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

[TheGreatA]

Wlad looked good in that fight although I understand why some might consider it boring. Wlad won every round.

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".

That a bum like Jimmy Young (34-19 career, 19% KORatio) was top10 ranked is another proof of how bad Ali's era was.

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.

I agree, Ali was so bad that he makes bums like Young (34-19) look good. Wlad is so good that he makes good boxers like Byrd look like bums.

Young looked bad against Ali. He looked very good against Foreman, Lyle, Norton. Byrd looked bad plenty of times.

Take for example this above fight. Wlad would have probably finished Folley in 1 round without even getting hit once. And everybody would shout "Wlad fights bums!".

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, he couldn't finish Ibragimov in 12, stopped Tony Thompson in 11. If you've watched Wladimir, you know he doesn't go for the KO early. He starts with the jab, and then starts throwing his right with conviction after about 6 rounds.

The final diagnosis came later but the illness started already early.

This doesn't sound like an ill man.

Who cares? Olympic boxing is different than pro heavyweight. Leon Spinks was and stays a bum (26-17). That is how crappy the 70ies were.

Spinks was not a bum at the time Ali faced him, he was an undefeated Olympic gold medalist whom Ali took lightly. 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. The late 70's were a transitional period, with the old stars like Ali aging and the new fighters like Larry Holmes taking over.

If they define a superheavyweight division (215+), then Wlad's win over Byrd OF COURSE will not be considered a superheavyweight win. It's OBVIOUS. The major idiocy was that they gave the heavyweight division NEW LIMITS but OLD NAME ("heavyweight") although it was suddenly a completely new division. That way fans until very day think that Marciano could beat Wlad because, hey, he was a "heavyweight".

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?

There are no limits in the heavyweight division. If a 190 lb man beats a 250 lb champion, then he is a heavyweight champion. If Chad Dawson moved up and beat Wladimir Klitschko, he would be a heavyweight champion. In the previous eras, there were still 6'5+, 250+ lb heavyweights, it's just that the smaller, well-conditioned heavyweights ruled. Today it's the well-conditioned super heavyweight that rule over the smaller, not so well-conditioned heavyweights because the small heavyweights erroneously put on excess weight in order to appear "bigger". The likes of Chambers and Byrd, Wladimir's best wins, could have easily competed at under 200 lbs.

Wladimir is likely to fight former cruiser David Haye in the future and possibly Tomasz Adamek, a former light heavy, if Adamek gets past Arreola. Again two men who could compete under 200 lbs.

[boxingking500]

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".



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.



Young looked bad against Ali. He looked very good against Foreman, Lyle, Norton. Byrd looked bad plenty of times.



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, he couldn't finish Ibragimov in 12, stopped Tony Thompson in 11. If you've watched Wladimir, you know he doesn't go for the KO early. He starts with the jab, and then starts throwing his right with conviction after about 6 rounds.



This doesn't sound like an ill man.





Spinks was not a bum at the time Ali faced him, he was an undefeated Olympic gold medalist whom Ali took lightly. 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. The late 70's were a transitional period, with the old stars like Ali aging and the new fighters like Larry Holmes taking over.



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?

There are no limits in the heavyweight division. If a 190 lb man beats a 250 lb champion, then he is a heavyweight champion. If Chad Dawson moved up and beat Wladimir Klitschko, he would be a heavyweight champion. In the previous eras, there were still 6'5+, 250+ lb heavyweights, it's just that the smaller, well-conditioned heavyweights ruled. Today it's the well-conditioned super heavyweight that rule over the smaller, not so well-conditioned heavyweights because the small heavyweights erroneously put on excess weight in order to appear "bigger". The likes of Chambers and Byrd, Wladimir's best wins, could have easily competed at under 200 lbs.

