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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment