweights of this particular era, but his era is unfortunately among the worst (if not the worst) heavyweight eras in living memory.
Nonsense, and it won't get any truer by repeating it.

There has been not a worse HW era than Marciano's era and before. Now we have one of the best if not the best heavyweight era except that US boxers are exposed to global fighters and the world title isn't a local US-internal contest anymore.

I obviously need to remind everyone that in the 70ies a guy with Parkinson (Ali) was fighting against a 6-0 bum for the unified world title. THAT's how bad it was in the 70ies.

In the 80ies a Larry Homes was fighting in world title fights that included opponents such as Leon Spinks (26-17), David Bey (18-11), Scott LeDoux (33-13), Lucien Rodriguez (33-12) and other bums.

In the 90ies a Evan Fields (current heavyweight record 24-10!) was fighting against a 36-22 guy (Bert Cooper) for the unified world title.

The 2000s compare pretty well to past eras. It's merely the US commentators who ***** around.

IN THE WHOLE 70ies Muhammad Ali scored 5 (FIVE) KOs against 200+lbs opponents within 12 rounds (average weight 215lbs). That's how crappy the golden age was.

knn
06-28-2009, 05:34 AM
Wladimir has been knocked out three times aswell by people low on the rankings, well into his career too. That's never happened to any other great heavyweights.
Foreman has been genuinely floored by 2 featherfists (Ali and Jimmy Young). How often has that happened to ATGs?

Let me tell you the reason why Wlad has 3 KOs and other greats maybe not: BECAUSE OTHER ATGs didn't fights as many heavy opponents as Wlad.

In how many real heavyweight fights (= both opponents 200+) was Ali involved?

Ali: 28-4 (median win-opponent weight 213lbs)
Evan Fields: 24-10
Joe Louis: 11-0
Frazier: 13-4
Foreman: 59-5 (216lbs)
Tyson: 45-6 (221 lbs)
Lennox: 39-2 (229 lbs)
Wlad: 53-3 (233lbs)

THAT is the real reason why Klitschko has 3 KO losses on his record (aside from the fact that 2 of the losses were stamina issues): Nobody from the above ATGs has fought more heavier opponents than Klitschko. If you compare "KO losses of Ali and KO losses of Klitschko" then you are comparing a 28-4 guy (Ali) with a 53-3 guy (Klitschko).

Esquire Dale
06-28-2009, 06:01 AM
Let's check whom you compare to Wlad's competition:


Schmeling - a cruiser fight
Braddock - a cruiser fight
Conn (x2) - a cruiser fight (actually sub-cruiser)
Walcott (x2) - a cruiser fight
Lewis - a cruiser fight
Galento - a 79-26 featherfist
Levinsky - a cruiser fight
Farr - a 81-30 featherfist
Uzcudun - a 50-17 featherfist
Sharkey - a cruiser fight
Bivins - a cruiser fight

DONT EVER COMPARE these opponents to the opponents of Klitschko.

Compare Joe Louis with David Haye or with Juan Carlos Gomez, not with Klitschko.

And too bad that the 2 heavies left (Max Baer 68-13 and Primo Carnera 89-14) were also not involved in a heavyweight fight with Joe Louis, since Louis himself was below 200.


Unfortunately for you, I ACTUALLY CHECKED the FACTUAL RECORDs.


Yes, Holmes and Tyson you can compare indeed to Klitschko. They are real heavyweight ATGs.


Nonsense, and it won't get any truer by repeating it.

There has been not a worse HW era than Marciano's era and before. Now we have one of the best if not the best heavyweight era except that US boxers are exposed to global fighters and the world title isn't a local US-internal contest anymore.

I obviously need to remind everyone that in the 70ies a guy with Parkinson (Ali) was fighting against a 6-0 bum for the unified world title. THAT's how bad it was in the 70ies.

In the 80ies a Larry Homes was fighting in world title fights that included opponents such as Leon Spinks (26-17), David Bey (18-11), Scott LeDoux (33-13), Lucien Rodriguez (33-12) and other bums.

In the 90ies a Evan Fields (current heavyweight record 24-10!) was fighting against a 36-22 guy (Bert Cooper) for the unified world title.

The 2000s compare pretty well to past eras. It's merely the US commentators who ***** around.

IN THE WHOLE 70ies Muhammad Ali scored 5 (FIVE) KOs against 200+lbs opponents within 12 rounds (average weight 215lbs). That's how crappy the golden age was.

HAHAHAHAH

AHAHHAHAAHAHAH

Rdiculous.

The best of your ridiculous wlad fanboy spew has been bolded. :alucard:

How much ****ing bleach has this guy been drinking?

AHahahaha :banghead:

Hey! You're a "featherfist!" You don't count! Aahah

"Ali's real record"

Ahahah, gold. Pure wlad fanboy gold.

All the heavyweights in this era are fat. That's why they weigh more. Durrr.
Depending on your height, the more u weigh as a heavyweight the more disadvantaged you are.

This guy must think butterbean was the greatest thing ever lived. AHAHAH

knn
06-28-2009, 06:25 AM
HAHAHAHAH

AHAHHAHAAHAHAH
Your keyboard is broken.

Rdiculous.

The best of your ridiculous wlad fanboy spew has been bolded. :alucard:

How much ****ing bleach has this guy been drinking?

AHahahaha :banghead:
Do you actually have any counter-facts or do you merely felt an urge to post your favorite smilies and insults?

Hey! You're a "featherfist!" You don't count! Aahah
I didn't exclude featherfists. If I would (e.g. Frazier, heavyweight KOratio like Chris Byrd) then Ali's record would even look worse.

Ahahah, gold. Pure wlad fanboy gold.
Already prepare yourself. Because my post (which is solely based on facts) will be the predominant opinion in a few years.

All the heavyweights in this era are fat. That's why they weigh more. Durrr.
You mean you want to make a new division that doesn't go by weight but by "athleticity"? A true reformer you are. Do you want to be in the committee that inspects male boxers for muscle and fat tissues? You can tell us, Dale. Since you consider Wlad your fat ***** ("Wladimir K is as much of a fat bum", "Wladimir K is a total *****") you surely would like to inspect every corner of his body whether he meets your fat-*****-standards.

Is that Tyson with an animal in your avatar? Anything else you want to tell us, Dale?

Depending on your height, the more u weigh as a heavyweight the more disadvantaged you are.
Nice theory you have there. You should really make a proposal to the governing bodies about your ideas for new divisions (The muscle-to-fat-ratio-division). They'll surely look into it.

This guy must think butterbean was the greatest thing ever lived. AHAHAH
You keyboard is still broken.

knn
06-28-2009, 07:01 AM
Numerically an ATG Heavyweight
Indeed.

Numerically Muhammad Ali is a heavyweight ATG. Once you start to dissect his wins (gift decisions, half-blind dwarfs, cruisers, gun-shots, see my sig) his resume falls apart.

Oh, wait, you weren't talking about Muhammad? Strange, I had the feeling you were.

Esquire Dale
06-28-2009, 07:24 AM
Your keyboard is broken.


Do you actually have any counter-facts or do you merely felt an urge to post your favorite smilies and insults?


I didn't exclude featherfists. If I would (e.g. Frazier, heavyweight KOratio like Chris Byrd) then Ali's record would even look worse.


Already prepare yourself. Because my post (which is solely based on facts) will be the predominant opinion in a few years.


You mean you want to make a new division that doesn't go by weight but by "athleticity"? A true reformer you are. Do you want to be in the committee that inspects male boxers for muscle and fat tissues? You can tell us, Dale. Since you consider Wlad your fat ***** ("Wladimir K is as much of a fat bum", "Wladimir K is a total *****") you surely would like to inspect every corner of his body whether he meets your fat-*****-standards.

Is that Tyson with an animal in your avatar? Anything else you want to tell us, Dale?


Nice theory you have there. You should really make a proposal to the governing bodies about your ideas for new divisions (The muscle-to-fat-ratio-division). They'll surely look into it.


You keyboard is still broken.

It doesn't take somebody to debunk your hideously diabolical claims for everybody to see you're a complete idiot. The only person gaining anything from replying to your garbage with "counter facts" is you.

And frankly I don't give two ****s about setting some completely deluded idiot wannabe boxing critic (who obviously thinks he's some kinda "leet internet" badass; quoting like no tommorow and throwing in insults with his big logix intraweb assualt. Real nerdy.). straight on how heavyweight boxing works. I just don't care enough about you.