Wladimir is likely to fight former cruiser David Haye in the future and possibly Tomasz Adamek, a former light heavy, if Adamek gets past Arreola. Again two men who could compete under 200 lbs.

well they competed in the heavyweight division (and thats there fault they know that they are facing wlad, so they should gain weight)

wladimir is gonna keep on dominating and dominating, and more excuses are going to be thrown out........

[tuxtucis]

[QUOTE=TheGreatA;7905862]

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.



Many peoples (me too) thinks Jimmy Young really won both with Norton and Alì (officially two losses)
Ringsiders think he won handily too with Earnie Shavers (officially a draw)...
That means Jimmy Young between 1974 and 1977 won against the likes of Shavers, Alì, Foreman, Lyle and Norton! He was unfairly treated as it happens to defensive fighters (it happened to Pernell Whitaker too...)
Not at all a bum!

[knn]

First of all, let me thank you, GreatA, for your efforts to deliver at least some valuable information.

"George Foreman conducted an interview with ESPN's Brian Kenny this evening.... Yeah, I think that's the most likely explanation."

Why do you cite a whole article written by someone else without even giving the link:

http://boxing.fanhouse.com/2007/05/22/george-foreman-on-ali-fight-i-got-beat-fair-and-square/

The most important sentence is: "Foreman didn't back down from his claims that he was drugged".

Look, I am in no way claiming that Ali even KNEW about the poison, nor that the fight was fixed (= that bets were running again Foreman). And I think Ali won fair (= he didn't apply ultradirty tricks in the ring) but there will always be shadows over the gassing of Foreman. He simply gassed like he gassed never before or after in his career. Even his knockdown (vs Jimmy Young) might be Rumble-poison-related.

His ex-manager Taymas Niyazov (48) claims that Chagaev is almost blind in his left eye

Story has been already dismissed and Chagaev passed all medical exams.

But look: _IF_ Chagaev was _INDEED_ shortsighted in his left eye then _YES_ this would diminish Klitschko's win. As simple as that.

But as opposed to Ali: Klitschko had no problems with Chagaev, wheras Ali had huge problems with half-blind Frazier.

"It's not hard to find out if a fighter is on medical suspension. It's right on the Internet. But last year alone, there were 24 violations by our own member commissions that I know of. And then you have a fighter like Lamon Brewster, who's on medical suspension. He goes over to Germany and fights for a world title, still on suspension, and HBO televises it. What kind of message does that send?"

Let me answer by quoting Widdow_Maker from ESB's forum (don't wanna link here to the "competitor"):

"He was cleared by the doctors... it doesn't matter what type of medical suspension that a different commission had him on. ... Brewster's eyes were checked and cleared by his own doctors, and his pre fight physical. If the fight was in the States, Brewster simply would have filed a motion to end his suspension, and after passing the simple medical tests, it would have been lifted. The fight wasn't in the United States, so he didn't have to bother with it. A medical suspension due to an eye injury that has been corrected, from an event over a year prior doesn't make Brewster any less of a fighter. It just gives people like you an excuse when he gets destroyed. He fought in the United States this year... I guess that Wlad knocked his eyes back in order. "

I could not say it better.

Foreman was "probably" poisoned. There's no legitimate proof of this, even he himself states that he "may" have been poisoned, which is about as reliable as Holyfield saying that he didn't perform well because the ring was too springy.

Completely different: The ring is THE SAME FOR BOTH fighters. Being poisoned is a completely different caliber.

You claim Jimmy Young was a bum, which again shows you know very little about boxing. Without him, there wouldn't have been Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers.

And without Dempsey there wouldn't be Tyson. Doesn't change the fact that Dempsey was a cruiser and Jimmy Young a bum.

Your arguments get wilder and wilder "Without Young Byrd wouldn't box thus Young is no bum." Please.

I'm not the one taking away credit from Wladimir because his opponents may or may not have been 100% at the time they fought him.

What the heck? Wlad has not FOUGHT a single guy below 200. In fact 85% of Wlad's fights are against SUPERheavyweight opposition (215+).

