Wlad's Top 5 Wins Vs. Ali's Top 5 Wins

[cupocity303]

Jerry Quarry over ANYBODY on Wlads resume.

Anybody huh.

Eddie Chambers via UD over Quarry.

[jrosales13]

Anybody huh.

Eddie Chambers via UD over Quarry.

So is Chambers as good or as great as Frazier was?

[cupocity303]

Who would you say that's on Wlad resume it's as great or as good as Frazier in your opinion.

Ability wise or resume wise?

Because if we debate resumes, we're gonna start with Frazier's and end up debating the resume of a Frazier opponent's opponent, till infinity.

[jrosales13]

Ability wise or resume wise?

Because if we debate resumes, we're gonna start with Frazier's and end up debating the resume of a Frazier opponent's opponent, till infinity.

Well when I said as good, I mean with ability wise.

When I say as great, I mean resume wise.

So I would like your opinion on both.

[JAB5239]

Anybody huh.

Eddie Chambers via UD over Quarry.

Based on what? Im sincerely interested in what kind of argument you can make here because it certainly isn't going to be resume, experience or quality of wins.

[cupocity303]

I don't accept this premise.

What made Joe Frazier great? Oh yeah, he beat Ali, that's what made him great.

If someone beats a Klitschko today, and Klitschko beat them back, would you consider that fighter great? No of course not.

Hypothetically if Joe Frazier was around today and Wlad dominated him, would you consider it a great win over a great fighter, or would you call Frazier a bum? Exactly.

In conclusion: The only way a Wlad Klitschko can beat All-Time Greats at this point is A) Have Lennox Lewis come out of retirement and pummel him or B) Let Alexander Povetkin get to 100-0 record, winning one of the Sanctioning bodies to boost, so Wlad can give him his first loss and make his boxrec resume look good.

Still even then, I don't think you'd give him equal props, you daft cunt.

At the end of the day, debating resumes, the above still stands.

[JAB5239]

At the end of the day, debating resumes, the above still stands.

Cup, I got no problem with you. But that doesn't mean anything. Quarry beat better fighters than Chamber, was a more complete fighter than Chambers and fought more styles than Chambers.

[cupocity303]

Based on what? Im sincerely interested in what kind of argument you can make here because it certainly isn't going to be resume, experience or quality of wins.

I agree that it won't be resumes or quality of wins. The old timers win that argument by the mere fact that people are biased towards the past generation, therefore all of their opponents and the opponent's opponent and opponent of the opponent's opponent, via infinity is always considered better, because those guys fought on black and white television and todays pussies are on HD.

However ability wise I hold Chambers in high regard. Like most of the Heavies of the past, he is too small for todays's 200+ era but in that era he would fit right in and his skill certainly box the socks off of Jerry, imo.

[cupocity303]

was a more complete fighter than Chambers [/B][/U][/FONT][/COLOR]

I disagree.

and fought more styles than Chambers.

Also disagree.

Me thinks Quarry is being overrated and I have seen plenty of footage of him.

[sweetscience18]

Nice ass counter right..


Clay, so great that Sugar Ray had to take him under his wing.