Who was the greatest Heavyweight Post- Ali era?

[-Deal With It-]

Of course it detracts from his legacy but not by a massive margin, not when you take into account Wlad's activity level before the fight, his youth, and the manner of the loss (gasout leading to TKO).

Pac lost to some pretty iffy fighters in his early days too. It doesn't automatically condemn you.

If you look at any general consensus top 10 ATG Heavyweight list, you will find that NONE of them have the type of losses, to the type of opponents that Wlad has lost to within the 1st 10 years of their career(s).

And Pac had some bad losses early in his career, but he also didn't have a 140+ amateur fight background and a olympic gold medal...not to mention he was a adolescent for a couple of those losses.

[nomadman]

I think thats kinda unfair.... Everyone knows what happened but it doesn't officially count..... Kinda like May-Judah considering they both won

It's not like May Judah, which was a legitimate knockdown (though not a damaging one). Sanders caught Vit on the gloves and sort of wrenched him down. He'd definitely rocked him bad before that though.

[Mr. Invincible]

Tyson's resume is leagues & leagues & leagues ahead of Vitali's. And very comfortably ahead Wlad's.

You're delusional. Tyson's resume is based on being champ so early and getting ahold of an old Larry Holmes. Wladimir has already passed him in both resume and all time standing.

[MJ223]

Of course it detracts from his legacy but not by a massive margin, not when you take into account Wlad's activity level before the fight, his youth, and the manner of the loss (gasout leading to TKO).

Pac lost to some pretty iffy fighters in his early days too. It doesn't automatically condemn you.

Yeah I just caught the end of it. Puritty is a bad loss and it's really not debatable.

I was basically gonna ask It's Ovah the same ? though worded a bit diff because he quoted a post of mine and I figured he probably caught the end of a convo with me and another poster but his answer (the post above) came in before my ? so I could see the confusion

[nomadman]

If you look at any general consensus top 10 ATG Heavyweight list, you will find that NONE of them have the type of losses, to the type of opponents that Wlad has lost to within the 1st 10 years of their career(s).

And Pac had some bad losses early in his career, but he also didn't have a 140+ amateur fight background and a olympic gold medal...not to mention he was a adolescent for a couple of those losses.

I didn't vote for Wlad in the poll, I voted for Lewis. I just think people make too big a deal about the loss.

[nomadman]

You're delusional. Tyson's resume is based on being champ so early and getting ahold of an old Larry Holmes. Wladimir has already passed him in both resume and all time standing.

I rank the Holmes win pretty damn highly. Holmes wasn't nearly as past it as people assumed, yet Tyson demolished him. That earns big stars from me.

Wlad's got the consistency going for him.

I'd say there's an argument for both.

[joseph5620]

You're delusional. Tyson's resume is based on being champ so early and getting ahold of an old Larry Holmes. Wladimir has already passed him in both resume and all time standing.

Dude, Tyson's legacy is not built around the Holmes fight. Stop lying. Everybody knows Holmes was way past his best days. Tyson's legacy is based on becoming undisputed heavyweight champion while destroying a good number of top fighters.


And of course his age is considered. Especially since you probably excuse Wlad for losing to the likes of Ross Puritty who Tyson never would have lost to at 21 or 22. Tyson was already a world champion at that age.

[Mr. Invincible]

Try again.

Don't need to try. Vitali's never been knocked down as a pro. You keep trying knucklehead hater.

[-Deal With It-]

You're delusional. Tyson's resume is based on being champ so early and getting ahold of an old Larry Holmes. Wladimir has already passed him in both resume and all time standing.

[IMG]http://i201.***********.com/albums/aa32/lo9991/laughing-nigras.gif[/IMG]

I rank the Holmes win pretty damn highly. Holmes wasn't nearly as past it as people assumed, yet Tyson demolished him. That earns big stars from me.

Wlad's got the consistency going for him.

I'd say there's an argument for both.

There's no argument whatsoever to rank Wlad ahead of Tyson. None.

Not even slightly debatable.

Don't need to try. Vitali's never been knocked down as a pro. You keep trying knucklehead hater.

Adjust your bifocals.


Sanders threw punches, they connected, Vitali hits the canvas.

Knockdown!

[Money Shot]

I rank the Holmes win pretty damn highly. Holmes wasn't nearly as past it as people assumed, yet Tyson demolished him. That earns big stars from me.

Wlad's got the consistency going for him.

I'd say there's an argument for both.

The 1988 Holmes KO is Tyson's best win I agree. After that it was downhill all the way.


On Corrie Sanders, and since you are a big Lewis fan, Levi Billups goes the distance with Mr Lewis and in his next fight is blasted KO1 by Sanders. IMO Sanders would have creamed Bruno. Bruno hated and avoided fighting anybody who was A. fast. B. A noted big puncher and C. Younger than him. Ruddock was also a lesser fighter than Sanders. No effective jab, and a questionable chin spells KO loss if he'd fought prime Sanders. I'd still rate Ruddock slightly higher than Bruno by the way.