Where do you rate Vitali Klitschko among ATG heavyweights?

[hweightblogger]

He was considered the #1 guy after beating Larry Holmes, then Tyson beat Spinks to become the Lineal Champ according to the RING.

Aaah, NOW we come closer to your logic. If the US-based RING mag tells that someone is #1 then you have to beat him to be considered ATG.

Oh, I see.

Thanks to you we now know that Leon Spinks (26-17) is a greater ATG than Vitali Klitschko.

Wait, maybe not: Vitali, too, beat a RING #1: Corrie Sanders.

[ToyBulldog]

Aaah, NOW we come closer to your logic. If the US-based RING mag tells that someone is #1 then you have to beat him to be considered ATG.

Oh, I see.

Thanks to you we now know that Leon Spinks (26-17) is a greater ATG than Vitali Klitschko.

Wait, maybe not: Vitali, too, beat a RING #1: Corrie Sanders.

What are you on about now mate? You asked what #1 fighter Tyson beat and I told you, it was Spinks. Not Leon Spinks. You need to do more research.

@ Sanders being a #1 by the way. You're making things up now.

[hweightblogger]

What are you on about now mate? You asked what #1 fighter Tyson beat and I told you, it was Spinks. Not Leon Spinks. You need to do more research.

BOTH Spinkses were #1 by the Ring Mag.

Leon Spinks was #1 by beating Ali (hence he fulfills your definition of what makes an ATG) and Michael Spinks was #1 when Mike Tyson beat him (hence in your view Mike Tyson can be considered ATG).

Now if you claim that beating the Ring #1 is a prerequisite of being considered ATG then by your logic bum Leon Spinks could be considered greater than Vitali.

@ Sanders being a #1 by the way. You're making things up now.

Vitali became RING champion by beating Corrie Sanders. That's beating the RING-best man aside of you.

[ToyBulldog]

BOTH Spinkses were #1 by the Ring Mag.

Leon Spinks was #1 by beating Ali (hence he fulfills your definition of what makes an ATG) and Michael Spinks was #1 when Mike Tyson beat him (hence in your view Mike Tyson can be considered ATG).

Now if you claim that beating the Ring #1 is a prerequisite of being considered ATG then by your logic bum Leon Spinks could be considered greater than Vitali.




Vitali became RING champion by beating Corrie Sanders. That's beating the RING-best man aside of you.

Sanders was never #1 mate you're clearly out of your depth here.

He was rated #3 at one point but then Vitali beat him. Vitali lost to the 2 best fighters he fought, had his brother do most of the work in the division and is clearly ONLY a belt holder while Wlad is the ATG.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[hweightblogger]

Sanders was never #1 mate you're clearly out of your depth here.

Depends on how you define #1. Whether #1 is the toppest RING opponent or the opponent actually ranked #1 or the opponent ranked #0.

But Corrie Sanders was just a side remark anyway.

The main issue are the two Spinkses. By your logic Leon Spinks 26-17 would have a stronger case for being considered ATG than Vitali Klitschko.

And by your logic being the champ and LOSING (or retiring) and then avenging/returning would give you also a stronger case for being ATG than not losing/retiring in the first place.

Additionally RING ranked Michael Spinks as #1 while Mike Tyson held three belts. By your logic if someone had beaten Mike Tyson then this would be less valuable (in terms of ATG aspirations) than beating Spinks, who held no belts.

You present three severe logic flaws.

[ToyBulldog]

Depends on how you define #1. Whether #1 is the toppest RING opponent or the opponent actually ranked #1 or the opponent ranked #0.

But Corrie Sanders was just a side remark anyway.

The main issue are the two Spinkses. By your logic Leon Spinks 26-17 would have a stronger case for being considered ATG than Vitali Klitschko.

And by your logic being the champ and LOSING (or retiring) and then avenging/returning would give you also a stronger case for being ATG than not losing/retiring in the first place.

Additionally RING ranked Michael Spinks as #1 while Mike Tyson held three belts. By your logic if someone had beaten Mike Tyson then this would be less valuable (in terms of ATG aspirations) than beating Spinks, who held no belts.

You present three severe logic flaws.

Neither Spinkses are ATG heavyweights. I was just answering your question about what #1 fighter Tyson beat. He beat the Ring's Heavyweight champion and #1 Michael Spinks as Tyson was only the #2 man at the time.

Did I say that made Tyson an ATG heavyweight? No. Stop putting words in my mouth I don't even think Tyson comes close to a top 10 or 5 heavyweight either.

[hweightblogger]

Did I say that made Tyson an ATG heavyweight? No. Stop putting words in my mouth I don't even think Tyson comes close to a top 10 or 5 heavyweight either.

Wow, so now neither Vitali nor Tyson nor Michael Spinks are ATGs. You thin out the field considerably, I must say.

Tell me: What #1 did Larry Holmes beat to deserve being an ATG, or is Holmes in your view also no ATG?

[ToyBulldog]

Wow, so now neither Vitali nor Tyson nor Michael Spinks are ATGs. You thin out the field considerably, I must say.

Tell me: What #1 did Larry Holmes beat to deserve being an ATG, or is Holmes in your view also no ATG?

Michaels Spinks IS an ATG, only because he did amazing work as a light heavyweight and then moved up and beat Holmes as the underdog which looks amazing.

Holmes was very consistent, beat all of the contenders and fought everyone. He also didn't have his brother clean out the division for him he had to make it to the top and was #1 for years.

If Vitali didn't retire he probably could have gotten some higher profile bouts but his brother stole all of the thunder and the ATG status.

[hweightblogger]

First you write

• "Neither Spinkses are ATG heavyweights."

...and then...

• "Michaels Spinks IS an ATG"

So Spinks is a light heavy ATG but not a heavy ATG, yes?

Holmes was very consistent, beat all of the contenders and fought everyone. He also didn't have his brother clean out the division for him he had to make it to the top and was #1 for years.

So suddenly you switch to a completely different way of how to define ATGness, which is "Not having a brother", "Being #1 for years" and "Being consistent".

Thank you for proving my point that those who deny Vitali ATG status fabricate their definitions to suit their agenda. Thank you for proving my point that Klitschko deniers chose feelings over facts.

[ToyBulldog]

First you write

• "Neither Spinkses are ATG heavyweights."

...and then...

• "Michaels Spinks IS an ATG"

So Spinks is a light heavy ATG but not a heavy ATG, yes?




So suddenly you switch to a completely different way of how to define ATGness, which is "Not having a brother", "Being #1 for years" and "Being consistent".

Thank you for proving my point that those who deny Vitali ATG status fabricate their definitions to suit their agenda. Thank you for proving my point that Klitschko deniers chose feelings over facts.

I'm a Klitschko denier?...but I think Wlad is an ATG Looks like you're the one with some weird agenda here mate.

Spinks is an ATG overall when you consider his weight jumping success. Winning two championships especially in LHW and HW is huge. I think Manny Pacquiao is an ATG but does that mean I think he is an ATG at lightweight? No, he doesn't have the depth of resume in that weight class.

Vitali doesn't have the depth of resume at heavyweight to be ATG. Just the way it is. Roberto Duran is an ATG because he ruled a weight class for years and was able to do even more. Vitali hasn't even ruled his own weight how can he be an ATG