Wlad Klitschko in title fights: 20-2 Vs Jersey Joe Walcott in title fights: 2-6

No. Not at all. We're one the same page regarding Calzaghe too. that calzaghe was the greatest of all time? agreed.

Why should i bother though ?...Aren't nuthuggers supposed to waste their time debating against the haters ? Why should i be taking sides ? I'm just saying. Both camps have good points. But they're also full of sh't. I'm not here to defend Klitschko. He doesn't pay my rent. All i'm saying is that you can easily deconstruct both sides of the argument. (the pros vs the cons). There's no such thing as a "superior" era. You can select the 90's , 80's ,70's ,60's...30's etc.. And see weaknesses in them all. (in terms of competition). Do the research... You don't think Sheraton is superior when the best fighters fight each other more often? I would say it proves their worth much more than the top guys fighting few times a year and against soft comp more often than not. In fact I don't even see how that is arguable.

No we don't know. This is your perception of things, albeit a very flawed one. Liston also does not have the abilities of Wlad. Or at the very least has different abilities, thus different outcomes can and will ensue. Why would you state the obvious, that Wlad and Liston have different abilities, as if that helps your argument? It provides zero help to your argument, and I have not missed your point, I read it quite clearly. Lots of people have different abilities. Louis and Arreola have different abilities, but it doesn't detract from the fact that Louis would flatten a load of fatboys and midgets but Arreola would get the **** kicked out of him by Patterson and Ali. Whats relevant is the result of those abilities, not the abilities themselves. Liston would wreck a series of fatboys and midgets and you know it. And Wlad would go into hiding after being crushed by Ali, and never reign again. No unwanted WBO titles back then.

Klitschko is an atg...But haters have a hard time admitting it. So they'll belittle today's competition. They do this, because even the biggest haters can't direcly attack Klitschko's dominance in the ring. So they rationalize the situation by indirectly attacking the guy's achievements. For the hater , the easy way out , is to simply proclaim that his competition is Sh*t. End of story. And when they don't , they'll tell you that he's too tall. That he has an unfair size advantage. If Klitschko were to lose his next fight , they'd probably tell you: "See! i told you he was an overrated bum"...But if he retires without losing another fight , it'll be more of the same. "His competition is worthless anyway". If you take the time to look at Walcott's record. Or Ali's , Tyson's , and so on...If you try to deconstruct their entire pedigree. Study their opponents , watch the videos ,look at their ranking, who they lost to , etc.. You'll quickly realise that all eras had great but also questionable and even "sh**ty" competition. Haters have no solid arguments. But fans are no better. one group only looks at the negative & the other , at the positive. But both are the flip-side of the same coin. Maybe the Klitschko brothers never should've wasted their time, training in the first place. They should've played the lottery. That's how lucky they are. Perfect size , perfect era , timing...To dominate the boxing scene. Talk about coincidences ! The truth is that you can glorify , and belittle any ATG of any era. (including their competition). It's an easy exercice if you're a boxing connoisseur. You haven't tried to mount an argument against any points made in this thread, only *****ed about "haters". To me that just makes you a useless nuthugger. If you're a true "boxing connoisseur" than weigh in on the topic insted of whining about it. :dunno:

I could do it. You and I have had plenty of our back and forth in the past though. It's a bit of lengthy process and could get a bit messy once we get into the details. I'd be forced to put in more effort then willing in isolating paragraphs and responding to each individually, and so on and so forth. So I'll bow (duck) out now. I respect your opinions, knowledge and ability to debate. I also believe you could make an argument. Unfortunately I don't think most of the others I argue with this about this topic really can. I see people throw up blanket statements all the time, but they're always the first ones to say they don't need to back up or prove anything when called on it. I wouldn't mind debating you on this but you're right, it would be both time consuming and would inevitably get messy as we're both strong willed in our opinions. Lets not call it bowing out or a duck, just a mutual agreement to disagree and keep the peace. Im sure there are plenty of things we can argue about in the future that wouldn't require as much detail and research as the topic offered. :fing02:

It's not just the level of opponents that people dislike it's how he goes about winning aswell. Wlad is a cheat he uses holding to gain a tactical advantage, this is illegal but he gets away with it. He also refuses to throw anything meaningful until his opponent is half dead, his jab jab grab routine is as boring as watching paint dry.

Guys, on a sidenote. This Deontay Wilder is setting himself up for a passing-of-the-torch fight against Wlad at some point. Kind of like Jermain Taylor Vs Hopkins, where Taylor was looked at as the next Heir apparent to the Middleweight Throne. By the time the hype machine kicks in for this match up, Wilder could be 35-0 (35Ko's) and at 6'7 would be looked at as a real threat. Remember, perception is reality. This is where Wlad could get that hypothetical HOF win, by knocking out a overhyped heir apparent. Or he could lose and avenge his loss (which gives Deontay some 'street cred' for splitting wins) but I'd prefer the straight win with no rematches instead, even if in hindsight, revisionist history kicks in and Wilder ends up being looked at as Wlad's "Jeff Lacy". are you implying jeff lacy was good at some point?