You're not logged into World of Warcraft anymore mate. People wont think you're cool for sporting a pompous nerd attitude when replying to people.

Anyone who knows boxing knows you're wrong and stupid. Just like your attempt to prove Klitschko isn't just a bumhunter who's been KO'd three times like a *****. (Nice Karma btw, seems your fellow boxing fans agree with what you have to say.)

Just remember to be open about your views that Klitschko is better than Ali. It's good if people realize you're a retard sooner rather than later.

Around 220lbs is the perfect weight for most heavyweights to maintain speed, power and endurance.

Perfect example of this is lennox lewis. Weighed around 220 in his prime. Against Vitali he was 248 and had obviously lost tons of endurance, and speed.


N THE WHOLE 70ies Muhammad Ali scored 5 (FIVE) KOs against 200+lbs opponents within 12 rounds (average weight 215lbs). That's how crappy the golden age was.

What an absolute testament to how feeble your boxing knowledge is.

Boxing is not about knockouts. Ali was never a knockout artist.

I mean it's so horrible to actually contemplate somebody truely believes what it is I'm seeing on my computer screen.

I'm curious as to see what kind of person you are in RL, knn.

My suggestion for you is to go to MMA. :bottle::bottle::bottle::bottle:

knn
06-28-2009, 10:05 AM
It doesn't take somebody to debunk your hideously diabolical claims for everybody to see you're a complete idiot.
The only problem is: There is no claim of mine to "debunk". I state mere facts, because people obviously forgot what a crap the 70ies really were, e.g. a boxer with Parkinson fighting against a 6-0 bum for the unified titles.

And frankly I don't give two ****s about setting some completely deluded idiot
Typical answer of 70ies-delusionists: "I don't give a damn about your facts".

You are free to stay in fantasy land.

Anyone who knows boxing knows you're wrong and stupid.
Wow, now I am convinced that I was wrong. Because "anyone who knows boxing knows that I am wrong".

You know, that this is the MOST TYPICAL reply of Ali-fans? "You know nothing about boxing!", "Did you ever watched Ali fight?", "Noone who understand boxing agrees with you", "You are an idiot".

Ali fans are so predictable.

AND YET the only thing that is always missing is actually A FACTUAL or VISIBLE PROOF how superior Ali was. Name the fight of Ali that impressed you the most (but don't mention any cruiser opponents or any opponents I have in my sig).

Read also
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5553426#post5553426

Just like your attempt to prove Klitschko isn't just a bumhunter who's been KO'd three times like a *****.
There you mention that b-word again. Do you need a friend?

(Nice Karma btw, seems your fellow boxing fans agree with what you have to say.)
Most agree. It's just that oasis_lad gave me -20000 or so. Just shows you how deep the delusion goes.

But obviously it's important to you to have an acceptable opinion.

Just remember to be open about your views that Klitschko is better than Ali.
Ali is far better than Klitschko ... in fantasy land.

Around 220lbs is the perfect weight for most heavyweights to maintain speed, power and endurance.
Are you a trainer? Hey, wait a sec, aren't you just 17 years or so? Did _YOU_ actually watch Ali fight?

Perfect example of this is lennox lewis. Weighed around 220 in his prime.
....and was hated while active.

Against Vitali he was 248 and had obviously lost tons of endurance, and speed.
So 248 is the best weight?

Boxing is not about knockouts.
OH NOW IT'S NOT ABOUT KOs but just a few sentences ago you write about Klitschko "been KO'd three times like a *****." Look, who's talking, hater. Why do nearly all Ali fans show their ugly hater face within a few sentences?

And by the way: That is also another typical statement of Ali fans "Boxing is not about KOs, it's about heart" or "Ali had greater ringmanship" or similar nonsense. I never saw "Heart" on scorecards and there is no "Winner by Ringmanship".

Jim Jeffries
06-28-2009, 10:14 AM
But his best win is Chris Byrd and he was KOed 3 times...

Numerically an ATG Heavyweight, substance wise no. But there's still time for him to earn making the top 30.

Please tell me 30 HWs greater than Wlad, right now.

And who's the guy claiming Lennox Lewis was 220 in his prime?

Roger Mellie
06-28-2009, 10:14 AM
Wlad is the best of his era....shame about the era.

amir khan
06-28-2009, 10:18 AM
Wlad would have very little trouble in taking care of Lennox Lewis, Wlad would have a field day with the Canadian and i think he would put Lewis to sleep around the 4th round with a big right-hand bomb

lmao wtf so he takes lewis quicker than he takes tony thompson

mickey malone
06-28-2009, 10:34 AM
Is Wlad an ATG....

The answer is...... NEARLY.... Hasn't got far to go... Regards haters, YES YES YES he is....

paulsinghnl
06-28-2009, 10:55 AM
Wlad is the best of his era....shame about the era.

and that's all there is to it...

i swear reading some threads in here just give me a headache. People regard Joe Louis to be the ATG heavyweight, for his amazing knockout power, which is prob. a little more than the no .2, which is Ali, and if you dont know why he's there, u need to quit talking about boxing. these guys don't even compare to the opposition Wlad faces in terms of boxing quality.

and then Wlad is supposed to top them all.. granted, Wlad is really good, athletic, he knows how to work with his jab, he's fast with the jab, accurate, he knows how to stay out of range from the opponent.

but he has flaws. he wont be able to deal with a guy that can infight good enough. Frasier would've busted him up eventually, Foreman would've had him for dinner with his power (remember, Foreman made big permanent dents in 200lbs heavybags), Tyson.. dont even need to talk about that, too much damn speed for him, Holmes had too much aggression and boxing ability, he'd have given him trouble, Ali would've outspeeded him somehow.

And Joe Louis? read up about him (know what the "bum of the month club" is) he had awesome power, Primo Carnera was just as big as Wlad...

dude.. shame on you, Wlad's good, but there were a lot of better HW's. i go with the top 50.

GJC
06-28-2009, 12:18 PM
OH NOW IT'S NOT ABOUT KOs but just a few sentences ago you write about Klitschko "been KO'd three times like a *****." Look, who's talking, hater. Why do nearly all Ali fans show their ugly hater face within a few sentences?

And by the way: That is also another typical statement of Ali fans "Boxing is not about KOs, it's about heart" or "Ali had greater ringmanship" or similar nonsense. I never saw "Heart" on scorecards and there is no "Winner by Ringmanship".

I don't why why I'm bothering but.....

1) So you think the only way to beat Wlad or Vitali is by outweighing them or being as tall as them?
2) Weight and height are all important but you do not think reach is a factor in the slightest? I ask that because reach is never mentioned in your stats.
3) Would you say that a fighter who KO's opponents in 3 rounds or less would be a more powerful puncher than one who knocks out opponents in later rounds?
4) Would you call a fighter who has a dozen KO's in 160 fights a featherfist?
5) Do you think big punchers are born or made?

GJC
06-28-2009, 12:21 PM
Wlad would have very little trouble in taking care of Lennox Lewis, Wlad would have a field day with the Canadian and i think he would put Lewis to sleep around the 4th round with a big right-hand bomb
You think Wlad is better than Vitali?
You are talking about a prime Lennox Lewis?

joe strong
06-28-2009, 12:35 PM
Wlad has Knocked out more opponents in heavyweight world titles (200+ lbs) than Joe Louis, Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson or Rocky Marciano.

He has a higher KO ratio than Mike Tyson.

He has also won more world title fights than Evander Holyfield.

