Comments Thread For: The Top 25 Heavyweights of All-Time – Top Ten

[tuxtucis]

You're unrational Klitschko fans

another klit-hater..... mad that wlad is dominating............................

I m not a Klit hater! I like an european fighter dominate the scene, but what it means?
I was happy when Italy won 2006 Soccer World Cup, but that was not at all a great soccer team like 1958 Brazil or 1974 West Germany... I was an huge fan of Marco Pantani and I m a Lance Armstrong hater, anyway rationally I understand Texan is far greater bicycle rider than Italian...
The truth is that being Klitschko fans make u blind respect his real value...
Sure he peaked late, his performance against Chambers (his best won) was impressive, and he has still time to show how good he can be...Maybe at end of career he will be in top 20... At moment his three stoppages and the very low level of competition exclude him from that list...
That's only my opinion, but I ve no doubts...

[tuxtucis]

Greatness is different from strenght

All Klitschko's fans emphasize how strong he is respect the heavies of the past...
But greatness is different from strenght... Sure, specially in boxing, that s very important, but there are other factor...
Maybe Darvis Patton (last in Beijing 2008 summer olympics 100 metres final) is greater athlet than Jesse Owens cause he ran the distance in 10'00 instead 10'30 ? And Stefan Nystrad, last in 100 m freestyle at Beijing 2008 final, is greater swimmer than John Weissmuller was, cause he swimmed in 48" instead of 59"?

[Dave Rado]

All Klitschko's fans emphasize how strong he is respect the heavies of the past...
But greatness is different from strenght... Sure, specially in boxing, that s very important, but there are other factor...
Maybe Darvis Patton (last in Beijing 2008 summer olympics 100 metres final) is greater athlet than Jesse Owens cause he ran the distance in 10'00 instead 10'30 ? And Stefan Nystrad, last in 100 m freestyle at Beijing 2008 final, is greater swimmer than John Weissmuller was, cause he swimmed in 48" instead of 59"?

Best post in the thread.

[knn]

Ali also won just about every round on the scorecards against Chuvalo, and it was more entertaining than Wladimir-Ibragimov. Yet to you it was "crap".

It was crap (and Ali's best fight) because Chuvalo is a stiff'n'slow boxing bag. Ibragimov is flexible and fast and unbeaten and has a higher KOratio than Chuvalo.

Young was not a bum to anyone who knows about boxing. During his prime years from 1974 to 1977, he only lost two fights to Ali and Norton.

Jimmy Young had some good wins in that time. Just shows you again what a weak era it was when such a bum could win against household names.

Young looked bad against Ali.

Quite the opposite: Ali looked bad against Young. Made himself a monkey again: Just watch the first round, what a disgrace. I wonder why Ali wasn't making some monkey sounds if he likes so much to be a monkey.
A GOAT who LOVES to be a MONKEY.

Many think that Jimmy Young, the bum, won that fight. Reminds us again of the crappiness of the 70ies.
Ali was slobbing along in the ring like Sam Peter. Let me repeat what I already wrote at http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=28
Ali fights like an overweight zombie ("mu-HAM-mad") and is the Sam Peter of the 70ies (of course merely the featherfist version of Sam Peter).

Having said that: Jimmy Young fights even worse: He fights like an amateur, or rather like in a fixed fight. Geee, what a crappy era.
I URGE EVERYONE to watch Jimmy Young vs Ali. Just watch the first round. You have hardly ever seen anything so pathetic in the current era.

How many opponents does Wladimir finish in one round? You over-state his finishing abilities. It took him 12 rounds to dispose of 209 lb Chambers the last time

Shows you what an exceptionally good fighter Chambers is.
Moreover the main reason why it took Wlad so long was Chambers additional breather (after round 9) when his glove had to be changed.
Chambers continued visibly refreshed and spend most of the remaining time by running away. Obviously Wlad has some problems in catching fleeing+fast boxers (Chambers, Ibragimov). Instead he prefers to be attacked. Just wait: So far Wlad learned and improved after each fight. Soon fast+fleeing opponents (I guess like David Haye) will be dismantled, too.

This doesn't sound like an ill man.

No, it doesn't. It reminds us that Ali has Parkinson Syndrome (not Parkinson disease) and that the cause of his illness is unknown. You video is a good find. Thank you for posting it.

I do not consider the late 1970's a part of the "golden era" of heavyweights, the late 60's and the early 70's are the golden era as far as I'm concerned.

Aaah, now it comes out. Do you know how many real heavyweight world title fights (both opponents 200+) actually happened from 1968-1972? THREE.

If you want to return to such a crappy era where they have 3 fights in 5 years then good luck.

And in case that happens, would you no longer consider Wladimir a world champion? Since he won his titles from less than 215 lb Chris Byrd?

Of course he still would have been a world champion (because he would have won world championship fights against other superheavyweight opponents). But the fight against Byrd would not be a superheavyweight world title fight, of course, just a heavyweight title. Just like Joe Louis vs Max Schmeling (198 vs 192) is merely a cruiser fight.

There are no limits in the heavyweight division.

Where is this rumor coming from? There are no UPPER limits, yes, but there are lower limits. I checked the regulations of the governing bodies and nowhere did I find a rule that allows sub-200 opponents to fight 200+ opponents. The only exception is if a fighter unexpectedly comes with a bit too little weight.

The likes of Chambers and Byrd, Wladimir's best wins, could have easily competed at under 200 lbs.

Could-have-would-have. Irrelevant. They did compete ABOVE 200 at the time of the fight. Let me repeat again: If we were to delete every of Ali's opponent who fought below 200 then Ali's career record is 12-1.

[knn]

To correct wrong verdicts is due in an historical perspective: when u rate Pernell Whitaker, u must count that he really won against Ramirez and Chavez...

Exactly what I said... CLAYtons LOVE revisionism.

I know all that is difficult to understand for ur very limited brain, but at least u can try...

And CLAYtons LOVE insult non-CLAYtons with useless phrases.

CLAYtons are sooo predictable, exactly as I wrote at
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...58#post5440358

[tuxtucis]

Exactly what I said... CLAYtons LOVE revisionism.


And CLAYtons LOVE insult non-CLAYtons with useless phrases.

CLAYtons are sooo predictable, exactly as I wrote at
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...58#post5440358

Sorry, I m not a big Clay-Alì fan...
Sure, until third match with Frazier included, he was far more funny to watch than Klitschko...
But sure, if u hate heavies of '70, it s only ur problem...
If u like Haye-Valuev more than Alì-Frazier III, Foreman-Lyle, Young-Foreman, that's only an your problem...

[Vadrigar.]

Great article, I enjoyed reading it.

[Ring Leader]

1. Mike Tyson: Personally I just think a prime Mike Tyson can beat anyone in any era

2. Muhammad Ali: One of the greatest resumes in history. But I think Tyson edges him if they did fight

3. Lennox Lewis: Very dominant. His size and boxing skill would give any heavyweight in any era tonnes of problems.

4. Vitali Klitschko: Vitali was better than Wladimir in his prime. Took 4 years off and took no tune ups and took on the champ. Hasn't lost since his comeback.

5. Wladimir Klitschko: Gettin er' done

6. Joe Louis: Joe Louis was the greatest in his era but I think if you put him in this modern era he would be beaten by all these huge heavyweights. He would beat anybody at Cruiserweight anyway

7. Rocky Marciano: Undefeated

8. George Foreman:

9. Joe Frazier:

10. Larry Holmes:

[itchum77]

good list, i got no problems with that

[Alx.]

good list, jack johnson shouldnt be that high