Which of these Heavyweight Champs got the LEAST gift decisions in their careers?

[JAB5239]

I'm not saying dismiss the losses, but it needs to be noted that the Sanders loss was the only one that was as cut and dry as most of the Klitschko wins. A loss by the rules is still a loss, but everything has to be taken into consideration. You don't see everyone writing off Marquez because Manny beat him twice. There's a reason for that.

Wlad had the Purity fight all but won and ran out of gas and the same happened in the Brewster fight. It was obvious. The only fight he lost where there was nothing strange going on was Sanders where he got caught cold underestimating the sniper.

Vitali, we all know his only two losses were controversial. Legitimate but nonetheless, controversial considering how he was winning both fights before injury.

The guy I was writing to seemed like he was trying to say the Klitschko losses were all just as cut and dry as their wins, which clearly is far from the truth. You know it and I know it.

Dude, do you even read what you write? By "noting" these fights you are in essence putting an asterisk next to them and still using the excuse "but they were winning".
Fights are 12 rounds. It doesn't matter who was winning...its who won. Brewster and Puritty didn't just win because Wlad gassed, the won because the took everything Wlad brought and were tough enough to survive and smart enough to remain relaxed and not gas out themselves. Its a disservice to boxing and its fans to try and takethat away from them by saying, "but Wlad was winning".

[Mr. Invincible]

Dude, do you even read what you write? By "noting" these fights you are in essence putting an asterisk next to them and still using the excuse "but they were winning".
Fights are 12 rounds. It doesn't matter who was winning...its who won. Brewster and Puritty didn't just win because Wlad gassed, the won because the took everything Wlad brought and were tough enough to survive and smart enough to remain relaxed and not gas out themselves. Its a disservice to boxing and its fans to try and takethat away from them by saying, "but Wlad was winning".

Sure I read what I write. It makes perfect sense to people who don't have a negative agenda and who don't just come on here to troll a certain set of fighters. People like you just have to hang on to what they can get that is negative about the Klitschko's because there's not much. That's what haters do. It's pathetic, don't you see that? That' right, you don't.

Next, who's talking about an asterisk? I said they were winning near the end of the bout, therefore not some kind of blowout as the other guy suggested. Reply to posts where I'm talking to you instead of trolling around my posts and maybe what you say would mean something. Losses are losses, but there's more to it. Just like how somebody on here kept saying Whitaker had a win over Chavez when in fact he didn't. It was a draw and according to you should be treated as such because the books say that. I guess it's that simple to you. Perhaps you would feel different if you gave a crap for the Kbros as it seems your opinion changes for certain fighters, just like everybody else, yet you claim to be unbias and neutral. It's a joke. You need to reach deep inside your a55 and pull out whatever has gotten into it, it may do you some good my internet forum dictator.

P.S. You will respond like always but it's useless because I'm done with this thread.

[JAB5239]

Sure I read what I write. It makes perfect sense to people who don't have a negative agenda and who don't just come on here to troll a certain set of fighters. People like you just have to hang on to what they can get that is negative about the Klitschko's because there's not much. That's what haters do. It's pathetic, don't you see that? That' right, you don't.

Like I said in the other thread, you need to pick and choose which of my posts to respond to because if you respond to where I have positive things to say it just blows your "hater" theory out of the water. The problem with you and you kind that idolize is you're not objective and can't handle criticism of your heroes. I'm a fan of the sport, clowns like you are a fan of certain fighters and can't keep an open mind.

Next, who's talking about an asterisk? I said they were winning near the end of the bout, therefore not some kind of blowout as the other guy suggested. Reply to posts where I'm talking to you instead of trolling around my posts and maybe what you say would mean something. Losses are losses, but there's more to it. Just like how somebody on here kept saying Whitaker had a win over Chavez when in fact he didn't. It was a draw and according to you should be treated as such because the books say that. I guess it's that simple to you. Perhaps you would feel different if you gave a crap for the Kbros as it seems your opinion changes for certain fighters, just like everybody else, yet you claim to be unbias and neutral. It's a joke. You need to reach deep inside your a55 and pull out whatever has gotten into it, it may do you some good my internet forum dictator.

No, you make excuses for why they lost and assumptions that they would have won if not for say "running out of gas" or "getting cut". And I've never claimed the Whitaker-Chavez fight was anything but a draw. Blatantly bad scoring though and the OVERWHELMING majority agree on this. Where not talking about a fight the never saw the final bell so we can deduce what actually happened and judge for ourselves instead of just guessing in our heroes favor. And I'll respond to any post I like, kid.

P.S. You will respond like always but it's useless because I'm done with this thread.

Nah, you won't respond because you can't handle the truth. You'll tuck tail and run just like you did in the other thread where you COULDN'T show ANY proof of your ridiculous claims or come up with any logical answers to my questions. You're an armchair internet tough guy who has never even stepped foot in a ring but thinks he knows more than guys who cover the sport for a living and greats who have actually fought. So tell me again, why is it no experts have complained of Lewis using his gloves, laces, hair and elbows to make Vitaly's cuts worse? Oh that's right, because he was doing nothing illegal, its just the delusions of an armchair warrior who's ass is sore because his hero lost.

[Superflo777]

The guy who started this thread should read my thread of interviewing Karl the GREAT GERMAN CHAMPION. Who himself bashed Klithsckos. Bashed by one of the German heroes who's country K2 is using. lol Fuking foreigners

They're loved and respected by most of them, like it or not.

[titanium]

Freedom, how come you don't do those heavyweight schedules anymore? I used to like to see who was fighting who.

[raskat]

The guy who started this thread should read my thread of interviewing Karl the GREAT GERMAN CHAMPION. Who himself bashed Klithsckos. Bashed by one of the German heroes who's country K2 is using. lol Fuking foreigners

Karl Mildenberger is basically UNKNOWN in germany. Im austrian so I know whats going on in germany. Mildenberger's claim to fame is getting beaten up by Muhammad Ali, the Klitschkos' claim to fame is dominating the heavyweight division for a decade.
germany loves the Klitschkos and always did. they adopted them as "germans" since ages.

[nomadman]

I got 13 fight between cruiser and heavy leading into the Vitaly fight. Thats still only a total of 47 fights for these 3 fighters. Thats an average of 15.2 fights per fighter. All Im saying is these guys are just very inexperienced.

Compared to other career heavyweights sure. As a boxer, however, Adamek's far from inexperienced. His LHW fights (which don't forget would have been fought at around the mid 180s on fight night, perhaps higher, given how much he drained to make weight) would have qualified him on weight alone as an opponent in some past eras. That's why it's not really fair to dismiss his LHW fights when comparing him to an opponent from, say, Louis's era. Critisise him on skill, stylistic flaws etc all you like, but IMO the weight issue doesn't really hold water... pardon the pun.

[JAB5239]

Compared to other career heavyweights sure. As a boxer, however, Adamek's far from inexperienced. His LHW fights (which don't forget would have been fought at around the mid 180s on fight night, perhaps higher, given how much he drained to make weight) would have qualified him on weight alone as an opponent in some past eras. That's why it's not really fair to dismiss his LHW fights when comparing him to an opponent from, say, Louis's era. Critisise him on skill, stylistic flaws etc all you like, but IMO the weight issue doesn't really hold water... pardon the pun.

Good points!