WLAD is the greatest heavyweight ever, Fact

That a half-blind could be world champ shows you what a bad era it was. He defeated him under dubious circumstances. A contested KO. Yeah, that why there aren't any WEIGHT classes and never will be. And I take Shavers ACTUAL RECORD over the words of Ali. No it doesnt its a testament to Fraziers heart and determination, and about weight classes that was not the point, the point was among the heavyweight division weight does not make one automatically better when he is lacking the skills to compete, weight is the sole argument you put forth against old timers. You dont think that 260 pounders existing in Louis time? why werent they champion? and Shavers record demonstrates what a mighty puncher he was and there would be absolutely no reason to doubt the words of Ali, just face it you have a violent dislike of Ali and lack of boxing knowledge, thats why you keep making poor rebuttals, you refuse to acknowlegdge old timers and keep presenting poor rhetoric and nothing but your opinion to back up your claims.

Don't see anything of the sort. Just look how finished Ali and Frazier were after a few rounds although they are some of the most featherfisted champs of all times and pretty slow. The 1970s were really bad. Nothing compared to the explosiveness of 1980s or 1990s. Not as bad as Mack's era or as Langford's era, but pretty bad. They were all slow cruisers. And in case of Ali and Frazier they were slow OVERWEIGHT cruisers. I also like this picture of muHAMmad, the seasoned BUTTERfly: http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9633/muhammadalitheseasonedb.jpg And hey, here we have "The greatest Clay" with yet another superbly six-packed champ of yesteryear: http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3580/larryholmesvsmuhammadal.jpg Is it Sam Peter? No, Sam Peter has a sixpack! Is it Buster Mathis? No, it's Clayman vs EATON Assassin LOL finished after a few rounds? the thrilla in manilla was one of the most exciting fights in hstory and stretched over 14 rounds, and Frazier featherfisted? which is why hes among the top 40 p4p punchers ever by ring magazine,well of course when hes training inbetween fights hes going to be overweight these photos prove nothing apart from your vitriolic dislike of Ali and lack of boxing knowledge.

Were Foreman and Frazier the only good fighters he faced, he had good wins the point youre avoiding is that he faced much much better competition that Wlad ever did That a half-blind could be world champ shows you what a bad era it was. Lol just deal with the fact that he defeated Foreman He defeated him under dubious circumstances. A contested KO. Thats not the point he point was he weighed what he weighed and was able to knock out peoplewho much heavier than he was , weight doesnt play a huge advantage Yeah, that why there aren't any WEIGHT classes and never will be. And LOL Shavers featherfisted?I take the word of Ali, Holmes and Ron Lyle anyday over yours And I take Shavers ACTUAL RECORD over the words of Ali.

How does it feel to be the only one who's right and everybody else is wrong? Is it like driving down the freeway and everybody else is driving in the wrong direction? Nearly the only ones who insists on The greatest Clay's superiority are Americans. No wonder, they don't have anyone else.

Because he LOST against Foreman and Shavers. Geezes, the same nonsense from CLAYtons again and again. Mentioning LOSSES as proofs of greatness. Get over it. Ali's trainer manipulated the ropes. Has nothing to do with conspiracy. Mike Tyson out-weighed most of his opponents in the 80ies (25x heavier, 11x lighter). In fact he did that far more than Wlad. The same case with Shavers. In fact, in the 14 losses Shavers had 9 were BEING OUT-WEIGHED. Ali was also a notorious out-weigher, Foreman even more so. Weight plays a huge role. Shows you what a superior class Wlad is, since he outweighs his opponents less than Ali or Foreman, yet KOs them faster. And KOed a median opponent of 200lbs. Yawn. Shavers would be considered a featherfist nowadays as I wrote at: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10372021&highlight=shavers#post10372021 Were Foreman and Frazier the only good fighters he faced, he had good wins the point youre avoiding is that he faced much much better competition that Wlad ever did Lol just deal with the fact that he defeated Foreman Thats not the point he point was he weighed what he weighed and was able to knock out people who much heavier than he was , weight doesnt play a huge advantage it makes NO difference in power its about other factors that detemines whether a fighter has punching power or not And LOL Shavers featherfisted?I take the word of Ali, Holmes and Ron Lyle anyday over yours, your jEveryone knows punching power is something youre born with, if weight just being outright ridiculous, and you have no evidence to back it up than "he's lighter" it means nothingand chin isnt determined by how much you weigh, Tyson was able to ko ppl weighing over 240lbs yet Holyfield was eating his punches. if weight was big a factor then i could just bulk myself up and become a Tyson!!

