Is Wlad an All Time Great Heavyweight?

[BennyST]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.