You're the one doing this to Ali, and I'm showing that it could very well be done to Wladimir too.

You could not. I tried. It's impossible. It's only possible by subjective criteria ("I don't like his style", "there will never be an Ali again", "who is this Wladimir? why isn't he available on PPV") etc..

Ridiculous. Byrd went onto have the 6 year prime of his career after losing to Klitschko

Because Byrd is such an exceptional fighter. He wasn't enough for Wladimir, however.

How about we keep both because both were great victories, greater than any on Wladimir's record unfortunately.

Completely unsubstantiated claim. Don't compare Frazier (real heavyweight career record 13-4, KORatio 44%) with Byrd (36-4, KORatio 45%). Different league. Liston seems to be better than Frazier (24-2, KORatio 80%), but of these 24 win-opponents 17 were bums, e.g. Besmanoff (51-34) or Chuck Wepner (35-14). Before you shout "He called Chuck a bum": It's again this lame style of Ali that makes opponents look good.

Sanders was a golfer first, boxer second. He had only fought 3 rounds in 3 years against 2 journeymen previous to taking on Wladimir. That's hardly an active contender.

But your argument is completely biased. You know exactly that he also gave Vitali some smack. Thus the WRONG conclusion (your conclusion) is that "Sanders was a nobody thus Klitschko sucks" while the correct conclusion is "Sanders is an exceptional sportsman who is excellent in the fields of golf AND boxing".

Let me add that this typical bias of CLAYtons ALWAYS works like this:
Ali beats a guy -> "Wow, Ali is great"
Wlad beats a guy -> "Man, that guy was a bum"
Ali loses to a guy -> "Man, that guy must have been STRONG"
Wlad loses to a guy -> "Man, Wlad is a bum"

yet he was still able to win. Imagine if he had been in prime condition and dedicated for his whole career.

Yes, Sanders was an exceptional, yet lazy, sportsman.

He was not in peak condition at 37 years of age.

I never said anything about peak condition. He was in good condition.

why not bring up Wladimir not giving a rematch to Sanders, whom he lost to?

The main reason: Because Sanders lost his next fight (vs Vitali) and then eventually RETIRED. Don't get me wrong: IT'S A PITY. There is something about Sanders' style that could UNTIL TODAY give Wlad problems. I would have LOVED to see a rematch, more than against Brewster.

He had heavyweight fights, simple as that. No one will discount Wladimir's wins over Byrd or Chambers either if the cruiserweight division weight limit becomes 215 lbs in the future.

The cruiserweight will stay where it is. IF AT ALL then they will define a SUPERheavyweight division. They won't make the same ****** mistake again.

By the same logic Gamboa's recent fight against Rogers Mtagwa wasn't a featherweight fight because Mtagwa only weighed 122 pounds, which is the super bantamweight limit.

Yes, Gamboa fought against a 122 opponent thus this fight should be credited on Gamboa's SuperBantamWeight record. WHERE ELSE? On his heavyweight record?

Heavyweights are not supposed to struggle with middleweights. The 250 pound Peter could barely beat Toney

Toney was a heavyweight in that fight. That he was in lower weight division at some point of his career was irrelevant for this fight.

I don't see any qualities about him that show he could have been the champion in the 1970's.

And again, I don't care about Brock. It's just an example. Byrd could have ruled the 70ies, Holyfield, Brewster, Tyson... Nearly EVERYONE with a somewhat recognizable name could have. Obviously, even a guy with Parkinson and zero reflexes could.

Yes he was fat at 260 lbs. However unlike the majority of today's heavyweights like Peter and Arreola, atleast he didn't stay fat at the day of the fight.

Maybe he should have. Ali lost that fight.

Kelly Pavlik could eat his way to 220 lbs, would you call him a naturally bigger man than Frazier? James Toney was "bigger" than Frazier at nearly 240 lbs of flab, is he a naturally bigger man than Frazier? The only way Frazier could have ever made 160 is if he were to cut off an arm or a leg.