I surely won't go through russian or german sources to prove the point (there are people on this forum that would do that much better than I would), but you can bet they rank wlad quite high. Era as an era is not very good but that hardly has to do with klitschkos. You made the comment not everyone (experts) thinks this era stinks so Im assuming you have some first hand knowledge of this. You said its mostly Americans and British who feel this way so I again assumed you could back your statements considering America and the UK are very small in comparison to the rest of the world. And I don't recall anyone saying this era is the Klitschko's fault (except for nuthuggers who say the only reason contenders today are not HOF worthy is because once they fight the Klits they're ruined), but it does directly effect them. And I don't like this note of 'klitschko biased fan'. I used to be tyson's and lennox's fan prior I started to support wlad. Thats well and good, but in every Klit thread you're an appologist for them if you think they're being overly criticized. Im a fan of the sport first and foremost. Very rarely do I jump on the band wagon of an active fighter because that simply clouds your judgement. I don't know about your knowledge but I was commenting on your methods of giving your opinion (it is only your opinion after all) My appologies if you don't like my methods but I simply don't abide the overrating of active fighters by groups that can't back up what they say and\or have some kind of agenda. And you don't have to like my opinion or method, but I promise I can back almost every one of them up with facts.

Yes, something like that. Or Ibragimov, which is a underrated win because of how "boring" it appeared and because it was one of the few wins where he didn't win by KO/TKO. Still he faced another title holder who was undefeated, unified, and Ibragimov showed his skills as well - even if on the 'defense' side only. But most dominant fighters who usually win one-sidedly OR get knocked out (See Roy Jones) don't have these traditional "career defining fights". It's their overall body of work, including official title defenses and their win-loss record that counts. Wlad will most likely never have his Thrilla in Manilla, Triology. He will keep winning fights easy and he might get knocked out again. Nobody will outbox him, outclass him, beat him by a wide decision or "have his number". There is no style in theory that he absolutely cannot deal with. Every fighter he has lost to (Brewster) or could've lost to (Mike Tyson for example), he could beat them 9 out of 10 times. His consistent performances (albeit against perceived lesser skilled fighters, this subjective) have earned him this status. If his Title reign consisted of fights where he struggles to split decision victories, then one may have a case to the contrary. His fight against Peter though was icing on the cake, because it was one example of him being able to win a fight he struggled in. Exactly. It appears sometimes that Wlad suffers because he is beating guys 'too easy'. I think he would get more credit for beating Haye if he struggled - this way Haye is just another average fighter...

I'm pretty sure Walcott could've had a similar record in title fights as Wlad, had he been fighting creampuffs, not GOATS like Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, and Rocky Marciano. LOL wlad fights heavyweights. Walcott fought light heavyweights by todays standards. Wallcott would get that ass beat today at heavyweight.

I'm not saying that, but I am challenging it. Like I said, I know I can discuss any era of heavyweight boxing. If you would like to prove me wrong start a thread about any past era you want in the history section and we can debate it. And you still havent provided me with any knowledgeable sources who don't rank this as one of if not the worst era ever. ;)[/ I surely won't go through russian or german sources to prove the point (there are people on this forum that would do that much better than I would), but you can bet they rank wlad quite high. Era as an era is not very good but that hardly has to do with klitschkos. And I don't like this note of 'klitschko biased fan'. I used to be tyson's and lennox's fan prior I started to support wlad. I don't know about your knowledge but I was commenting on your methods of giving your opinion (it is only your opinion after all).

I'm pretty sure Walcott could've had a similar record in title fights as Wlad, had he been fighting creampuffs, not GOATS like Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, and Rocky Marciano. TS got annihilated in the 2nd post. Nice work.

Holyfield who lost to bowe 6 years prior (much more convincingly) and was KOed 4 years prior to lennox fight. Holyfiled that lost to ruiz about year after he fought lennox... holyfield who lost convincingly to same byrd wlad destroyed. holyfield who was way past his prime.. point is your logic of 'the best win' is not valid and doesn't tell a lot. This is the problem with todays fans. You think a loss is the end all and a nice shiny record means something in spite of who is actually on it. In 1998 Holyfield was the nimber one heavyweight in the world withh LL second. After their first fight these rankings flip flopped. So my question is how do you figure Holy was "way past his prime"? Previous to their fight Hily had destroyed Moorer in the rematch and twice beaten Tyson who at that time was better than any contender today. He didn't look great against Bean, but fighters often have let downs after mega fights like the kind Tyson was. Against Lewis he clearly lost the first fight but was competitive through out and in spite of the UD in Lewis' favor the second fight, Holyfield fought better than the first. So Evandfer may have been past his absolute best, but he wasn't way past his prime as he proved in these fights.