Is one of the heavies (with 50+ fights) with the least unavenged losses ever.

he was knocked out by puritty,sanders,brewster.he avenged the brewster but had his big brother fight them instead of doing it himself.he has NONE of the big names on his resume(holyfield,Tyson,lewis).his big wins vs Rahman & Byrd.right now I sat NO.if he fights & beats haye,arreola,povetkin & wins it will put him in the hall.he also does not have those devastating 1st round knockouts of any upper echelon contenders like Tyson & lewis.yes he has high knockout % but he never fought anyone until his 30 something fight(Byrd).I'd say it's too early to put him in atg list.

joe strong
06-28-2009, 12:42 PM
lennox punched vitalis eye out & stopped him before the end of the sixth.I don't care if vitali was winning.fights are 12 rounds not 5& a half.lennox never lost to bums like puritty & sanders & brewster wouldn't last 3 rounds with lewis.Rahman got dropped by sanders twice got off the canvas to knockout sanders.his next fight he beat lewis.wlad had the same opportunity as Rahman.beat sanders & get a title shot at lewis.he couldn't make it out of the 2nd after 4 knockdowns.davarryl wiiliams lost a controversial split decision after being knocked down.lewis stares at williamson & he passed out.anybody on this site who thinks wlad is on par with lewis is dillusional.he couldn't carry lewis jockstrap.

joe strong
06-28-2009, 12:52 PM
I think lewis, Tyson & Holyfield beat Ali.different eras completely.the older guys were smaller but went 15 HARD rounds,had way more heart,they all fought each other,no politics,no ducking,fought regularily.todays heavyweights wouldn't last long in that era.the klits run out of steam by the 8 & 9 but would have to go another5 or 6 rounds.they wouldn't last.even lewis would gave trouble but smaller guys like Byrd,Holyfield would be the 2 guys who would have done well back then because of their conditioning.Holyfield in his prime beats all of them including Ali,Frazier,Liston,etc.

mickey malone
06-28-2009, 01:01 PM
lennox punched vitalis eye out & stopped him before the end of the sixth.I don't care if vitali was winning.fights are 12 rounds not 5& a half.lennox never lost to bums like puritty & sanders & brewster wouldn't last 3 rounds with lewis.Rahman got dropped by sanders twice got off the canvas to knockout sanders.his next fight he beat lewis.wlad had the same opportunity as Rahman.beat sanders & get a title shot at lewis.he couldn't make it out of the 2nd after 4 knockdowns.davarryl wiiliams lost a controversial split decision after being knocked down.lewis stares at williamson & he passed out.anybody on this site who thinks wlad is on par with lewis is dillusional.he couldn't carry lewis jockstrap.
100% Right...

Wlad's 'nobodies' Cvnt though....

GJC
06-28-2009, 01:09 PM
Please tell me 30 HWs greater than Wlad, right now.

And who's the guy claiming Lennox Lewis was 220 in his prime?
That's fair no one fair minded wouldn't put them in top 30.
Probably best performance of Lewis career was Ruddock when he was 220 odd so not totally out there to say he was at prime at 220 odd.

BTW Jim, Tunney or whatever if you are going to quote me don't do it out of context old son.

Are you serious? Everyone knows that the worst thing in the world to be in the U.S is a white male

I'm the racist

GJC
06-28-2009, 01:11 PM
Are you serious? Everyone knows that the worst thing in the world to be in the U.S is a white male

I'm the racist

Amazing even an old man can do it! No doubt you will skulk some red k my way? Thats how it works isn't it?

GJC
06-28-2009, 01:14 PM
lennox punched vitalis eye out & stopped him before the end of the sixth.I don't care if vitali was winning.fights are 12 rounds not 5& a half.

Bold statement! I think a lot of people think Vlad ought to have been given the decision as he was 4 rounds to 2 up.
Hearns was knocking the granny out of Barkley for two and a half rounds but no one ever says he was robbed lol

busyfighter
06-28-2009, 01:15 PM
Its not K brothers fault. Marketing wise, they should not be taking all the belts.

Esquire Dale
06-28-2009, 01:17 PM
lennox punched vitalis eye out & stopped him before the end of the sixth.I don't care if vitali was winning.fights are 12 rounds not 5& a half.lennox never lost to bums like puritty & sanders & brewster wouldn't last 3 rounds with lewis.Rahman got dropped by sanders twice got off the canvas to knockout sanders.his next fight he beat lewis.wlad had the same opportunity as Rahman.beat sanders & get a title shot at lewis.he couldn't make it out of the 2nd after 4 knockdowns.davarryl wiiliams lost a controversial split decision after being knocked down.lewis stares at williamson & he passed out.anybody on this site who thinks wlad is on par with lewis is dillusional.he couldn't carry lewis jockstrap.

I'd go with this

:yeah:

joe strong
06-28-2009, 01:24 PM
Bold statement! I think a lot of people think Vlad ought to have been given the decision as he was 4 rounds to 2 up.
Hearns was knocking the granny out of Barkley for two and a half rounds but no one ever says he was robbed lol

since I've been watching I always remembered if a punch causes the cut it's a tko & it was 6 rounds of punches.if it was a headbutt is different.I wonder how vitali would have handled that? Quit before the 4th round ended to get a no contest?

sonnyboyx2
06-28-2009, 03:47 PM
lmao wtf so he takes lewis quicker than he takes tony thompson
yes he does, Lewis was vastly overated and if Frank Bruno could easily out-jab Lewis and have him on the verge of defeat Wlad would destroy him

sonnyboyx2
06-28-2009, 03:48 PM
You think Wlad is better than Vitali?
You are talking about a prime Lennox Lewis?
yes prime Lewis vs prime Wlad -- Wlad KO4

joe strong
06-28-2009, 04:04 PM
yes he does, Lewis was vastly overated and if Frank Bruno could easily out-jab Lewis and have him on the verge of defeat Wlad would destroy him

lewis was early in his career but found a big left hook the rest is history.lewis found a way to win when losing.what is wlads excuse in his 3 losses?lewis avenged both his loses why did wlad get big brother to clean up the mess?

CCobra
06-28-2009, 04:05 PM
Let's check whom you compare to Wlad's competition:


Schmeling - a cruiser opponent
Braddock - a cruiser opponent
Conn (x2) - a cruiser opponent (actually sub-cruiser)
Walcott (x2) - a cruiser opponent
Lewis - a cruiser opponent
Galento - a 79-26 featherfist
Levinsky - a cruiser opponent
Farr - a 81-30 featherfist
Uzcudun - a 50-17 featherfist
Sharkey - a cruiser opponent
Bivins - a cruiser opponent

DONT EVER COMPARE these opponents to the opponents of Klitschko.

Compare Joe Louis with David Haye or with Juan Carlos Gomez, not with Klitschko.

And too bad that the 2 heavies left (Max Baer 68-13 and Primo Carnera 89-14) were also not involved in a heavyweight fight with Joe Louis, since Louis himself was below 200.


Unfortunately for you, I ACTUALLY CHECKED the FACTUAL RECORDs.


Yes, Holmes and Tyson you can compare indeed to Klitschko. They are real heavyweight ATGs.


Nonsense, and it won't get any truer by repeating it.

There has been not a worse HW era than Marciano's era and before. Now we have one of the best if not the best heavyweight era except that US boxers are exposed to global fighters and the world title isn't a local US-internal contest anymore.

I obviously need to remind everyone that in the 70ies a guy with Parkinson (Ali) was fighting against a 6-0 bum for the unified world title. THAT's how bad it was in the 70ies.

In the 80ies a Larry Homes was fighting in world title fights that included opponents such as Leon Spinks (26-17), David Bey (18-11), Scott LeDoux (33-13), Lucien Rodriguez (33-12) and other bums.

In the 90ies a Evan Fields (current heavyweight record 24-10!) was fighting against a 36-22 guy (Bert Cooper) for the unified world title.

The 2000s compare pretty well to past eras. It's merely the US commentators who ***** around.

IN THE WHOLE 70ies Muhammad Ali scored 5 (FIVE) KOs against 200+lbs opponents within 12 rounds (average weight 215lbs). That's how crappy the golden age was.

You seem to be missing the point. You class a fighter by who he beat in his era. All the guys I mentioned were legit Heavyweights of their respective era. You're completely devalueing every one of Louis' victory just because his opponents were smaller than that of todays. I'm also curious to know how you managed to throw Muhammad Ali in a post pertaining Joe Louis.

Your formula for deciding how great an era was borders on asinine.

TheGreatA
06-28-2009, 04:16 PM
You seem to be missing the point. You class a fighter by who he beat in his era. All the guys I mentioned were legit Heavyweights of their respective era. You're completely devalueing every one of Louis' victory just because his opponents were smaller than that of todays. I'm also curious to know how you managed to throw Muhammad Ali in a post pertaining Joe Louis.

Your formula for deciding how great an era was borders on asinine.

Exactly.

