fighters that would beat the Klitchkos

[Capaedia]

Carnera apparently did as he was knocked out by cruiserweights 5 times.

How about the Baer brothers and Abe Simon?

How many times were the klitschkos knocked out by men under 210 pounds?

I could go into a preschool, beat them all up, and then ask how many men under 210 pounds knocked me out. It would mean just as much.

Logical fallacy. There's a first time for everything, and they've never fought someone under 210 pounds that was nearly as good as Louis. Outside of old Louis, they haven't fought anyone as good period.

That's not their fault, but if you're going to talk about precedents. I'll talk about background.

For the record, I think Wlad beats Joe Louis.

[Cardinal Buck]

Lewis and Tyson are the only two who I would expect to beat both consecutively. Possibly Ali.

[res]

Lewis and Tyson are the only two who I would expect to beat both consecutively. Possibly Ali.

Prime Tyson would struggle a bit with Vitali I think. Tyson was fast, but the tremendous difference in height and reach would counteract a lot of Tyson's speed advantage. I can see him ultimately pulling out a decision or a TKO though. Post 1988 Tyson gets beaten in my opinion.

[crold1]

Just looking at history's champs:

Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holmes beat both.

Holyfield beats Wlad; probably splits with Vitali.

Bowe beats Wlad; loses to Vitali. Both contingent on the shape he's in.

Liston is pick 'em with either. Same with Witherspoon.

Foreman stops Wlad; pick em with Vitali.

Dempsey beats Wlad and is pick em with Vitali in his era, under his rules (no standing eight etc.). In this era, he loses to both.

Tyson a la 86-90 vs. Vitali is tough call...probably a lot of clinches. He makes Wlad fall down a lot.

Finally, I think Wlad post-Peter I beats Vitali. I know many disagree, but he fights so scared and his size and beautiful straight punches would wreak havoc on Vitali's hands down style.

[Cardinal Buck]

Prime Tyson would struggle a bit with Vitali I think. Tyson was fast, but the tremendous difference in height and reach would counteract a lot of Tyson's speed advantage. I can see him ultimately pulling out a decision or a TKO though. Post 1988 Tyson gets beaten in my opinion.

I don't really disagree.

[Cardinal Buck]

Just looking at history's champs:

Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holmes beat both.

Holyfield beats Wlad; probably splits with Vitali.

Bowe beats Wlad; loses to Vitali. Both contingent on the shape he's in.

Liston is pick 'em with either. Same with Witherspoon.

Foreman stops Wlad; pick em with Vitali.

Dempsey beats Wlad and is pick em with Vitali in his era, under his rules (no standing eight etc.). In this era, he loses to both.

Tyson a la 86-90 vs. Vitali is tough call...probably a lot of clinches. He makes Wlad fall down a lot.

Finally, I think Wlad post-Peter I beats Vitali. I know many disagree, but he fights so scared and his size and beautiful straight punches would wreak havoc on Vitali's hands down style.

No, it's irrational to have lots of confidence in any of these picks. What stands out about matching the K-bros vs. other fighters is that they don't really lose rounds. There's no reason to confidently pick Holmes or Witherspoon over Wlad (or even Vitali) when they (K bros) basically dominate fights on the outside thoroughly. Holmes and Witherspoon were always dropping rounds while fighting with a similar gameplan to the K bros. Foreman had the worst defense and stamina combo of any accomplished heavyweight. Holyfield made it a habit of turning his fights into a mess. Bowe--**** defense, limited resume. Picking Dempsey takes a huge imagination.

Vitali has become a softer puncher and more vulnerable fighter in the last couple years, but he was difficult to f with in his absolute prime. And Wlad has been really solid for a long stretch now.

You can speculate about who would win, but the K-bros are live against anyone and the chance of both of them losing to the same fighter is low for almost any opponent, and 1:2ish for a really short list.

[crold1]

No, it's irrational to have lots of confidence in any of these picks. What stands out about matching the K-bros vs. other fighters is that they don't really lose rounds. There's no reason to confidently pick Holmes or Witherspoon over Wlad (or even Vitali) when they (K bros) basically dominate fights on the outside thoroughly. Holmes and Witherspoon were always dropping rounds while fighting with a similar gameplan to the K bros. Foreman had the worst defense and stamina combo of any accomplished heavyweight. Holyfield made it a habit of turning his fights into a mess. Bowe--**** defense, limited resume. Picking Dempsey takes a huge imagination.

Vitali has become a softer puncher and more vulnerable fighter in the last couple years, but he was difficult to f with in his absolute prime. And Wlad has been really solid for a long stretch now.

You can speculate about who would win, but the K-bros are live against anyone and the chance of both of them losing to the same fighter is low for almost any opponent, and 1:2ish for a really short list.

Not losing rounds the most of the level of opp is only so impressive. Holmes rarely lost rounds to guys like Peter and Chagaev either. I never said they wouldn't be live against anyone (well, Wlad against Tyson or Louis I feel pretty sure on. Tyson and Louis ate up frightened). Those are just the picks I'd make.

Irrational...LOL.

[Cardinal Buck]

Irrational...LOL.

I'm sure you're actually laughing right there. You actually just wrote your paragraph, then wrote the word "irrational," and started loudly laughing. That happened.

[Cardinal Buck]

I hate to break the news to all of you, but most heavyweight eras were loaded with crappy or undersized fighters. The K bros deserve respect for really shutting down their opponents, which puts them in select company with other heavy champs.

Lewis' early 2000s resume was nothing write home about and he still got flattened by Rahman. Tua, Grant, Rahman, etc. were not better than the guys of the last 5 years.

The 90s had good fighters, but neither Holyfield nor Bowe was good enough to dominate (see Bowe getting his ass kicked by Golota and Holy losing to Moorer and having competitive fights with everyone on the face of the Earth).

Tyson's era has been criticized enough already. Ditto Marciano's.

Holmes fought a ton of limited fighters and still had unnecessarily close fights/almost got knocked out a couple times. Spoon didn't really do anything.

There were plenty of great fights in the 70s. Every great fighter from that era had big flaws though.

60s Ali era pretty much sucked. The list goes on....

[Cardinal Buck]

^You're a failed troll. You destroy your own credibility with the avatar and sig.

To answer though, Haye, Chagaev, Igbragimov, Thompson, Eddie Chambers, and Byrd would beat Tua. Barret and Byrd did it in real life.

Sanders, Solis (need to see more of him), Donald, Gomez, Shufford, Austin and Adamek would all be live and some would beat him.