I already answered that. There is no "Naturally heavy heavyweight division". I can see very well that fat (in the heavyweight division) has its advantages and disadvantages. As well as heaving too many muscles can have advantages and disadvantages (see Briggs, Bob Sapp). Thus those who want to see "lean" heavyweight division should watch the cruiser division, which is basically the heavyweight division of Ali, Louis and Marciano.

[knn]

Many peoples (me too) thinks Jimmy Young really won both with Norton and Alì (officially two losses)
Ringsiders think he won handily too with Earnie Shavers (officially a draw)...
That means Jimmy Young between 1974 and 1977 won against the likes of Shavers, Alì, Foreman, Lyle and Norton!

Now me get this straight for you since you seem to live in your own fantasy world:

Young LOST to Shavers (and once drew with Shavers)
Young LOST to Ali
Young LOST to Norton
Young LOST to Michael Dokes
Young LOST to Cooney
Young LOST to Tucker

Stop dreaming. He is a bum. Not only that his record sucks (34-19): Of the 34 win-opponents only 13 are somewhat noteworthy, the rest are bums like Frank Lux (17-32) or Don Halpin (9-23).

Now the CORRECT conclusion (my conclusion) is: Foreman lost to Jimmy, the bum.
The WRONG (your revisionistic conclusion) is: Wow, Young is not a bum because he beat Foreman. Thus Ali beating Jimmy is a proof for Ali's greatness.

Exactly what I wrote in my post above. Wlad wins -> Wlad's opponent was a bum. Ali wins -> Ali is GOAT.

After I caught you making up ridiculous stats, and then faking your own ridiculous stats, now I caught you making up a fantasy results and consider them proof.

While SOME CLAYtons may have valid reasons to honor Ali, YOU are a good proof why noone should listen too much to CLAYtons.

[knn]

Wladimir has been knocked down more than 10 times. In that case it's no longer a "fluke".

Aaah, a hater's comment. A knockdown merely deducts 1 point. It doesn't make you lose a fight.

Frazier's "handicap" didn't prevent him from being a great fighter. Ali was also not allowed to box for 3 years, that's quite a handicap.

A cheap shot. Ali wasn't allowed because of criminal behaviour not because of a medical condition. That Ali didn't fight for 3 years probably was for the better for Ali: Spared him some serious beating and delayed Parkinson.

How many fighters has Wladimir recently knocked out within 4? Ray Austin? Regardless of what you think would happen in a fantasy fight, Wladimir has never beaten a man as accomplished as Joe Frazier.

Hahaha. Besides your laughable comment: Frazier has never faced a man like Wlad. The last time I checked Frazier was bouncing in the ring against Foreman. Foreman is only Wlad-comparable opponent Frazier ever faced.

I'd say that Joe Frazier proved he could punch during his whole career

Sure against bums and cruisers like Memphis Al Jones.

Also it's not valid to say that because a fighter was knocked out by another fighter, it's proof that he couldn't punch. Foreman knocking out Frazier has nothing to do with Frazier not being able to punch.

Yes, this is correct. In practical application it means that the KORatios are better than calculated by Boxrec. You could also deduct wins and losses by DQ. It means then that Ali had a real heavyweight KORatio of 35% (FEATHERFIST), Foreman 84%, Tyson 88%, Wlad (now after the Chambers fight) 92%. If you think Frazier could survive Wlad for much longer than Foreman (who is smaller than Wlad and lighter than Wlad) you are obviously mistaken.

I'm not American nor am I a huge Ali fan. However you're not only trying to discredit the record of Ali, you're trying to discredit the records of every heavyweight that existed previous to the Klitschko brothers by saying that they weren't "real" heavyweights. They were real heavyweights and that's all there is to it.