According to him Chris Byrd is a better puncher than Smokin' Joe Frazier because Byrd has knocked out bigger men (mostly fat slobs who had no boxing ability) while ignoring that Byrd has only scored a single stoppage win over a top 10 ranked opponent, an injury-related TKO over Vitali Klitschko, while Frazier had several KO wins over ranked opponents such as Jerry Quarry, George Chuvalo, Jimmy Ellis, Buster Mathis, Doug Jones, Eddie Machen, Manuel Ramos...

GJC
06-28-2009, 04:24 PM
yes prime Lewis vs prime Wlad -- Wlad KO4
So you think Wlad is better than Vitali? Well its all about opinion I guess I favour Vitali personally.
Well Wlad will have to be several times better than Vitali as the poorest version of Lewis beat Vitali.
An off Lewis not focussed could get caught no doubt of that although Wlad would have to show a lot more daring than he has recently to land even on an off Lewis.
Prime v Prime can't see Wlad having a chance to be honest

GJC
06-28-2009, 04:29 PM
yes he does, Lewis was vastly overated and if Frank Bruno could easily out-jab Lewis and have him on the verge of defeat Wlad would destroy him
Bruno had quite a decent jab you know, also fight ended in 7th so hardly the verge of defeat. Lewis was poor that night but never looked like Bruno was going to stop him and he won in the 7th. Likewise against Vitali he was awful but won. Test of a good champion is to fight poorly against a dangerous opponent and win.

knn
06-28-2009, 07:00 PM
I don't why why I'm bothering but.....

1) So you think the only way to beat Wlad or Vitali is by outweighing them or being as tall as them?
Nope, I never said anything of that sort and I don't think that. Wlad beat heavier and lighter fighters, smaller and taller, reachier and shorter. The only way to be Wlad is to be better than Wlad. And everyone who complains about "the dire state of the division" is of course fooling himself, because if it would be that dire then you could easily become world champ.

Wlad has been outweighted in many fights (in approx. 50% of his fights). Foreman has been outweighted in only approx. 10% of his fights. Ali has been outweighted in only 25% of his fights. Thus WEIGHT is not a big factor against Wlad, but it may have been against Foreman and Ali.

2) Weight and height are all important but you do not think reach is a factor in the slightest?
I checked several ten thousand fights. Reach is not a statistically significant factor because it's NEARLY ALWAYS included in the body height already. Thus being taller gives you an advantage of approx 2:1, being reachier gives you also an advantage but being reachier+taller gives you statistically nearly no advantage (to being taller alone) because it's nearly always included already by being taller.

Being taller+heavier gives you an advantage of approx. 3:1. Those who are claiming that weight/height isn't an issue are fooling themselves.

I ask that because reach is never mentioned in your stats.
The main reason why I nearly never mention reach is because in many cases it's unknown. Moreover the bumness is far more important. If you have a reachy bum then the bum will pretty surely lose.

3) Would you say that a fighter who KO's opponents in 3 rounds or less would be a more powerful puncher than one who knocks out opponents in later rounds?
Generally yes, HOWEVER if you compare 2 records and a boxer KOed mainly bums in rounds 1-3 and another KOed better opponents in rounds 4-6, then you cannot make a valid comparison. I hardly ever mention "early KO rounds" because of this difficulty.

So you would need to compare bum-KO-victims to bum-KO-victims.

Let's take an example: Wlad's bummy KO-victims vs Foreman's (70ies) bummy KO-victims (only 200+ opponents). Bums = those who lose 25% or more of their fights.

Let's compare their bum-opponents they could KO within rounds 1-3.

Wlad's bummy KO-victims (1st-3rd round): 14-9 (record at bout), 18-13 (career)
Foreman: 8-9 (at bout), 10-14 (career)

In other words: If you just compare the bums that Foreman and Wlad KOed within 3 rounds then Wlad KOed TWICE AS GOOD OPPONENTS as did Foreman.

In other words: Wlad KOed opponents in rounds 1-3 who would have survived longer against Foreman. Bums whom Foreman didn't manage to KO within 1-3 have the record of 18-7 (at bout) = better than his three-round-victims = approx like those whom Wlad managed to KO with 1-3.

In other words: Wlad has not only the higher KOratio than Foreman but also the higher KOratio AGAINST BETTER OPPONENTs.

In other words: Wlad KOed these opponents in approx. half the time that Foreman needed.

Thus you could conclude that Wlad is the stronger puncher OR Wlad is the more effective puncher OR that he has more heart than Foreman (= isn't afraid of his opponents = attacks more).

This is also supported by the fact that Foreman has scored only 4 KOs in world title fights (his whole career) whereas Wlad (mid-career) has already 12.

It gets even more impressive when you check THE WEIGHT of the KO-victims (I took all opponents to broaden the sample):

Foreman's round 1 KOs were against a median weight of 200lbs
Foreman's round 2 KOs were against a median weight of 212lbs
Foreman's round 3 KOs were against a median weight of 215lbs

Of these opponents Foreman outweighted approx. 85%

Wlad's round 1 KOs were against a median weight of 233lbs
Wlad's round 2 KOs were against a median weight of 232lbs
Wlad's round 3 KOs were against a median weight of 244lbs

Of these opponents Wlad outweighted approx. 42%

Thus for a median 215lbs opponent it took Foreman already 3 rounds, whereas Wlad KOed a median 233lbs opponent within 1 round.

Summary for the three-round-KO-performance:
Foreman is LESS EFFECTIVE than Wlad WHILE FIGHTING LIGHTER opponents and WORSE opponents and WHILE BEING HEAVIER than the opponents. Wlad is MORE EFFECTIVE (= faster KOs than Foreman) though FIGHTING the HEAVIER opponents (than Foreman's) and BETTER opponents (than Foreman's) and while being usually LIGHTER than his opponents.

Only haters aren't impressed.

Let me also add that I hardly mention the losses of a boxer. Just imagine a boxer would have 50 LOSSES and 5 wins, then nobody would make a conclusion about the greatness of the boxer based on 3 wins. But you will often hear the opposite like "He has 5 losses thus he cannot be any good" (e.g. Roy Jones Jr)

4) Would you call a fighter who has a dozen KO's in 160 fights a featherfist?
Featherfist is Chris Byrd. If you have a KOratio (against 200+ opponents) like Chris Byrd (= 50% or below), I call the fighter featherfist. Usually natural cruisers (Byrd, Moorer, Evan Fields, Ali) are featherfists.

5) Do you think big punchers are born or made?
You can MAKE a natural born big puncher better.

knn
06-28-2009, 07:05 PM
puritty & sanders & brewster wouldn't last 3 rounds with lewis.
Pure and utter speculation. Substatiated by nothing than hate.

davarryl wiiliams lost a controversial split decision after being knocked down.
There was nothing controversial about it. Wlad was beating the crap out of Davarryl. And if DaVarryl is so good then where is he now?

lewis stares at williamson & he passed out.anybody on this site who thinks wlad is on par with lewis is dillusional.he couldn't carry lewis jockstrap.
Yeah, so? Then Lewis is #1 and Wlad is #2. Happy?

knn
06-28-2009, 07:11 PM
I think lewis, Tyson & Holyfield beat Ali.different eras completely.the older guys were smaller but went 15 HARD rounds
They had to. Because they were such featherfists.

had way more heart
And more spleen.

they all fought each other
Yeah, since there weren't exposed to global competition.

no ducking,fought regularily
Yeah, except that Ali fought approx. half as often as Wlad.

todays heavyweights wouldn't last long in that era.
Pure speculation. Again, based on nothing but hate and delusion.

knn
06-28-2009, 07:15 PM
You seem to be missing the point. You class a fighter by who he beat in his era. All the guys I mentioned were legit Heavyweights of their respective era. You're completely devalueing every one of Louis' victory just because his opponents were smaller than that of todays.
I am not devalueing Louis opponents. I just add them to Louis' cruiser record.

And if "you class a fighter by who he beat in his era" then Wlad is an ATG because so far he cleaned up the field.

Jim Jeffries
06-28-2009, 11:19 PM
Probably best performance of Lewis career was Ruddock when he was 220 odd so not totally out there to say he was at prime at 220 odd.

