Where do you rank Vitaly Klitschko all time amongst heavyweights?

[JAB5239]

Someone is getting testy! I just want to see if you stand by your work. I want to what reasoning is. Do you use wins over ring boxing magazine ranked contenders or national boxing quarterly rankings to determine what is a quality win? This will help legitimize your rankings. I learn upon them and they back up mine. Last time before I laugh at your rankings as you will flat out lack 20 better at heavyweight under these guidelines ( ring magazine, the bible of boxing ). Hey it's your thread. I don't expect you to explain anything because you can't, but I will give you the chance. Move those goal post way back....I will use you own work and question it not by me, but with the standards of others judging it.

The question begs....why does it have to be under these guidelines? I'd lose Wills, Jeffries, Dempsey, Langford......all who have better resumes, and it provable because all of them either beat the best fighter in the division or fought better overall competition. As always, you're pushing the goalposts back.

[Dr. Z]

The question begs....why does it have to be under these guidelines? I'd lose Wills, Jeffries, Dempsey, Langford......all who have better resumes, and it provable because all of them either beat the best fighter in the division or fought better overall competition. As always, you're pushing the goalposts back.

No Dempsey did not beat the best fighter in his Division ( Harry Wills 1920- 1925 ) and he lost the best fighter he fought ( Gene Tunney ) plus had some questionable calls and some embarrassing defeats, like KO1 loss to Flynn. And Willie Meehan. Need I say more? But sure okay, he has a better resume His best win was who? Agree or disagree? Keep moving this goal posts! You are good at it.

[JAB5239]

No Dempsey did not beat the best fighter in his Division ( Harry Wills 1920- 1925 ) and he lost the best fighter he fought ( Gene Tunney ) plus had some questionable calls and some embarrassing defeats, like KO1 loss to Flynn. And Willie Meehan. Need I say more? But sure okay, he has a better resume His best win was who? Agree or disagree? Keep moving this goal posts! You are good at it.

He beat the man (Willard) who beat the man. In other words he beat the #1 guy in the heavyweight division, something Vits never did. Maybe you should apply you signature quote to your logic in this debate.

[Willow The Wisp]

Jess Willard > Vitali Klitschko

[Dr. Z]

He beat the man (Willard) who beat the man. In other words he beat the #1 guy in the heavyweight division, something Vits never did. Maybe you should apply you signature quote to your logic in this debate.

Oh right. Dempsey beat on the rusty 37 1/2 year old Jess Willard who had not fought in 3 1/2 years. My logic says he beat a rusty old man. And your says? Also were the gloves loaded? Dempsey was known to foul you know. You list of top 21 -30 heavyweight is where?

When interviewed by Harry Carpenter of the BBC Sport in the 1960s at his house in California, Willard said to the reporter, "I'll show you, how I was beaten." He then drew a metal bolt from a cardbox, saying that Dempsey held the bolt in his hand, not within the glove but at the palm of it, attached to the thumb sideways, and used the bolt rather for cutting-and-slicing-like moves to inflict blood-spilling cuts and pain, relinquishing it just as the bout was stopped, and according to Willard, the bolt was found on the floor of the ring at the end of the fight and he kept it. Mike Tyson, who studied the case in-depth and very thoroughly, later joined Carpenter to discuss the subject. Tyson, a great admirer of Dempsey's, admitted that "he just did whatever Jack Kearns told him to do" and "in those days anything could have happened", for that there was no agency or other legal authority at the time that was officially empowered to oversee and protect fighters from violations of such kind.

[JAB5239]

He beat the man (Willard) who beat the man. In other words he beat the #1 guy in the heavyweight division, something Vits never did. Maybe you should apply you signature quote to your logic in this debate.

Funny thing is, Vits could have killed two Byrds with one stone by fighting Byrd in 2004, who was the #1 contender instead of Danny Williams. He may have avenged his loss and accomplished Z's standard for heavyweight greatness per his signature quote.

[JAB5239]

Oh right. Dempsey beat on the rusty 37 1/2 year old Jess Willard who had not fought in 3 1/2 years. My logic says he beat a rusty old man. And your says? Also were the gloves loaded? Dempsey was known to foul you know. You list of top 21 -30 heavyweight is where?

The fallacy of Dempsey's gloves being loaded has already been disproven. I think Dempsey is almost as overrated as Vits, but he still beat the champ to become the champ. Also, I think it's rather dubious you want to take credit from Dempsey for beating Willard who was 2 and a half years out of the ring, and take credit from Dempsey for losing to Tunney who was out of the ring for just over 3 years himself.

[Willie Pep 229]

"Mike Tyson, who studied the case in-depth and very thoroughly"

I am sorry, but are we now to say ANYTHING no matter how absurd?

[JAB5239]

"Mike Tyson, who studied the case in-depth and very thoroughly"

I am sorry, but are we now to say ANYTHING no matter how absurd?

There is no proof of this claim Z wants to make. It's been proven untrue. At the very least, there is no evidence to support it. As a fighter, I wouldn't want to try and hold a heavy bolt on my glove no matter what advantage it gave me. First because I would fear being caught cheating, and second because it would slow my speed and explosiveness.

[Marchegiano]

I don't know about Tunney being a great HW. Isn't he mostly a LHW? Great there, but beating a well loved champion then retiring is a fine legacy but isn't much to go off as a divisional man.

Willard was okay, I wouldn't call him great. ... I'd put V over Willy D.