Way to contradict yourself moron. Chris Byrd and Walcott are exactly the same size. Walcott had much more power, slick defense and was a greater heavyweight all around, and yet while Byrd had no problem facing all the super monsters of today, even with no power, Walcott is simply too small and would be annihilated by someone like Sam Peter? Good one mate. Good one. :dunce: :lol1: lol the human condition. things are they way I see them and thats it.......

Yes, Yes. And another Yes. Haye would beat Walcott in my opinion. He is faster, has great technique and he is physically bigger. Sam Peter is wayyy too big for Walcott. Walcott was around 190 pounds, Sam Peter was around 250 pounds. That being said, Chris Byrd was such a skillful boxer, and I saw him beating much bigger guys. So I definitely can see him beat a skillful, but smaller guy like Walcott. disagree about haye, i think he sucks but chris bird was a very good boxer that has a good shot against any heavyweight around his size in history

If you knew anything about boxing you'd be able to compare Joe to Wlad by watching them fight NOT comparing records! Who has more ability who has more skills and who actually performs at a higher level mentally. BUT YOU don't have that ability so you use records to try and compare fighters who are unique in their era's! Compare all the intangables a fighter needs for success. Then look at their arsonal and how good their techniques are! You can always tell the fans who know little to nothing, they always count numbers and never talk about skills, why, they don't know what their looking at when they watch a bout. Their rooting, yelling, getting drunk or just plain old "hating" someone they don't even know! Inside boxing people call them Fan at ics, old timers like me call them azz holes!! Ray. Good point but jeez get over yourself...

The only problem here is all he posted were facts. :bottle: awesome post. TKO in 2 lines.

I love how the Klitschko haters clap each other on the shoulder. Somebody posts a silly Anti Klitschko comment and his friends praise him for being a genius. You are some funny people. The only problem here is all he posted were facts. :bottle:

An absolute masterpiece. I love how the Klitschko haters clap each other on the shoulder. Somebody posts a silly Anti Klitschko comment and his friends praise him for being a genius. You are some funny people.

Thoughts? First thought: Walcott is actually 2-5 (as his first fight with Charles was no for the title, but he should be 3-4 with the Louis title fight robbery) and Wlad didn't win the lineal title until 2009 against Chagaev. So, you can only compare the lineal championship wins, as that is what happened in Walcott's day. When you won the title, you won the title ie the lineal championship. This is important; The fights between top contenders back then were the same as an ABC title fight is today. So if you want to compare the title records it's only 7-0 for Wlad in title fights compared to 5-2 for Walcott. Both 7 fights. Second thought: The competition faced is so vastly different as to not actually warrant any comparison whatsoever. Jersey Joe faced top ten ATG's in each one of his seven title fights. Three lineal, heavyweight champions, HOFers and top ten ATG's. That includes top ten ATGs P4P and top ten ATG's in the heavyweight division, all in their prime, all while he was in his late 30's. Joe Louis x 2. Joe Louis is the consensus number 1 or 2 greatest heavyweight ever with the most title defences to this day. Ezzard Charles x 3. Ezzard Charles is a top ten P4P ATG. Rocky Marciano x2. Rocky is a top ten ATG in the heavyweight division and still the only undefeated heavyweight champion ever, with wins over ATG's such as Walcott, Louis, and Charles. Wladimir has faced Mariusz Wach, Jean Marc Mormeck, Tony Thompson, David Haye, Sam Peter, Eddie Chambers and Chagaev. Not a single lineal nor Ring champion among all seven. Only Haye and Chagaev were current ABC champions and only Peter had otherwise held a portion of the title years before. All seven opponents combined held a heavyweight title record of 7-3, but without a single lineal title defense or win between the lot. Also, between all seven opponents combined, they have only 4 successful paper title defenses. Walcott's opponents hold a combined heavyweight lineal title record of 37-6. Yes, you read that right. A lineal title record of 37 wins and only 6 losses. Compare Walcott's opponents 37-6 lineal title record to Wlad's opponents 0-0 lineal title record. But, hey, they do hold 4 successful paper title defenses between all seven of them. So, to summarise: Wlad's seven title opponents have won 0 lineal title fights. Walcott's 3 title opponents have 37 lineal title fights and lost 6. Wlad's seven title opponents have won 7 paper title fights and lost 3. That includes 4 successful paper title defenses. Wlad's seven opponents include no HOFers, no ATG, either P4P or divisional. Walcott's 3 title opponents include three HOFers, three ATG's and three top ten ATG's both P4P and divisional, which includes a consensus number 1 or 2 heavyweight ATG. That's my thoughts on this. An absolute masterpiece.