Better resume Holmes or Wladimir

[hweightblogger]

So what you're saying is, if Tyson had've tryed to say, box Spinks conservatively off his backfoot, the outcome of that would've been exactly the same?

1) Michael Spinks belongs there where Tyson put him.

2) Wlad vs Spinks would be another proof of how the current division sucks.

3) Michael Spinks is and was a nobody at heavyweight. That he beat Holmes (TWICE!) shows you how bad Holmes was and how bad Holmes' era was.

4) Footwork for a resume/record is totally completely irrelevant. You can have superb footwork and yet your resume can suck.

5) Arguing with footwork is a poor man's (= nostalgist's) way of showing that one has no clue. It's one of the last resorts when stats = facts tell a different story. It's typical for AliFants, who live in fantasy land, where footwork means everything and punching power means nothing. Where a half-blind featherfisted dwarf (Joe Frazier) or a 34-11 guy coming off a loss (Chuvalo) is a proof of the quality of an era, yet top rated unbeaten guys of the Klitschko era are "stiffs".

6) Oscar De La Hoya could have the best footwork the universe has ever seen. Oscar would still lose against Tyson (who is smaller than Oscar) or Wlad (who is taller). Footwork at heavyweight means nothing if you don't have other assets. Additionally footwork means nothing if your opponent has a) better footwork or b) better anti-footwork (= can neutralize your footwork). So far Wladimir Klitschko is the best neutralizer the world has ever seen. He bummifies even top opponents.

Get this in your head: The result counts, not if someone can do the moonwalk in the ring.

[IMDAZED]

1) Michael Spinks belongs there where Tyson put him.

2) Wlad vs Spinks would be another proof of how the current division sucks.

3) Michael Spinks is and was a nobody at heavyweight. That he beat Holmes (TWICE!) shows you how bad Holmes was and how bad Holmes' era was.

4) Footwork for a resume/record is totally completely irrelevant. You can have superb footwork and yet your resume can suck.

5) Arguing with footwork is a poor man's (= nostalgist's) way of showing that one has no clue. It's one of the last resorts when stats = facts tell a different story. It's typical for AliFants, who live in fantasy land, where footwork means everything and punching power means nothing. Where a half-blind featherfisted dwarf (Joe Frazier) or a 34-11 guy coming off a loss (Chuvalo) is a proof of the quality of an era, yet top rated unbeaten guys of the Klitschko era are "stiffs".

6) Oscar De La Hoya could have the best footwork the universe has ever seen. Oscar would still lose against Tyson (who is smaller than Oscar) or Wlad (who is taller). Footwork at heavyweight means nothing if you don't have other assets. Additionally footwork means nothing if your opponent has a) better footwork or b) better anti-footwork (= can neutralize your footwork). So far Wladimir Klitschko is the best neutralizer the world has ever seen. He bummifies even top opponents.

Get this in your head: The result counts, not if someone can do the moonwalk in the ring.

[ArtThouFurious?]

1) Michael Spinks belongs there where Tyson put him.

2) Wlad vs Spinks would be another proof of how the current division sucks.

3) Michael Spinks is and was a nobody at heavyweight. That he beat Holmes (TWICE!) shows you how bad Holmes was and how bad Holmes' era was.

4) Footwork for a resume/record is totally completely irrelevant. You can have superb footwork and yet your resume can suck.

5) Arguing with footwork is a poor man's (= nostalgist's) way of showing that one has no clue. It's one of the last resorts when stats = facts tell a different story. It's typical for AliFants, who live in fantasy land, where footwork means everything and punching power means nothing. Where a half-blind featherfisted dwarf (Joe Frazier) or a 34-11 guy coming off a loss (Chuvalo) is a proof of the quality of an era, yet top rated unbeaten guys of the Klitschko era are "stiffs".

6) Oscar De La Hoya could have the best footwork the universe has ever seen. Oscar would still lose against Tyson (who is smaller than Oscar) or Wlad (who is taller). Footwork at heavyweight means nothing if you don't have other assets. Additionally footwork means nothing if your opponent has a) better footwork or b) better anti-footwork (= can neutralize your footwork). So far Wladimir Klitschko is the best neutralizer the world has ever seen. He bummifies even top opponents.

Get this in your head: The result counts, not if someone can do the moonwalk in the ring.

An absolutely gutwrenching level of stupidity on display here.

I'm seriously embarrassed for you, sir.

[Simurgh]

So who are Holmes' 3 best wins? (don't count Ali)

[ArtThouFurious?]

So who are Holmes' 3 best wins? (don't count Ali)

3 guys that have never been KO'd by a fat 40 year old golfer.

[Simurgh]

3 guys that have never been KO'd by a fat 40 year old golfer.

...

[D-MiZe]

I would go with Byrd. He himself beat 3 ATG/HOF (Vitali, Holyfield and Tua). Although not in their primes and not convincingly but still.. The thing is I believe Haye would be even better than Byrd if he dedicated himself to boxing without taking an easier paths. But Haye is HOF/ATF at cruiseweight, no doubt.

But Wlad has other very good, notable wins (Botha, Mercer, McCline, Brewster, Peter, Ibragimov, Thomson 1st fight, Chagaev, Chambers, Haye). These are all very good/excellent wins.

Haye's rating at cruiserweight is only good because of how shallow that division is currently. Tua isn't HOF, Holyfield was coming off a loss/draw from John Ruiz and Vitali was leading on all the cards by at least 5 points before the fight was stopped due to injury.

Stop kidding yourself.

[Simurgh]

Haye's rating at cruiserweight is only good because of how shallow that division is currently. Tua isn't HOF, Holyfield was coming off a loss/draw from John Ruiz and Vitali was leading on all the cards by at least 5 points before the fight was stopped due to injury.

Stop kidding yourself.

You asked me for an opinion. I gone by resume. And resume says he beat 3 HOF/ATG. I have Tua at the bottom of HOF... (I don't have a problem with someone who doesn't).

But I also listed other 10-ish very good fighters Wlad beat with ease.

P.S. Nice monkey...

[hweightblogger]

An absolutely gutwrenching level of stupidity on display here.

I'm seriously embarrassed for you, sir.

Translation: You got busted by facts.

I also want to remind everyone here how AliFants switch their arguing strategy. To hype up past time boxers they use "Oh, wow, what a footwork". To downgrade current boxers they use "Whom has he beaten?". Suddenly footwork doesn't count.

[JAB5239]

Translation: You got busted by facts.

I also want to remind everyone here how AliFants switch their arguing strategy. To hype up past time boxers they use "Oh, wow, what a footwork". To downgrade current boxers they use "Whom has he beaten?". Suddenly footwork doesn't count.

The overall level of Ali's opponents and their footwork far surpass today's sorry division. Live with it.