Do Wlad's 3 defeats hamper his ATG status?

[Weltschmerz]

Stop piggybacking off what others are saying and come with your own arguments. There are many things you can point out to argue that past/current fighters are better or worse than fighters from other eras. The eye test would be a good start. Level of competition, depth of the era, rankings, skill, resumes etc are others.

And all of your petty arguments are flushed down the toilet, since you have no 'proof'. You completely ducked my point. Tough luck.

[LacedUp]

ken Norton fought the greater competition. shavers, foreman, holmes, ali (yes ali was past prime) Jimmy Young, Quarry.


nortons best wins are young, quarry, Cobb (cobb who really beat buster douglas ko'd shavers. cobb had an all time chin and was one tough sob)

not to mention that norton gave A prime holmes hell. took him to hell and back...........when has wlad even fought someone like a prime holmes?

YES ken nortons (resume) is greater then wlads........i go by level competition. wlads competition is just too poor...........

I'm not hating on Norton or anything, but he wasn't an Elite fighter, as in THE guy of the division. He was 4th fiddle to the holy trinity at all stages in his career. He was seen as an opponent when he fought Ali the first time, broke Ali's jaw and made a name for himself. I can't disagree with the fact that he fought better competition, because he did. But it comes down to what you did your era, and Wlad has clearly done more in his era than Norton did in his. You can't argue with that.

Add to the fact that Norton often tried to be more like Joe Frazier than to be the true Ken Norton, he never really came out of the Frazier shell. He also lost when he stepped up, e.g against Holmes, Foreman, Shavers, Quarry etc. He was also knocked out early in his career.

Norton probably won against Ali the third time, but Ali was way past his prime at that stage. I think Norton probably edges in top 20 of all times. Wlad is somewhere around 13-16 in my book.

[LacedUp]

And all of your petty arguments are flushed down the toilet, since you have no 'proof'. You completely ducked my point. Tough luck.

So it's about proof? Says the guy who said Samuel Peter is a better version of Joe Frazier. Learn how to sort your arguments out according to the points you make whether they suit your agenda or not. You have incredible double standards, as long as they suit with your ridiculous unconditional love for the K bros.

And how did I duck your point? I met you head on and explained a number of ways of how you can determine greatness of fighters.

[Weltschmerz]

I'm not hating on Norton or anything, but he wasn't an Elite fighter. He was seen as an opponent when he fought Ali the first time, broke Ali's jaw and made a name for himself. I can't disagree with the fact that he fought better competition, because he did. But it comes down to what you did your era, and Wlad has clearly done more in his era than Norton did in his. You can't argue with that.

Add to the fact that Norton often tried to be more like Joe Frazier than to be the true Ken Norton, he never really came out of the Frazier shell. He also lost when he stepped up, e.g against Holmes, Foreman, Shavers, Quarry etc. He was also knocked out early in his career.

Norton probably won against Ali the third time, but Ali was way past his prime at that stage. I think Norton probably edges in top 20 of all times. Wlad is somewhere around 13-16 in my book.

Name 13-16 HW's above Wlad.

[Simurgh]

It doesn't put his ATG status in question, but of course it affects it.

If Wlad never lost the bout I would have him even higher. Atm he is top10 ATG in my book. He might be in top5 after he retires.

[A_Jeffrey]

I don't believe anybody defeats Wlad today, not even a Lennox Lewis pushing 50. But the three defeats Wlad had, to which extent do they damage his rep as an ATG HW?

Maybe Wlad's Eastern European background damages his rep as an ATG in the eyes of Americans? lol

[LacedUp]

Name 13-16 HW's above Wlad.

Ali, Frazier, Louis, Lewis, Holmes, Foreman, Johnson, Dempsey, Liston, Tyson, Charles, Marciano, Holyfield. After these guys I won't argue too much against putting Wlad up there next.

Then we can start talking about Walcott, Langford, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons etc. to a lot of people these guys would be higher. And I can see both sides of the argument.

But Wlad is not top 10, and certainly not top 5 as some people criminally claim he could be.

[Weltschmerz]

So it's about proof? Says the guy who said Samuel Peter is a better version of Joe Frazier. Learn how to sort your arguments out according to the points you make whether they suit your agenda or not. You have incredible double standards, as long as they suit with your ridiculous unconditional love for the K bros.

And how did I duck your point? I met you head on and explained a number of ways of how you can determine greatness of fighters.

Well yes since you Klitschko haters always want to keep it about 'facts'. You have no factual evidence for past contenders being stronger than today's.

[Weltschmerz]

Maybe Wlad's Eastern European background damages his rep as an ATG in the eyes of Americans? lol

This is evident and painstakingly obvious.

[Weltschmerz]

It doesn't put his ATG status in question, but of course it affects it.

If Wlad never lost the bout I would have him even higher. Atm he is top10 ATG in my book. He might be in top5 after he retires.

Good points made