Reason's Why Wladimir Klitschko Is Not An ATG

[Simurgh]

Career defining meaning that when he beat that opponent, that solidified his greatness. So, what is Wlad's win that would suggest he's great?

Haye isn't that good, never was and is a 6-fight heavyweight veteran. Povetkin, as I mentioned, will be determined in hindsight. Wlad's problem is the division is too weak to have a career defining win. Essentially though, it's not Wlad's problem, it is what it is. Weak era? So what, he'll most likely go down as a HoFer, but great? No.

Holmes is a great example, take away a couple of his wins and he's on par with the likes of Wlad. But in those wins he proved his greatness, Wlad's greatness can only be speculated.

How many times Spinks (natural light HW) fought at HW before beating Holmes TWICE?!

[D-MiZe]

Longevity & dominance don't count for much when the competition is weak.

Nor is he an ATG regardless as he's regarded by most not to be an ATG. To me, all an ATG needs to do is prove himself. Sal Sanchez only held his belt for 2 years but is considered by most to be an ATG.

Resumes, 99% of the time are fact. Who you beat and how you beat them, the odd occasion there is robberies etc. But it's a record of proven ability, Wlad's claim to greatness is speculation.

Wlad doesn't really have any 'special' attributes either. He utilises a style that maximises his physical gifts, strong jab, powerful right cross, snapping left hook, quick feet but nothing that I'd consider 'special'.

[Simurgh]

Longevity & dominance don't count for much when the competition is weak.

Nor is he an ATG regardless as he's regarded by most not to be an ATG. To me, all an ATG needs to do is prove himself. Sal Sanchez only held his belt for 2 years but is considered by most to be an ATG.

Resumes, 99% of the time are fact. Who you beat and how you beat them, the odd occasion there is robberies etc. But it's a record of proven ability, Wlad's claim to greatness is speculation.

Wlad doesn't really have any 'special' attributes either. He utilises a style that maximises his physical gifts, strong jab, powerful right cross, snapping left hook, quick feet but nothing that I'd consider 'special'.

I will go with Emanuel's opinion...

“Wlad has the best footwork, co-ordination and balance of any fighter I have ever worked with. He’s the most accurate, single-punch knockout guy I have seen.

A guy can be completely fine, not hurt, and Wladimir can put his lights out with one shot.

He is the most powerful natural talent I have worked with. In terms of jab, Wladimir is the best and after him I would put Lennox.

Lewis was a more versatile fighter but in terms of boxing arsenal, Wladimir is better.”

I don't mind how someone ranks the fighters. It's personal and subjective. What I mind is when someone tries to prove how his own views are right and of others are wrong.

I won't try to convince noone Wlad is ATG. I believe he is and many do. Whoever doesn't, that's fine, but don't trying to convince other how they are wrong and you are right only because your subjective criteria or affinities towards particular fighter are not fulfilled.

I have some stuff to do now... will drop by later this evening.

[D-MiZe]

How many times Spinks (natural light HW) fought at HW before beating Holmes TWICE?!

What's your point?

Are you trying to say that means Holmes is shit because he was beaten by a LHW? Just some average Joe LHW too? Against a 36 year old Holmes...




The point isn't so much that he's only fought at heavyweight 6 times, in Holyfield's 7th fight he fought for the undisputed heavyweight title. Who has Haye fought?

[D-MiZe]

I will go with Emanuel's opinion...

“Wlad has the best footwork, co-ordination and balance of any fighter I have ever worked with. He’s the most accurate, single-punch knockout guy I have seen.

A guy can be completely fine, not hurt, and Wladimir can put his lights out with one shot.

He is the most powerful natural talent I have worked with. In terms of jab, Wladimir is the best and after him I would put Lennox.

Lewis was a more versatile fighter but in terms of boxing arsenal, Wladimir is better.”

I don't mind how someone ranks the fighters. It's personal and subjective. What I mind is when someone tries to prove how his own views are right and of others are wrong.

I won't try to convince noone Wlad is ATG. I believe he is and many do. Whoever doesn't, that's fine, but don't trying to convince other how they are wrong and you are right only because your subjective criteria or affinities towards particular fighter are not fulfilled.

I have some stuff to do now... will drop by later this evening.

That's ironic, you said he was an ATG regardless, thus you're the one asserting that you're right and I'm wrong.

