Wlad surpasses Holmes...

[LacedUp]

you're a good poster, but you're not the only guy in the thread (and keep in mind, i said "these threads," meaning that there are others about which i am speaking,) unless you got a slew of alts of your own, rofl.

Sorry mate. I gotcha. I know a couple of his alts and they are all on my ignore - just to dilute the troll posts in my threads.

You can usually tell who they are on their agressive racist tones.

[Hitman932]

Just imagine how badly Klitschko would be crucified if he made as many defenses against completely awful fighters as Holmes did.

Holmes resume is littered not only with guys who were average but most of the decent ones he beat before they ever gained any experience.

Holmes actually fought 4 consecutive fights against opponents with 16 or less career fights while he was the undisputed champion. Of his title defenses 9 of them came against men with less than 20 career wins.

Imagine how much Klitschko critics would cry if Wladimir did the same thing.

[LacedUp]

Just imagine how badly Klitschko would be crucified if he made as many defenses against completely awful fighters as Holmes did.

Holmes resume is littered not only with guys who were average but most of the decent ones he beat before they ever gained any experience.

Holmes actually fought 4 consecutive fights against opponents with 16 or less career fights while he was the undisputed champion. Of his title defenses 9 of them came against men with less than 20 career wins.

Imagine how much Klitschko critics would cry if Wladimir did the same thing.

You realize you are talking about the guy who signed up to fight Chisora with 14 fights (twice) right?

You also realize that this is the guy who recently went 12 rounds with a guy who's best win was Kevin McBride right? And the same guy who fought Pianeta who's most noticable win came 2-3 fights before he fought Wlad, against the guy Audley Harrison KOd in one round on his pro debut, right?

Both Holmes and Wlad fought some crap fights. This thread isn't supposed to be about who's got the deeper résumé.

[El Angel]

Sometimes he is. But he lets his hate cloud his judgement to a crazy extent. He also back pedals as soon as he can't back something up.

I liked how everyone agreed Haye didn't run against Wlad.... Except him

[LacedUp]

I liked how everyone agreed Haye didn't run against Wlad.... Except him

And everyone else were delusional. Haha

[Weltschmerz]

Wladimir is among the top 5 greatest heavyweights of all time.

[Jam Jars]

Wladimir is among the top 5 greatest heavyweights of all time.

If that was true it would be because they needed their shoes shining.

[LacedUp]

Wladimir is among the top 5 greatest heavyweights of all time.

That's it.

Back on ignore.

[andrewa1]

Someone could hold a thousand belts , everyone knows Holmes was the champ. He beat the man. Just because someone picked up a vacant WBA belt and passed along around 10 times in a decade doesn't negate that fact.

For example, who's the super middle weight champion? That's right.

That a bs, completely subjective criteria, and not even accurate. At the time, here was initially much less certainty that Holmes was the best HW champ than there was that WK was. Holmes got the respect after beating decrepit Ali, 7 or 8 fights into his 20 defenses. As far as belts, there aren't a thousand. There are a limited number of legit belts, all of which draw top competitors. The champ of each belt deserves respect and to be called a champ. We can then have meaningful debates about which champ is the superior one. Holmes refusal to unify hurts him somewhat in ATG standings, and allows greater debate than probably would have been necessary had he defended. For instance, most of Joe Frazier's title defenses came with the pitiful NYSAC belt, but then unified against Ellis. But NYSAC still drew top competitors and I count those in his title defense reign (and most analysts etc also count those for the same reasons).

[LacedUp]

That a bs, completely subjective criteria, and not even accurate. At the time, here was initially much less certainty that Holmes was the best HW champ than there was that WK was. Holmes got the respect after beating decrepit Ali, 7 or 8 fights into his 20 defenses. As far as belts, there aren't a thousand. There are a limited number of legit belts, all of which draw top competitors. The champ of each belt deserves respect and to be called a champ. We can then have meaningful debates about which champ is the superior one. Holmes refusal to unify hurts him somewhat in ATG standings, and allows greater debate than probably would have been necessary had he defended. For instance, most of Joe Frazier's title defenses came with the pitiful NYSAC belt, but then unified against Ellis. But NYSAC still drew top competitors and I count those in his title defense reign (and most analysts etc also count those for the same reasons).

Are you serious? Holmes was considered the best long before he fought Ali. Ali didn't way to fight Holmes, that's why they fought so late.

Can't you see that it's contradictory to have multiple 'champs' in one division, since the word itself describes the undisputed best. The WBA belt which was the only other belt at the time was held and fought for by people not even ranked. It would be like saying the winner of the premier league and the winner of the 1. Division are both champions of England.

There's one champ. Wlad became that in 2009.