I'm pretty sure most knowledgeable historians would say that Lennox Lewis' prime was after the McCall loss when he acquired Emanuel Steward in his corner. Lennox never weighed less than 241 after that night.

sonnyboyx2
06-29-2009, 03:24 AM
So you think Wlad is better than Vitali? Well its all about opinion I guess I favour Vitali personally.
Well Wlad will have to be several times better than Vitali as the poorest version of Lewis beat Vitali.
An off Lewis not focussed could get caught no doubt of that although Wlad would have to show a lot more daring than he has recently to land even on an off Lewis.
Prime v Prime can't see Wlad having a chance to be honest
quite amazing how Lewis excuses are acceptable but no other fighters are ... Lewis was not focuses, Lewis did not train, Lewis got caught with a lucky punch etc etc etc, Wlad would beat any opponent Lewis ever fought including Tyson & Holyfield in the condition both was in when Lewis beat them.. Wlad would completely destroy any version of Lennox Lewis, Lewis once boasted he would have one brother for lunch the other brother for tea, he took on the lesser of the two first any very nearly came unstuck, he then wanted nothing to do with the best of the two brothers... Lewis was nothing special, he was an oppotunist who avoided fighters who was at the top of their game instead choosing exposed over-the-hill fighters and old hasbeens,

knn
06-29-2009, 07:10 AM
So you think Wlad is better than Vitali? Well its all about opinion I guess I favour Vitali personally.
Vitali's left face/lip was completely beaten up.

That was the punishment Vitali got for his constantly low left. A reachy ATG like Lennox perfectly exposed it.

Wlad knows no such problems. Wlad's defense is far superior to Vitali's.

Having said that: Lennox is one of the seldom cases who could give Wlad problems. No other ATG would give Wlad more problems than Lennox (and maybe Foreman). Vice versa, no other ATG would give Lennox as much problems as Wlad.

Lennox was lucky that he just escaped the upcoming eastern-europe-domination. Lennox got a pre-taste of Eastern-Euro-Power when he fought Mavrovic (a fight he described later as hardest fight of his life). Then came Vitali and away went Lennox.

GJC
06-29-2009, 08:32 AM
Lewis was nothing special, he was an oppotunist who avoided fighters who was at the top of their game instead choosing exposed over-the-hill fighters and old hasbeens,

The fact you don't like Lewis is one thing but your above statement is nonsense. Amongst others he fought Golota who had just given Bowe his 2 hardest fights, an undefeated Grant a dangerous Tua etc hardly has beens. Lewis fought everyone put in front of him.

GJC
06-29-2009, 08:35 AM
Vitali's left face/lip was completely beaten up.

That was the punishment Vitali got for his constantly low left. A reachy ATG like Lennox perfectly exposed it.

Wlad knows no such problems. Wlad's defense is far superior to Vitali's.



So you think that had Lewis fought Wlad instead of Vitali he would have lost?

GJC
06-29-2009, 08:51 AM
I checked several ten thousand fights. Reach is not a statistically significant factor because it's NEARLY ALWAYS included in the body height already. Thus being taller gives you an advantage of approx 2:1, being reachier gives you also an advantage but being reachier+taller gives you statistically nearly no advantage (to being taller alone) because it's nearly always included already by being taller.

The main reason why I nearly never mention reach is because in many cases it's unknown. Moreover the bumness is far more important. If you have a reachy bum then the bum will pretty surely lose.



The problem is with your statistics is that you do not stick just to facts, you will then decide arbitrarily that so and so is a bum or doesn't weigh enough so we will remove him from the sum. So it isn't facts it is opinion, your opinion is that Frazier was featherfisted I would assume that everyone else's opinion is that he wasn't.

Reach is important and most fighters reach is known. Wlad is a big fellow weighs a lot and has a reach of 81. Ali doesn't weigh as much is quicker and has a reach of 80. So big old Wlad is moving that extra 25lb's around against a quicker guy and has a whopping 1 inch reach advantage. Good luck there.
Moving on to Liston, he has an 84 inch reach so iron jawed Wlad will have to take Liston's jab to land. I know where my money is on that fight.

GJC
06-29-2009, 08:59 AM
I'm pretty sure most knowledgeable historians would say that Lennox Lewis' prime was after the McCall loss when he acquired Emanuel Steward in his corner. Lennox never weighed less than 241 after that night.
My point was that if you wish to take a fighter's most impressive performance and say that was him on the best night he ever had i.e. prime or the period he was in his prime.
Lewis had many good fights but he looked a beast against Ruddock and weighed 220 odd that night.
So whilst I would agree he was best around 240 odd to say he was better at 220 odd isn't totally a ludicrous statement, no?


Are you serious? Everyone knows that the worst thing in the world to be in the U.S is a white male

I'm the racist

BennyST
06-29-2009, 09:04 AM
Foreman has been genuinely floored by 2 featherfists (Ali and Jimmy Young). How often has that happened to ATGs?

Let me tell you the reason why Wlad has 3 KOs and other greats maybe not: BECAUSE OTHER ATGs didn't fights as many heavy opponents as Wlad.

In how many real heavyweight fights (= both opponents 200+) was Ali involved?

Ali: 28-4 (median win-opponent weight 213lbs)
Evan Fields: 24-10
Joe Louis: 11-0
Frazier: 13-4
Foreman: 59-5 (216lbs)
Tyson: 45-6 (221 lbs)
Lennox: 39-2 (229 lbs)
Wlad: 53-3 (233lbs)

THAT is the real reason why Klitschko has 3 KO losses on his record (aside from the fact that 2 of the losses were stamina issues): Nobody from the above ATGs has fought more heavier opponents than Klitschko. If you compare "KO losses of Ali and KO losses of Klitschko" then you are comparing a 28-4 guy (Ali) with a 53-3 guy (Klitschko).

That is the worst excuse I've heard yet. The Klit's are still way bigger than all of their opponents, whereas Ali was either as big or smaller. That golden age you speak of and this weight thing you rant about is rubbish. It would make sense if the Klit's were as small as their opposition but they aren't. They're much bigger, whereas the Ali era, everyone was of a similar size, with Foreman being the biggest.

GJC
06-29-2009, 09:11 AM
since I've been watching I always remembered if a punch causes the cut it's a tko & it was 6 rounds of punches.if it was a headbutt is different.I wonder how vitali would have handled that? Quit before the 4th round ended to get a no contest?
As it was a punch it would be a TKO then :)

BennyST
06-29-2009, 09:15 AM
AND YET the only thing that is always missing is actually A FACTUAL or VISIBLE PROOF how superior Ali was. Name the fight of Ali that impressed you the most (but don't mention any cruiser opponents or any opponents I have in my sig).


OH NOW IT'S NOT ABOUT KOs but just a few sentences ago you write about Klitschko "been KO'd three times like a *****."

Well, the first point? What about the 40-0 world unified champion George Foreman who had beaten the undefeated Joe Frazier in a couple of rounds, along with other great fighters like Ken Norton.

The second point? No, it's not about KO's, but it is about winning and losing by KO three times to mediocre opposition is a pretty bad statement for an ATG heavyweight. Supposedly the greatest heavyweight of all time if going by your suggestions. Sure, knocking your opponents out is cool, but it doesn't matter if they're bad or you are also getting knocked out throughout your career as well.

Tell me this? Do you actually think Wlad or Vit Klit are the greatest ever HW's?

Jim Jeffries
06-29-2009, 09:20 AM
My point was that if you wish to take a fighter's most impressive performance and say that was him on the best night he ever had i.e. prime or the period he was in his prime.
Lewis had many good fights but he looked a beast against Ruddock and weighed 220 odd that night.
So whilst I would agree he was best around 240 odd to say he was better at 220 odd isn't totally a ludicrous statement, no?

Yes it is, as I have already explained. Nothing in my quotes of yours were taken out of context, and I have no problem with what you quoted of mine, except that after the "I'm the racist" quote, you should have a question mark.
Lennox Lewis, like Wlad, was more exciting before Steward got a hold of him, but it's rather silly to claim that he was better.
The guy said "Lennox Lewis' best weight was 220, so at 250+ he was grossly out of shape," which is a false statement, any way you slice (or spin, something you're not too shabby at) it.

GJC
06-29-2009, 09:20 AM
I checked several ten thousand fights.



Checked or watched? Here lies the rub I think, boxing is a sport best enjoyed by watching it. 100 metre sprinting and golf can be analysed by "checking" them. If A can run at 9.7 and B can run at 9.9 then you can safely say A should win. Likewise if A can drive a ball 300 yards and needs 22 putts to complete a round and B can drive a ball 250 yards and needs 40 putts to complete a round then you can say A should win.
Assuming they weigh the same of course :)
Maybe you should use that analytical mind on a sport that deserves it more?

GJC
06-29-2009, 09:27 AM
Yes it is, as I have already explained. Nothing in my quotes of yours were taken out of context, and I have no problem with what you quoted of mine, except that after the "I'm the racist" quote, you should have a question mark.
Lennox Lewis, like Wlad, was more exciting before Steward got a hold of him, but it's rather silly to claim that he was better.
The guy said "Lennox Lewis' best weight was 220, so at 250+ he was grossly out of shape," which is a false statement, any way you slice (or spin, something you're not too shabby at) it.
I would agree with him that Lewis at 250+ was not as good. He looked dreadful against Vitali, was cumbersome and lost against Rahman. Or is that spin?
What would you put as Lewis best performance?

GJC
06-29-2009, 09:31 AM
Tell me this? Do you actually think Wlad or Vit Klit are the greatest ever HW's?


He'll avoid this question as he is unbiased and neutral. He will however totally discredit every other heavyweight's record until only they by some amazing coincidence are left.

BennyST
06-29-2009, 09:32 AM
Foreman's round 1 KOs were against a median weight of 200lbs
Foreman's round 2 KOs were against a median weight of 212lbs
Foreman's round 3 KOs were against a median weight of 215lbs

Of these opponents Foreman outweighted approx. 85%

Wlad's round 1 KOs were against a median weight of 233lbs
Wlad's round 2 KOs were against a median weight of 232lbs
Wlad's round 3 KOs were against a median weight of 244lbs

Of these opponents Wlad outweighted approx. 42%


Whoah, most of that was too confusing for me to understand, but this I could.

So, Foreman fought guys that were smaller but in shape and the Klit fought guys that were short and fat? If he's taller than everyone, which he is by a lot, but he is outweighed by half that to me says that he is fighting fat, out of shape opponents.

Foreman was bigger than most the guys in his era so you would expect him to outweigh them as, if they are in proper shape, they would not weigh as much.

Esquire Dale
06-29-2009, 09:32 AM
You're wasting your time with knn.

He thinks the more a heavyweight weighs the more credible of an oponent they are.

He actually knows nothing. Let him believe what he wants. Anybody who actually believes that **** doesn't deserve to know the truth anyway. So stop trying.

Jim Jeffries
06-29-2009, 09:40 AM
I would agree with him that Lewis at 250+ was not as good. He looked dreadful against Vitali, was cumbersome and lost against Rahman. Or is that spin?
What would you put as Lewis best performance?

Anyone in their right mind would say that Lewis at 256 was not at his absolute best, that has nothing to do with him being prime at 220 (a ridiculous statement.) Are you claiming that the McCall loss was post prime? Best performance? Do you mean most entertaining? Biggest win? Most dominating? As I remember the Rahman loss had more to do with the altitude and the fact that Lennox was filming for Oceans 11, not training for such.
And yes, Wlad has a better chance of beating the version of Lennox that his brother fought, given his much better defense. It would've been a far less exciting fight, but I think Lennox would've faded late, and lost on the cards.

TheGreatA
06-29-2009, 09:45 AM
Anyone in their right mind would say that Lewis at 256 was not at his absolute best, that has nothing to do with him being prime at 220 (a ridiculous statement.) Are you claiming that the McCall loss was post prime? Best performance? Do you mean most entertaining? Biggest win? Most dominating? As I remember the Rahman loss had more to do with the altitude and the fact that Lennox was filming for Oceans 11, not training for such.

The 227 lb version of Lennox Lewis who KO'd Ruddock may have very well been Lennox at his physical prime. He was very quick and powerful.

I think most would agree though that he had not developed his boxing skills to the level they were after he started training with Manny Steward. The big criticism about him then was that he left himself off balance at times and McCall certainly exposed that.

GJC
06-29-2009, 09:50 AM
Anyone in their right mind would say that Lewis at 256 was not at his absolute best, that has nothing to do with him being prime at 220 (a ridiculous statement.) Are you claiming that the McCall loss was post prime? Best performance? Do you mean most entertaining? Biggest win? Most dominating? As I remember the Rahman loss had more to do with the altitude and the fact that Lennox was filming for Oceans 11, not training for such.
And yes, Wlad has a better chance of beating the version of Lennox that his brother fought, given his much better defense. It would've been a far less exciting fight, but I think Lennox would've faded late, and lost on the cards.
1) I don't agree that Lewis at 220 odd is prime I do not however call it a ridicolous statement compared with some of the statements on here which you have not picked up on.
2) No I do not say the McCall loss was post prime
3) Best Win is best win in your opinion simple enough question. I would personally probably go with the Ruddock win, he was facing a dangerous opponent and looked sharp and possessed the killer instinct which he lacked in some fights.
4) Yes he wasn't in good condition against Rahman hence 250+ pounds

Jim Jeffries
06-29-2009, 10:04 AM
1) I don't agree that Lewis at 220 odd is prime I do not however call it a ridicolous statement compared with some of the statements on here which you have not picked up on.
2) No I do not say the McCall loss was post prime
3) Best Win is best win in your opinion simple enough question. I would personally probably go with the Ruddock win, he was facing a dangerous opponent and looked sharp and possessed the killer instinct which he lacked in some fights.
4) Yes he wasn't in good condition against Rahman hence 250+ pounds

I don't rate Ruddock as high as you. Lennox had quite a few very good wins, haven't really decided yet which I consider his best. A bit out of shape in the first Rahman fight at 253, but not grossly so considering he routinely weighed as high as 247-248, and the man was a large framed 6'5" after all. Why would I argue with a guy that says Joe Frazier was "feather fisted?"

GJC
06-29-2009, 10:21 AM
Why would I argue with a guy that says Joe Frazier was "feather fisted?"

Because he talks bollocks?
Or would you be arguing against yourself??

knn
06-29-2009, 12:58 PM
The problem is with your statistics is that you do not stick just to facts, you will then decide arbitrarily that so and so is a bum
I don't "decide arbitrarily that so and so is a bum".

or doesn't weigh enough so we will remove him from the sum.
If it's below 200 then it counts for the cruiser record. Also no arbitraries involved here.

So it isn't facts it is opinion, your opinion is that Frazier was featherfisted
Also no arbitraries. 50% KOrate is a featherfist.

Reach is important and most fighters reach is known.
Most fighters' reach is unknown.

Wlad is a big fellow weighs a lot and has a reach of 81. Ali doesn't weigh as much is quicker
I have yet to see a fight of Ali where Ali is quicker than Wlad.
Ali is the Sam Peter of the 70ies except his fights when he was "Cassius, the cruiser".

Moving on to Liston, he has an 84 inch reach so iron jawed Wlad will have to take Liston's jab to land. I know where my money is on that fight.
Wlad fought 4x against reachier guys. He KOed all of them.

Don't bet your MONEY on Liston vs Wlad. Bet your family members' LIVES on it. Maybe that will change your decision.

CCobra
06-29-2009, 12:58 PM
I am not devalueing Louis opponents. I just add them to Louis' cruiser record.

And if "you class a fighter by who he beat in his era" then Wlad is an ATG because so far he cleaned up the field.

At no point have I doubted Wlad being an all time great Heavyweight, but it's you who made the point that his competition has been on par with the likes of Louis, Holmes & Tyson, which is something I disagreed with. Wlad has cleaned his era and has only a few fighters left to go, but the fighters in his respective era are below par fighters.

knn
06-29-2009, 01:11 PM
That is the worst excuse I've heard yet. The Klit's are still way bigger than all of their opponents
This is not true. They are bigger or smaller. They are way bigger or a little bigger. But most importantly: They are THE MOST SKILLED. That's why they win.

whereas Ali was either as big or smaller. That golden age you speak of and this weight thing you rant about is rubbish.
Of course it's "rubbish", since it collides with fixed ideas that you may have.

Ali was not "either as big or smaller".

Ali was smaller in 9 of his fights.
Ali was as tall or taller in 45 of his fights.
(The remaining fights are unknown)

Add to it that Ali was HEAVIER in 75% of his fights and you realize how ridiculous your claims are.

From all the opponents of Ali whose reach is known, Ali was as reachy or reachier in 22 cases and less reachy in 6 cases.