I don't need to convince anyone Wlad isn't an ATG, something I started early on in the thread, as the majority consider him not to be. You must put forth a case as to why he's an ATG. You mention longevity, I say that doesn't matter if the competition is weak. I asked for the fighter that proves Wlad's greatness and was given Chris Byrd as an answer.

I really don't have to do anything but ask you simple questions. When you answer truthfully, it's painfully obvious he's lacking. Steward isn't going to talk bad about Wlad either, I'll take what he says with a pinch of salt considering he trained some great fighters not least Tommy Hearns, who's knock out of Duran surpasses anything Wlad has done with one punch.

But anyway, that's the opinion of Steward. When has he ever proven these great attributes and if so, against whom?

Again, when you answer, look at your answer for a minute and ponder how good that fighter is/was.

[BattlingNelson]

Let's take a look at Demise's 'logic' here shall we.

We want to determine who's the greatest fighter.

1: Bernard Hopkins or Willie Monroe?

2: Vinny Pazienza or Tommy Hearns?

3: Ezzard Charles or Wlad Klitschko?


Now we putting Demise's barometer of truth on these questions. This means the answers are as follows:

1: Willi Monroe > Hopkins because Monroe's best win is over Marvin Hagler and that win is better than any win Hopkins ever had.

2: Vinny Paz > Tommy Hearns. That one is even clearer. Hearns's best win is Roberto Duran. So clearly Paz is better in ATG standing because Paz has TWO wins over Duran!

3: Demise answered that one above.

[D-MiZe]

Let's take a look at Demise's 'logic' here shall we.

We want to determine who's the greatest fighter.

1: Bernard Hopkins or Willie Monroe?

2: Vinny Pazienza or Tommy Hearns?

3: Ezzard Charles or Wlad Klitschko?


Now we putting Demise's barometer of truth on these questions. This means the answers are as follows:

1: Willi Monroe > Hopkins because Monroe's best win is over Marvin Hagler and that win is better than any win Hopkins ever had.

2: Vinny Paz > Tommy Hearns. That one is even clearer. Hearns's best win is Roberto Duran. So clearly Paz is better in ATG standing because Paz has TWO wins over Duran!

3: Demise answered that one above.

Batt, the jokes on you.

If you're really that naive to make such a stupid assumption, it only reflects poorly on you. Ezzard Charles has the greater heavyweight resume, based on the fact he beat a better fighter than Wlad has ever faced. If you actually want to compare Charles & Klitschko as the greater fighter though, you almost certainly lose.

In fact, you most certainly do. How you think Klitschko even comes close to Charles as a fighter is astonishing. As a heavyweight, he'd most likely beat the much smaller Charles in a mythical h2h match-up. But I don't deal in myth or fantasy, Charles proved himself against better competition.

Bert Sugar has Charles as the 7th best heavyweight of all time, take from that what you will.

[BattlingNelson]

Batt, the jokes on you.

If you're really that naive to make such a stupid assumption, it only reflects poorly on you. Ezzard Charles has the greater heavyweight resume, based on the fact he beat a better fighter than Wlad has ever faced. If you actually want to compare Charles & Klitschko as the greater fighter though, you almost certainly lose.

In fact, you most certainly do. How you think Klitschko even comes close to Charles as a fighter is astonishing. As a heavyweight, he'd most likely beat the much smaller Charles in a mythical h2h match-up. But I don't deal in myth or fantasy, Charles proved himself against better competition.

Bert Sugar has Charles as the 7th best heavyweight of all time, take from that what you will.

No. The joke is on you and your insane logic - Better single win - Higher ATG ranking.

That's seriously funny. I hope you are joking though.

[yoz]

I'd say Lewis stocks the greater one-punch knockout power. Wladimir has power, but tends to wear his opponents down before detonating several BIG shots.

[Simurgh]

I'd say Lewis stocks the greater one-punch knockout power. Wladimir has power, but tends to wear his opponents down before detonating several BIG shots.

lennox had some serious power, but I still think wlad is harder puncher (one punch).
he KOed many guys with the single punch. Lewis did that to, but emanuel, even before he started training wlad, said that wlad's straight is the most devastating punch he saw.

He repeated that many times after comparing it to lewis. I see no reason why would manny insist on that particular thing if he didn't believe in it.