Lol you posted a couple pics of them off the ring and that proves that all of them were fat? this is ridiculous, you just cant deny the fact that they're much better conditioned than most heavyweights today, this is plain to see through film. Don't see anything of the sort. Just look how finished Ali and Frazier were after a few rounds although they are some of the most featherfisted champs of all times and pretty slow. The 1970s were really bad. Nothing compared to the explosiveness of 1980s or 1990s. Not as bad as Mack's era or as Langford's era, but pretty bad. They were all slow cruisers. And in case of Ali and Frazier they were slow OVERWEIGHT cruisers. I also like this picture of muHAMmad, the seasoned BUTTERfly: http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9633/muhammadalitheseasonedb.jpg And hey, here we have "The greatest Clay" with yet another superbly six-packed champ of yesteryear: http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3580/larryholmesvsmuhammadal.jpg Is it Sam Peter? No, Sam Peter has a sixpack! Is it Buster Mathis? No, it's Clayman vs EATON Assassin

Yes, Haye would be a massive force in any era, but I don't insist on Haye or Peter. I just randomly named 2 names. Half of Klitschko's other opponents would be rulers of the 1970s. Not necessarily of the 1990s but they would have been a superior force in the 1990s, too. I have watched too many fights of the "golden" age to be impressed. Ali was the king amongst the blind. Hey man, wake up to present time, for example by changing your username to a fighter who didn't box more than one hundred years ago. How does it feel to be the only one who's right and everybody else is wrong? Is it like driving down the freeway and everybody else is driving in the wrong direction?

Frazier alone is better blinder than anyone Wlad has fought Fixed it for you.

Wtf???!!! :rofl::rofl: Yes, Haye would be a massive force in any era, but I don't insist on Haye or Peter. I just randomly named 2 names. Half of Klitschko's other opponents would be rulers of the 1970s. Not necessarily of the 1990s but they would have been a superior force in the 1990s, too. I have watched too many fights of the "golden" age to be impressed. Ali was the king amongst the blind. Hey man. Take a break from posting. You'll feel better. Hey man, wake up to present time, for example by changing your username to a fighter who didn't box more than one hundred years ago.

Lewis would've stopped him in 2 rounds

Ken Norton fought George Foreman, Ali, Shavers much tougher opponents than Klitchsko ever faced, again your argument against him is just a weak attempt to destroy his credibility, give me a good reason why he wouldnt be champion today apart fom the usual rhetoric Because he LOST against Foreman and Shavers. Geezes, the same nonsense from CLAYtons again and again. Mentioning LOSSES as proofs of greatness. It wasnt a highly doubtful win Foreman was just making excuses why dont you just face the fact that Ali defeated him rather than coming up with conspiracy theories. Get over it. Ali's trainer manipulated the ropes. Has nothing to do with conspiracy. So his size means his heavyweight power is overrated? when will you learn that punching power isnt about size, mike Tyson was most effective in terms of power in the eighties when he weighed about 217-219 lbs Mike Tyson out-weighed most of his opponents in the 80ies (25x heavier, 11x lighter). In fact he did that far more than Wlad. The same case with Shavers. In fact, in the 14 losses Shavers had 9 were BEING OUT-WEIGHED. Ali was also a notorious out-weigher, Foreman even more so. Weight plays a huge role. Shows you what a superior class Wlad is, since he outweighs his opponents less than Ali or Foreman, yet KOs them faster. not much heavier than Shavers, most of the strongest heavyweight punchers didnt weigh more than 225 lbs. And KOed a median opponent of 200lbs. Yawn. Shavers would be considered a featherfist nowadays as I wrote at: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10372021&highlight=shavers#post10372021

I agree Shavers was better than Peter. I just meant if you dropped Peter into the 1970's he wouldn't dominate the era like that joker suggested, he would just be a feared puncher who would never quite make it to the top, much like Earnie Shavers was. Ahh, I gotcha. Keep up the good posts.

Wrong, Wlad is so good that he makes his opposition look bad. Yeah I guess that's remotely possible. Ali was so bad, that he made his opposition look good. Wtf. Lol. Just think about alf-blind Frazier. The Foreman fight is what would have happened to Frazier in modern times. Yet Ali went full 3 fights with him because Ali makes his opposition look good by STRUGGLING. Whereas guys like Sam Peter or Haye would have ruled entire eras and Wlad bummifies them. Wtf???!!! :rofl::rofl: The same with Norton who got demolished by the first hard punchers he faced. It's only because of featherfist Ali that Norton could shine. Hey man. Take a break from posting. You'll feel better.

