Where do you rank Vitaly Klitschko all time amongst heavyweights?

[JAB5239]

First.....lets not turn this into a flame war. I'm just curious where you rate Vits all time based on his resume of work. Do not rate him on how you think he would do in other era's or against fighters he never fought. That is irrelevant and in no way provable. I think we can all agree he would be a force in any era. Proving that though is not possible.

Remember, civil discussions please. I see a lot of us, myself included, getting to emotionally invested to prove our points of view.

[Ivich]

First.....lets not turn this into a flame war. I'm just curious where you rate Vits all time based on his resume of work. Do not rate him on how you think he would do in other era's or against fighters he never fought. That is irrelevant and in no way provable. I think we can all agree he would be a force in any era. Proving that though is not possible.

Remember, civil discussions please. I see a lot of us, myself included, getting to emotionally invested to prove our points of view.

Head to Head 11-20. Historically 21-30

[JAB5239]

Head to Head 11-20. Historically 21-30

Just historically.

[Bundana]

Just historically.

Of course... if you want to see him ranked as low as possible, that makes sense.

[JAB5239]

I expected Queenie to vote the way he did with no explanation. But I find it absolutely hysterical to see a poster (Match maker) with no posts to his name vote and not explain why.

[JAB5239]

Of course... if you want to see him ranked as low as possible, that makes sense.

No, I want to see him ranked on the merits of who he fought, not who we THINK he could beat.

[Bundana]

No, I want to see him ranked on the merits of who he fought, not who we THINK he could beat.

The words you have used in recent debates about his resume/accomplishments include "lousy", "junk", "stinks", "awful", "hollow", "inexcusable"... which to me doesn't sound like an unbiased poster, willing to give him a fair shake.

[JAB5239]

The words you have used in recent debates about his resume/accomplishments include "lousy", "junk", "stinks", "awful", "hollow", "inexcusable"... which to me doesn't sound like an unbiased poster, willing to give him a fair shake.

I've also said he would be competitive in any era and is a h2h nightmare for anyone. But if we are discussing greatness it has to be (in my opinion) based on who he actually beat in comparison to who others have actually beat. By the way, I never said junk.

[Bundana]

I've also said he would be competitive in any era and is a h2h nightmare for anyone. But if we are discussing greatness it has to be (in my opinion) based on who he actually beat in comparison to who others have actually beat. By the way, I never said junk.

"His resume is junk."... post #75 in Vitali Klitschko, the last great heavyweight

[JAB5239]

"His resume is junk."... post #75 in Vitali Klitschko, the last great heavyweight

Well shoot, I didn't remember that at all!! I stand by my opinion that his resume just isn't very good. And as of yet no one has shown me a reason why it is compared to many other great heavyweights. Hence, why I have created this thread. Without our opinions on how he may or may not do h2h. he falls behind a lot of guys. Honestly the guy is a class act, just like his brother. I wish someone could change my mind....but I think that would only happen if you changed the facts.