Nonsense. The only thing I try to point out that "what happens at cruiserweight STAYS at cruiserweight". Marciano had an OK cruiser record. Just because they didn't call it "cruiser" then, doesn't make it less cruiser.

They're of similar stature. Stylistically they're different.

So far NO SINGLE STYLE helped any opponent what so ever (except Corrie Sanders style). So good luck with "Fraziers style". And let me repeat again that I enjoy Frazier more than Ali. Ali's style would kill Ali nowadays.

Ali being the fastest was proven by Jim Jacobs

Jim Jacobs doesn't prove anything. Just shows that previous eras were even slower. Actually the Louis era is like a comparison between foosball and football. Was even worse than Ali's era.
If you believe the speed measurement it only proves that Ali was faster than other until 1976. Fast Eddie and Chris Byrd are much faster than Ali.

Gosh Ali looks old 1976. Slurring speech, hanging shoulders. Parkinson developing.

Thank you however, for this valuable documentary, that I haven't seen before.

His speed on display against one of the fastest boxers ever Floyd Patterson

Didn't see anything astonishingly fast there. Quite the opposite: Ali AGAIN has to eat a lot of punches = If he is so fast then why does he get hit so often? Terrible performance by Ali. He again was lucky that his opponent was a completely inexperienced heavyweight (had only 6 heavyweight wins 200+ prior to this bout with Ali). Patterson has even less defense than Ali. Well, Patterson got Alzheimer and Ali got Parkinson. Terrible era.

Ali had no defense?

Yes, no defense whatsoever (except running away and neck-grabbing his opponent. Disgusting). Sheesh, Ali looks like an epileptic clown here: Always making funny movements while running backwards with his hands down. But I guess looking like an epileptic clown (beginning of Ali's career) is better than to look like Sam Peter (end of his career). But he has his good moments in this fight: No wonder, Sonny Liston was 36 years old (officially Liston made himself 4 years younger).

6:50 "Feather-fisted" Ali the only man to knock out granite-jawed Bonavena

You can always, always, always find a fight where someone doesn't look featherfisty. Even the greatest bums have usually a KO win against some other bum. Even chinachin'ed bum Larry McFadden (1 win, 34 losses, 29 losses by KO) has KOed someone. You HAVE TO check the whole record. Single fights matter too little.

Moreover you forgot to mention that Ali managed to win this fight by KO because of the 3-knockdown-rule in round 15. Not only that this KO has nothing to do with Ali's punching power (but simply with fatigue), but moreover this is a KO that wouldn't even count nowadays as a KO. However it reminds us of Ali's by far BIGGEST asset: He could survive 15 rounds.

Please also note that defenseless Ali was AGAIN beaten from pillar to post through the entire fight until Bonavena gassed in the end.

[Suckmedry]

Nonsense, how can he claim in his newest book that he was poisoned yet lost fairly? No, he said he would have lost without poisoning, too. Big difference. And merely a speculation on Foreman's part.


Whether he got over it is irrelevant. Whether Ali won against a poisoned opponent is NOT irrelevant.


SO WHAT? They weren't detached during the fight with Klitschko. They had 100% vision. Stop twisting facts. Frazier was blind on 1 eye.


Yes, after a messed up eye operation followed by an eye stroke. That you even bring up these fighters to make the win against Frazier look more normal is ridiculous.

Frazier was HANDICAPPED = blind on 1 eye when he fought Ali.
Foreman was probably poisoned.
Cleveland Williams had destroyed intestines.
Archie Moore was 45+ years old.
Jimmy Young (34-19) was a bum.
Chuck Wepner was a bum (35-14)
Leon Spinks (26-17) was a bum.

Stop making excuses. If Wlad would fight such bums and handicaps then everybody would (and rightly so) call this a terrible era. But it was ALI who fought these fights.


Of course he was KOed the second time around. After a first fight with Wlad they are never the same again.


OK, deal. Keep 6'0'' Liston and delete half-blind 5'11'' Frazier off Ali's record. That's fine with me.