Stop fooling yourself an others. IF YOU want to claim that someone merely wins because of size/ reach/ weight then claim it about Ali or Foreman, not about Klitschko.

knn
06-29-2009, 01:23 PM
Well, the first point? What about the 40-0 world unified champion George Foreman who had beaten the undefeated Joe Frazier in a couple of rounds, along with other great fighters like Ken Norton.
I was asking for an impressive performance of Ali, not of Foreman. Foreman is a good boxer. Ali is a pain to watch (except his cruiser fights). Frazier is also nice to watch.

The second point? No, it's not about KO's, but it is about winning and losing by KO three times to mediocre opposition is a pretty bad statement for an ATG heavyweight.
This will be the only argument left against Klitschko. Because in all other areas Klitschko is superior to Ali & co. Being KOed 3 times is the only thing left that 70ies-fans have to say. But let me repeat what I wrote at
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5588714#post5588714
Klitschko has more KOlosses on his record than Ali because Klitschko TWICE AS MANY heavyweight opponents than Ali.

Wlad's first loss (Puritty) was in his 25th fight.
Ali's first loss was in Ali's 15th heavyweight (Ali's 10th real heavyweight fight = both boxers 200+) fight (Frazier).

Wlad's second loss (Sanders) was in Wlad's 45th fight.
Ali hasn't even fought so many 200+ opponents.

Supposedly the greatest heavyweight of all time if going by your suggestions.
I never ever claimed anything of that sort.

Tell me this? Do you actually think Wlad or Vit Klit are the greatest ever HW's?
No, I think Ali is the greatest ever heavyweight,


because he managed to fool so many of fans & experts by "repetition indoctrination" ("I am the greatest")
because he was lucky to not rematch Foreman
because he invented rap

knn
06-29-2009, 01:27 PM
Checked or watched? Here lies the rub I think, boxing is a sport best enjoyed by watching it.
How can someone WATCH ten thousands of fights for reach- or weight-advantages?

knn
06-29-2009, 01:30 PM
Anyone in their right mind would say that Lewis at 256 was not at his absolute best, that has nothing to do with him being prime at 220 (a ridiculous stateme
Lewis' weight (median) against better opponents: 241lbs
Lewis' weight (median) against worse (= mainly beginning of his career) opponents: 230lbs

knn
06-29-2009, 01:44 PM
Whoah, most of that was too confusing for me to understand
Confused by facts? Are you a 70ies fan?

So, Foreman fought guys that were smaller
Let me repeat for you:
Foreman fought the SMALLER, LIGHTER and BUMMIER opponents than Klitschko and NEEDED LONGER TO KO them while at the same time BEING HEAVIER THAN HIS OPPONENTs in 90% of the cases (as opposed to Ali's 75% outweiging and Klitschhko's 50% outweighing).

How else do you think could he managed to have 80+ fights and scoring only 4 KOs (3 heavies + 1 cruiser) in world title fights?

If he's taller than everyone, which he is by a lot, but he is outweighed by half that to me says that he is fighting fat, out of shape opponents.
Uff, are you another guy who wants to have not weight divisions but "athleticism divisions"... Good luck with your new proposal. It's divisions by WEIGHT for a reason.

Roger Mellie
06-29-2009, 01:55 PM
yes prime Lewis vs prime Wlad -- Wlad KO4
Possible vitbangs alt.

knn
06-29-2009, 02:01 PM
Why would I argue with a guy that says Joe Frazier was "feather fisted?"
I am also the guy who called Muhammad Ali the "Sam Peter of the 70ies".

Why? BECAUSE I WATCHED all of Ali's fights. And he plods along like an overweight zombie. Cassius, the cruiser was fine. Ali, the heavy not.

I mean I don't know if I can complain too much because Ali was an overweight with Parkinson, thus it's actually a proof of his greatness how he managed to win those fights. But the fact that an overweight with Parkinson is at the top of the heavies in the 70ies shows once again what a crappy division it was then.

Regarding the Frazier = Featherfist problem: Can you imagine David Haye becoming a heavy and then fighting 20 fights and scoring only 10 KOs (= like Frazier)?

WHO CARES THAT DAVID HAYE WAS A POWERPUNCHER AT CRUISER?
Who cares that Joe Frazier was KOing cruisers? (Median KO-victim weight 190lbs).

Of the 10 KOs that Frazier scored against his 200+ opponents 6 were against bums (like Ron Stander 37-21 or Manuel Ramos 25-29) and the remaning 4 were against median 209lbs opponents, who also don't have stellar records (e.g. 2x Jimmy Ellis 40-12 who boxed as low as 155 in his career). HOW IN THE WOLD CAN SOMEONE with such a crappy KO record be considered a powerpuncher?

knn
06-29-2009, 02:12 PM
At no point have I doubted Wlad being an all time great Heavyweight, but it's you who made the point that his competition has been on par with the likes of Louis, Holmes & Tyson, which is something I disagreed with.
I never claimed that Wlad's competition was on par with Louis. But Louis median weight was 200 lbs, and his opponents' median weight was 193 lbs.

In 64 of 68 fights Louis fought against cruisers, former cruisers, bums or was himself at cruiserweight. He plays in a different league than nowadays heavies. Having said that: Louis has a top record and is of course a top p4p fighter and an ATG. But just watch at these pics and you now that their physique doesn't look ANYTHING like Wlad or modern heavies:
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6359/joelouisphoto01.th.jpg (http://img192.imageshack.us/my.php?image=joelouisphoto01.jpg)
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/531/louis3333.th.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/louis3333.jpg/)

Thus compare Louis with Juan Carlos Gomez or with David Haye.

Ziggy Stardust
06-29-2009, 02:14 PM
knn wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on the ass. Even so, since his premises are bad he could have all the "facts" in the world and his argument would still be ****e because a erronious premise causes the argument to fall apart by the rules of logic.

Poet

knn
06-29-2009, 02:41 PM
knn wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on the ass.
Pinky Poet strikes again with one of his favorite words: "Ass"

No "lick", "suck" or "*****" today, Pinky?

Well, at least your sig features "a-hole" and "nut-hugger".

mickey malone
06-29-2009, 02:59 PM
Both Klits are good...

But NEITHER beat a 'Prime' Lewis... Period

GJC
06-29-2009, 03:22 PM
Don't bet your MONEY on Liston vs Wlad. Bet your family members' LIVES on it. Maybe that will change your decision.

A stupid childish bet but no it wouldn't make me change my decision. If it was who would you pick out of the two of them I'd go with Liston any day and twice on a Sunday.
And coming out with your median weight **** will not change my mind in the slightest.
Wlad is a good fighter might well make peoples top 20 ATG, settle for that its not that bad.

GJC
06-29-2009, 03:26 PM
Possible vitbangs alt.
What is it with all these id's, its like people are suffering from Schizophrenia.
I'll be a raging bigot with this id and then include a few black boxers to show i'm not racist with this id etc.
Must say it is very strange and irritating.

knn
06-29-2009, 03:34 PM
Wlad is a good fighter might well make peoples top 20 ATG, settle for that its not that bad.
Name the ones above Wlad. But please only those who have at least 20 heavyweight fights (= 200+ opponents).

Thus no Joe Louis, no Marciano and no Ezzard Charles please.

I don't think that 20x heavyweight fights is too much to ask for

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 03:37 PM
I try not to punish any fighter for having inherited a ****ty division.

I really don't feel right commenting on this while Wlad is still active in the ring.

So I withold any opinion on the matter until his career is over and I can look back on it all as a collective whole.

If he keeps up what he's doing, and gets more title defenses under his belt, and continues to dominate his opponets ; I don't think there's any question that he makes the list of "All Time Heavyweight Greats".

However I would not rank him in the top 10, and probably somewhere in the top 20.

It's through no fault of his own ; it's just that historically, he has some serious competition jocking with him for those 11-20 spots.

knn
06-29-2009, 03:43 PM
I try not to punish any fighter for having inherited a ****ty division.
The "****ty division" was in the 70ies when a featherfisted one-eyed dwarf was world champ. When a guy with Parkinson was a world champ. When a 6-0 bum was a world champ. When Foreman was fighting for the world title against Roman (196lbs, a 53-26 bum).

There is nothing remotely as bad nowadays.