Excellent post except the Sam Peter/Shavers comparison. Peter was heavy handed but never had the kind of knock out pop Earnie had. I agree Shavers was better than Peter. I just meant if you dropped Peter into the 1970's he wouldn't dominate the era like that joker suggested, he would just be a feared puncher who would never quite make it to the top, much like Earnie Shavers was.

If Wlad fought Norton I don't doubt that Wlad would knock him out. That doesn't change the fact he is still better than the vast majority of Wlad's opponents. In the future when boxing historians and fans will look back on footage of Norton vs Ali, or vs Jerry Quarry, of vs Holmes and think, yeah this guy has the skills to worry most champions in history. There are questions about his chin, but then those same questions exist with Wlad. Are boxing historians gonna look back on Chagaev vs Skelton or Chagaev vs Valuez and think the same? Or Ibragimov vs Briggs? I really doubt it. And as for Samuel Peter ruling an era, don't be stupid, his punching power would be feared in any era, but he's otherwise limited. He's Earnie Shavers but fatter. If you believe that Wlad would still dominate in Ali's era that ok (though I don't agree with it) but I really object to your claims that Ali's era was weaker than the current one cos that is so obviously untrue it's unreal. Excellent post except the Sam Peter/Shavers comparison. Peter was heavy handed but never had the kind of knock out pop Earnie had.

Wlad isn't the greatest ever accomplishment wise or resumé wise but he certainly has good chance to annihilate any heavyweight in history. Not saying he'd win 100% but very good chance he'd destroy Ali, Foreman etc as he is simply too big too strong too skilled.

Wrong, Wlad is so good that he makes his opposition look bad. Ali was so bad, that he made his opposition look good. Just think about alf-blind Frazier. The Foreman fight is what would have happened to Frazier in modern times. Yet Ali went full 3 fights with him because Ali makes his opposition look good by STRUGGLING. Whereas guys like Sam Peter or Haye would have ruled entire eras and Wlad bummifies them. The same with Norton who got demolished by the first hard punchers he faced. It's only because of featherfist Ali that Norton could shine. If Wlad fought Norton I don't doubt that Wlad would knock him out. That doesn't change the fact he is still better than the vast majority of Wlad's opponents. In the future when boxing historians and fans will look back on footage of Norton vs Ali, or vs Jerry Quarry, of vs Holmes and think, yeah this guy has the skills to worry most champions in history. There are questions about his chin, but then those same questions exist with Wlad. Are boxing historians gonna look back on Chagaev vs Skelton or Chagaev vs Valuez and think the same? Or Ibragimov vs Briggs? I really doubt it. And as for Samuel Peter ruling an era, don't be stupid, his punching power would be feared in any era, but he's otherwise limited. He's Earnie Shavers but fatter. If you believe that Wlad would still dominate in Ali's era that ok (though I don't agree with it) but I really object to your claims that Ali's era was weaker than the current one cos that is so obviously untrue it's unreal.

1) Pure speculation Not really seeing as they're gasping for air after 6 rounds and can barely go twelve its safe to say they would have struggled to go 15 2) The reason heavyweight went 20+ rounds before was that they weren't heavyweights but light heavyweights or cruisers No the reason was becasue they kept themeselves in shape and didnt waste needless energy in the ring, im not talking about 20+ rounds im talking about 15 rounds which fighters who were heavy enough to compete toaday like Ali, Norton and Louis fought at. You got it the other way around: In previous times the CHAMPS were fat: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10204689&postcount=9 Lol you posted a couple pics of them off the ring and that proves that all of them were fat? this is ridiculous, you just cant deny the fact that they're much better conditioned than most heavyweights today, this is plain to see through film.

Yeah Wlad dominates a great deal so he is a great fighter but the opposition is so bad, as you yourself are implying, that they cannot even get Wlad to use more of his offense. Wrong, Wlad is so good that he makes his opposition look bad. Ali was so bad, that he made his opposition look good. Just think about alf-blind Frazier. The Foreman fight is what would have happened to Frazier in modern times. Yet Ali went full 3 fights with him because Ali makes his opposition look good by STRUGGLING. Whereas guys like Sam Peter or Haye would have ruled entire eras and Wlad bummifies them. The same with Norton who got demolished by the first hard punchers he faced. It's only because of featherfist Ali that Norton could shine.

The point is most heavyweight boxers today cant go 15 rounds 1) Pure speculation 2) The reason heavyweight went 20+ rounds before was that they weren't heavyweights but light heavyweights or cruisers showing that most heavyweights today are nowhere as conditioned as they were before You got it the other way around: In previous times the CHAMPS were fat: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10204689&postcount=9