So what? Only proves that had he trained more he could have beaten Vitali. That he was also a golfer doesn't disprove any of his qualities as a boxer. Who cares what else Frazier or Liston were doing for their living.

Hey, since the life outside of the ring matters so much for you we can make another deal: Let's delete all the CRIMINALS off the top25, shall we? Joe Louis (tax evasion) has to go, as well as Tyson (****) and Liston (robbery). Maybe Ali (draft-dodging), too, but he was acquitted on a technicality so probably we could keep him on the list.


He was in a good shape. Moreover what's this "Corrie Sanders fixation"? Noone doubts that Wlad was TKOed fair and square. It's a pity that Wlad's management refused a rematch.


He did not. He had what-they-called-then heavyweight fights. Big difference. Having said that: Ali's P4P record is really good. As a heavyweight he is OK. Wlad within 7.


Yeah, and Peter had even greater trouble with Wlad. Stop bringing up this "Oh, but he struggled" argument.


Listen, I won't even go there because Sam Peter was just an example of mine. MANY of Klitschko's opponents could have ruled the 70ies: Calvin Brock and even Ibragimov. No matter how often I rewatch 70ies fights: The opponents do not impress me a bit, except in a few cases like Ken Norton or Foreman.


Thank you for reminding us that 5'11'' 260 lbs Frazier was fat. Let me also remind everyone that fatty Ali was also put on drugs to lose approx. 40lbs for the Holmes fight.


Lame excuse.
There is only 1 heavyweight division, not a "Athletic division" and a "Fatty division".


Yes, I give Foreman that. Him I give more chance against the current era than Ali. At least Foreman had some defense and punching power, unlike Ali.


And Foreman was knocked down by a bummy featherfist. You know exactly that SINGLE performances can be a fluke.


No, I don't criticize Ali for that. But it has to be pointed out again and again that Frazier was handicapped.
While Sam Langford's blindness has been known prior to fights Frazier kept it a secret.


I like Frazier more than Ali. At least Frazier is somewhat exciting to watch. Wlad within 4.


By singling out fights (or even singling out some minutes) you can prove anything. You have to see the whole career performance.


Yeah, in YOUR list. And the list of deluded CLAYTONs calling themselves US boxing experts.
Frazier has a heavyweight record of 14-4. And the fights vs Foreman are the coffin nail for any aspiration of Frazier to be Top10. Frazier was good at beating cruisers.


Sure why not? After an operation the retina may even sit tighter than in a natural condition.


What the heck? Eddie chambers fights 1-2 heads taller than Frazier.


Uff, why should I argue with you if you obviously have FANTASY ALI in your mind that never existed.
The occasional flurries that Ali made are equally weak as Chris Byrd's (except that Byrd has a higher heavyweight KOratio than Ali): It's called "wind making".

And what is this nonsense about "Ali = fastest heavyweight ever lived"? Even Eddie Chambers is much faster than Ali. If Ali was so fast then why was he hit CONSTANTLY by even slowest punches. Just watch Ali vs Folley: In every round Ali he gets cleanly hit by Foley. No defence whatsoever:



Add to it Ali's disgusting neck-grabbing ("Dirty Clay"), clowning (= "flotaing") and krumping (= wiggling the hands in the air) and it makes you wonder whether CLAYtons are completely brainwashed to find this attractive or even competitive nowadays.

Ali's hands hang down all the time as if somebody would pull them down. I URGE EVERYONE to watch this video that TheGreatA posted.

Ali was lucky that Folley's performance was even worse. I guess this is because Folley was boxing as a cruiser (not in this fight though) most of his fights (Zora had only 17 real heavyweight fights in his career of which he lost 5 including this one).

What a crappy era, what a crappy fight. And you made me suffer through it again.

With such a bad defense Ali would get KOed pretty fast nowadays, even after the knockdown Zora has no problems to hit Ali nearly at will.