Phirsole
06-29-2009, 04:00 PM
I guess it is moot to discuss it before his career is over. And it's far from over, if I can judge that by sheer fitness, speed, and skill. I think, Vitali is beyond his prime, while Wlad is in his prime right now. It is simply not his fault that his competition is not for ATG-competition.

If he defends his titles against Arreola, Haye, Dimitrenko, Valuev, Povetkin, he'll be in the Hall of Fame, perhaps an ATG.

No matter what you say about the TOP 20 ATG, every single one would have problems defeating Wlad. I don't say they would not manage it, but he would be a tough and rather difficult opponent. Many of the ATG were FAST enough to get inside his Jabberwockee defence, and brutalize his face. Those with the big punches would knock him out for sure. But others were not, and a 12-round fight with the constant left jab in the mouth erodes everybodies stamina.

GJC
06-29-2009, 04:01 PM
Name the ones above Wlad. But please only those who have at least 20 heavyweight fights (= 200+ opponents).

Thus no Joe Louis, no Marciano and no Ezzard Charles please.

I don't think that 20x heavyweight fights is too much to ask for
Do they have to be white too? Mainly fight in Germany? How limiting do you want this?
This is where you go wrong in your arguments, you say you use facts but you are selective.
When Ali fought Frazier in 1971 was it titled as being for the Heavyweight Championship or was it listed as for the Heavyweight Championship until obviously bigger guys come along in which case we'll retrospectively call it for The Cruiserweight title?
I'm not as scientific as you I've just been watching boxing for 60 years, obviously just killing time until Wlad came along!
I just kind of count heavyweights as people who have fought heavyweight bouts as named by the various sanctioning bodies through history.
Its not scientific but it works for me!

GJC
06-29-2009, 04:05 PM
The "****ty division" was in the 70ies when a featherfisted one-eyed dwarf was world champ. When a guy with Parkinson was a world champ. When a 6-0 bum was a world champ. When Foreman was fighting for the world title against Ribalta (196lbs, a 53-26 bum).

There is nothing remotely bad nowadays.
Well whatever you think, a lot of boxing fans who were not even born when they last fought know of and have watched Ali, Frazier etc.
I doubt whether much will be said about Wlad and Chaguev 30 years later.

GJC
06-29-2009, 04:13 PM
When Foreman was fighting for the world title against Ribalta (196lbs, a 53-26 bum).

There is nothing remotely bad nowadays.

I assume you mean Jose Roman not Ribalta? I know you like to pick up others when they quote or spell a name wrong but I wont.
You think Chaguev is a good fighter, would beat Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc?

Jim Jeffries
06-29-2009, 04:21 PM
Because he talks bollocks?
Or would you be arguing against yourself??

So first I am Tunney and now I am Knn? Sorry bud, I thought you were smarter than that. Biased perhaps, agenda driven perhaps, but stupid is not something I would've called you.

I am curious how you give ZERO credit for Rahman and Vitali for their performances against Lewis (given his weight at the time,) but give full credit to Lennox for his win over David Tua. You then go on to use this fight where Tua supposedly hit Lennox with multiple clean left hooks, as proof that that version of Tua beats the current (tighter defensed) Wlad. This fat (245,) bloated, out of shape version of Tua, even. Hilarious.

Anyway, the answer to this thread is yes, he's just not a top 10 ATG HW, yet. But that is certainly something that is achievable for him, if he continues to do what he's doing for another 3 or 4 years.

knn
06-29-2009, 04:26 PM
Do they have to be white too? Mainly fight in Germany? How limiting do you want this?
What the heck? I just asked for your top 20 heavyweight ATG (since this is the thread topic).

And I don't think you qualify for a heavyweight ATG toplist if have near-0 heavyweight fights (like Marciano).

If finding ATGs with 20 heavyweight fights is too difficult for you then give me your top 20 consisting of fighters who fought at least 15x real heavyweight fight (= both opponents 200+). Come on FIFTEEN REAL HEAVYWEIGHT FIGHTS. Is that too much to ask for? I am not even asking you for 15 GOOD opponents. ANY opponents.

Unfortunately it excludes Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Jeffries, Ezzard Charles, Schmeling, Patterson, Johansson, Tunney, Sharkey, Archie Moore, Jerry Quarry and even Sam Langford. Strange how the heavyweight ATGs disappear as soon as you erase cruisers...

Frazier barely makes it with 18 fights. EIGHTEEN freaking real heavyweight fights. Record of 13-4-1. 8 KOs.
His only world title KOs in real heavyweight fights came against fatty Buster Mathis (30-4), Ramos (25-29), Ellis (40-12) and Ron Stander (37-21). But I bet you would put this 13-4 guy ABOVE Wlad.

This is where you go wrong in your arguments, you say you use facts but you are selective.
When Ali fought Frazier in 1971 was it titled as being for the Heavyweight Championship or was it listed as for the Heavyweight Championship until obviously bigger guys come along in which case we'll retrospectively call it for The Cruiserweight title?
If you beat a 190+ opponent it counts as cruiserweight in my book. Who cares whether Schmeling vs Louis was called "heavyweight title" once? 190+ vs 190+ is a cruiserfight. If you want you can call it "old-era-heavyweight" or "medieval heavyweight" or "cruiserweight formerly known as heavyweight" or something like that. Just make sure that you don't put Joe Louis on the same list like Lennox. You can compare Marciano with Roy Jones Jr but not with Tyson.

I just kind of count heavyweights as people who have fought heavyweight bouts as named by the various sanctioning bodies through history. Its not scientific but it works for me!
I guess that means you put Wlad in a Top20 heavyweight ATG toplist, but you cannot name the other 19 heavies. OK, understood.

knn
06-29-2009, 04:38 PM
I assume you mean Jose Roman not Ribalta? I know you like to pick up others when they quote or spell a name wrong but I wont.
You are correct, I meant the bum Jose Roman (53-26), not the bum Jose Ribalta (39-17)..

You think Chaguev is a good fighter, would beat Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc?
Why should anyone care? Chagaev would beat most of the 70ies boxers. As would any better nowadays heavy.

GJC
06-29-2009, 04:49 PM
Unfortunately it excludes Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Jeffries, Ezzard Charles, Schmeling, Patterson, Johansson, Tunney, Sharkey, Archie Moore, Jerry Quarry and even Sam Langford. Strange how the heavyweight ATGs disappear as soon as you erase cruisers...

I guess that means you put Wlad in a Top20 heavyweight ATG toplist, but you cannot name the other 19 heavies. OK, understood.

No you got me Wlad or Vitali are the top two ATG Heavyweights who are white, tall, big, heavy, new, fight mainly in Germany and weigh a lot and fight a lot of other HEAVY people.
You won :)
Personally I would rather watch Joe Louis floss his teeth than watch either of the Klit brothers but its a choice thing.
Good luck with the retrospectively trying to eliminate every heavyweight from the history books if you pull it off then everyone will acknowledge the wonder of Wlad.

knn
06-29-2009, 05:06 PM
Good luck with the retrospectively trying to eliminate every heavyweight from the history books if you pull it off then everyone will acknowledge the wonder of Wlad.
I am not eliminating heavyweights from history. I just remind people to compare those old era boxers with nowadays cruisers and not with nowadays heavies.

GJC
06-29-2009, 05:51 PM
So first I am Tunney and now I am Knn? Sorry bud, I thought you were smarter than that. Biased perhaps, agenda driven perhaps, but stupid is not something I would've called you.

I am curious how you give ZERO credit for Rahman and Vitali for their performances against Lewis (given his weight at the time,) but give full credit to Lennox for his win over David Tua. You then go on to use this fight where Tua supposedly hit Lennox with multiple clean left hooks, as proof that that version of Tua beats the current (tighter defensed) Wlad. This fat (245,) bloated, out of shape version of Tua, even. Hilarious.

Anyway, the answer to this thread is yes, he's just not a top 10 ATG HW, yet. But that is certainly something that is achievable for him, if he continues to do what he's doing for another 3 or 4 years.
Well there do seem to be a lot of people with multi id's around if you arn't one of them then I apologise.
As for the whole Tua bit I assume that is directed at someone else as I don't believe I mentioned Tua.
I have no agenda or bias I just don't believe boxing begins and ends with Wlad and Vitali. I respect them and believe they carry theirselves well as champions just not my cup of tea. If that makes me a hater as is thrown about a lot then I'll live with it.