Eddie Chmabers and Tony Thompson both went more than 7 with Wlad, and you are saying Prime Muhammad Ali wouldn't? Please

[knn]

Eddie Chmabers and Tony Thompson both went more than 7 with Wlad, and you are saying Prime Muhammad Ali wouldn't? Please

I am not going to answer that. Wrong thread. This thread is about some top25 list. There are already threads about Clay vs Klit.

[tuxtucis]

Now u're boring me!

Now me get this straight for you since you seem to live in your own fantasy world:

Young LOST to Shavers (and once drew with Shavers)
Young LOST to Ali
Young LOST to Norton
Young LOST to Michael Dokes
Young LOST to Cooney
Young LOST to Tucker

Stop dreaming. He is a bum. Not only that his record sucks (34-19): Of the 34 win-opponents only 13 are somewhat noteworthy, the rest are bums like Frank Lux (17-32) or Don Halpin (9-23).

Now the CORRECT conclusion (my conclusion) is: Foreman lost to Jimmy, the bum.
The WRONG (your revisionistic conclusion) is: Wow, Young is not a bum because he beat Foreman. Thus Ali beating Jimmy is a proof for Ali's greatness.

Exactly what I wrote in my post above. Wlad wins -> Wlad's opponent was a bum. Ali wins -> Ali is GOAT.

After I caught you making up ridiculous stats, and then faking your own ridiculous stats, now I caught you making up a fantasy results and consider them proof.

While SOME CLAYtons may have valid reasons to honor Ali, YOU are a good proof why noone should listen too much to CLAYtons.

My stats are not ridicolous! My stats show that W.Klitschko was stopped by 2 unexceptional fighters at an age usually great fighters of past are not stopped (if not by other great fighters)... And never say again i faked! I take fights between 25 and 32 birthday... At start i wanted to put only fights from 25 to 30 birthday, but that would have been even worse for W.Klitschko...
About Jimmy Young, I don t live in fantasy world: he topped Ron Lyle and George Foreman, two boxers far beyond everyone Wlad ever meet... Most of ringsiders and journalists thought he had won against Shavers and Alì too; some thinks he won against Ken Norton too... Anyway he fought head to head with Shavers, Alì and Norton...After his loss against Norton, he stopped to train seriously and never was the same...There are some boxers who are exceptional for short period of their career and normal for the rest part (both before and past peak): one exemple is Sumbu Kalambay, who in 1987-88 topped the likes of Herol Graham, Iran Barkley and Mike McCallum, being a normal boxers for the rest of his career...
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 and probably lost not against De La Hoya (2 wins and one draw instead one draw and 2 losses).
I know all that is difficult to understand for ur very limited brain, but at least u can try...

[boxingking500]

My stats are not ridicolous! My stats show that W.Klitschko was stopped by 2 unexceptional fighters at an age usually great fighters of past are not stopped (if not by other great fighters)... And never say again i faked! I take fights between 25 and 32 birthday... At start i wanted to put only fights from 25 to 30 birthday, but that would have been even worse for W.Klitschko...
About Jimmy Young, I don t live in fantasy world: he topped Ron Lyle and George Foreman, two boxers far beyond everyone Wlad ever meet... Most of ringsiders and journalists thought he had won against Shavers and Alì too; some thinks he won against Ken Norton too... Anyway he fought head to head with Shavers, Alì and Norton...After his loss against Norton, he stopped to train seriously and never was the same...There are some boxers who are exceptional for short period of their career and normal for the rest part (both before and past peak): one exemple is Sumbu Kalambay, who in 1987-88 topped the likes of Herol Graham, Iran Barkley and Mike McCallum, being a normal boxers for the rest of his career...
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 and probably lost not against De La Hoya (2 wins and one draw instead one draw and 2 losses).
I know all that is difficult to understand for ur very limited brain, but at least u can try...

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