Do Wlad's 3 defeats hamper his ATG status?

[Szef]

When you say 'we' are all about facts, you are clearly referring to the tiresome Vitali threads. Don't try to deny that.

Don't refer to my ban, you have been banned ten times. This was my first.

No, it was not.

[LacedUp]

I def would have him ahead of Charles. Not sure on Marciano as far as a ratings thing yet but I think he beats Rock. Rock might give a tougher fight to some others guys though like Holy or Ali or Louis or Holmes who I think would beat Wlad up.

Wlad being a bad match doesn't make every great a bad match. Some guys handled size better.

I would probably agree. Not as a fighter overall of course, Ezzard ices him in that department, but in the HW division, it's possible. I think Wlad could beat a lot of the guys I mentioned potentially. But I don't see how that influences their greatness. I also think Riddick Bowe would beat a lot of the guys I mentioned, but I don't rank him higher either. I base them on who they fought and how they looked against who they fought, and for Wlad, that hasn't been top 10 material let's be honest.

[LacedUp]

No, it was not.

Yes it was?

Edit: You are right, it was my second. Forgot that.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I can't see Langford, Charles, Frazier, Holyfield above Wlad.

Furthermore I wouldn't put Dempsey or Holmes above either.

OMG ,,, Holmes is top 5 all time,, frazier and holyfield would rob wlad of his manhood,,,, Charles and langford would have trouble with wlad, but those guys are blown up lhw.....

Holmes, frazier and holyfield would beat wlad h2h,,,,,,,,

[Simurgh]

Frazier, Holmes, Holyfield and Dempsey are absolutely higher than Wlad!

What exactly would make Wlad feature higher than Holmes on any list? Holmes has the better wins, fought in 4 different decades, had a longer reign of the genuine title and had more exciting fights.

Wlad is absolutely below Holmes on all accounts.

I don't buy too much into the 'genuine title' thing. It's much more difficult to unify now than it used to be. Boxing became more about the money.

Furthermore, I don't think Holmes has significantly better resume if at all. He lost twice against LHW who was fighting at HW for the first time. Category of 'excitement' I don't rate, as it's subjective thing.

Fraizer was the third in his generation (brilliant generation, but still). Yes he had brilliant win against Ali but don't forget how he was blasted against Foreman.

Holyfiled absolutely no. He ruined it by not retiring on time. How many lost he has by now. Plus he is very suspicious for drug use.

Dempsey, hm... I don't know maybe. Depending how one rates those 'very old' times.

[crold1]

Frazier, Holmes, Holyfield and Dempsey are absolutely higher than Wlad!

What exactly would make Wlad feature higher than Holmes on any list? Holmes has the better wins, fought in 4 different decades, had a longer reign of the genuine title and had more exciting fights.

Wlad is absolutely below Holmes on all accounts.

Not sure on Dempsey but I def agree on Holmes and Holy. Holy was arguably the best, or second best, in the second best era in the history of the division. He had one shaky/bad loss to Moorer near his prime but he had a slew of excellent wins and I though the Lewis fights had the right scores in reverse order (meaning Lewis won the first clean but Holy held a draw past his prime in the rematch).

That's a push/pull throughout Heavyweight history though. Dominant champs often reside over lesser eras (Johnson in terms of the white title challengers club he stuck too almost exclusively, Louis, Holmes, Wlad). It's harder to run mine fields unscathed. This era has better fighters than it sometimes gets credited for but it has lacked in terms of offensive juggernauts or some of the explosiveness, conditioned, and stamina we've seen in other eras. I think Holmes, until he got a little conservative after Cooney, faced generally better opposition than Wlad has. I'm not sure Louis beat better in his clean out of the 30s.

But Louis doesn't have a Purrity on his ledger either. I can excuse Purrity to a degree, but it can't be ignored.

The era is not Wlad's fault. His reign is long and merits mention with the great champs IMO.

I reserve the right to rethink all of this whenever I want.

[StarshipTrooper]

If you read my previous post, you'd understand how I feel about it.

Don't expect anything else from a person who can't argue his points. Turning to insults in adversity - true fanboy style. Thumbs up.

I'm pretty sure he's just jealous that you have a set and he doesn't hence his desire to kick them :cool9:

[Godsfly]

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.

yea, and ken norton is not in my top 15 wlad is around 20 somewhere right behind norton at this point.


you have to compare the level of competition & not just "what you did in your era" because another guys era might be a lot tougher and rougher then the next guys. tony thompson, chris Arreola, Bermane Stiverne, Odlanier Solis, Tyson Fury, Robert Helenius. are all chubby guys (or even fat) these are all top 10 top 5 heavyweights of today. it's ridiculous and unacceptable. I'm not gonna compare a weak era to a tougher era & say "it's about what you did in your era" do you think wlad could actually do the samething in a era fighting foreman? he'd get knocked out too.....so what. he's already been ko'd by purity, sanders & brewster.

but let me break it down for you in another way because you don't get the whole norton & level of competition thing. you don't understand that competition is what makes the fighter as great as he is.......without that (or piss poor comp) its a big hole in any resume..........you don't understand that so i will put it in another way.

ok, so you have wlad in the top 15......


which of these fighters is he greater then?

Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Jack Dempsey
Jack Johnson
Rocky Marciano
Evander Holyfield
gorge foreman
larry holmes
joe fraizer
mike tyson
lenoxx lewis
Sonny Liston
ezzard charles
Gene Tunney
sam langford

?

[Jc8804]

Wlads career has showed he would be beat by true b level fighter that are well rounded . Or even great at one thing.
His punch resitance and inside game are
Am level.

His hug a thon clinch style is horrible and works vs average guys
But vs good B fighter s and elite wlads arce hole gets bigger .

Guys like holmes,tyson, louis beat him up

[LacedUp]

I don't buy too much into the 'genuine title' thing. It's much more difficult to unify now than it used to be. Boxing became more about the money.

Furthermore, I don't think Holmes has significantly better resume if at all. He lost twice against LHW who was fighting at HW for the first time. Category of 'excitement' I don't rate, as it's subjective thing.

Fraizer was the third in his generation (brilliant generation, but still). Yes he had brilliant win against Ali but it don't forget how he was blasted against Foreman.

Holyfiled absolutely no. He ruined it by not retiring on time. How many lost he has by now. Plus he is very suspicious for drug use.

Dempsey, hm... I don't know maybe. Depending how one rate those 'very old' times.

I won't argue with the fact that it's harder to unify nowadays than it was back then. But that's not really the point, because Holmes wasn't unified champ. He was WBC and then IBF champ when that was made. But he was the TRUE champion. You had to beat Holmes to say you were the true champ. Wlad wasn't really THE champ before he fought Chagaev, or if you're kind, Ibragimov, if you're hard on him, Haye. Regardless of brotherhood, Vitali has been ranked either right below or right above him his entire career. Therefore it's hard to say exactly who is actually the champ. Now we can say it's Wlad, but imagine if they weren't brothers and they never fought.

Holmes lost once to Spinks, when he was totally out of his prime. Yet still managed to come back and beat him imo and go on to fight a further 15 or so years and rack up some good wins. His resume is comparable to Wlad's but still better. Frazier was not third at all, he was numero uno as he beat a somewhat prime Ali and gave Ali his first loss. Even at that time, Frazier was probably seeing the end of his prime.

Frazier might have been blasted by Foreman, but Wlad got blasted by Brewster! Which is worse? Frazier doesn't get the credit he deserves for being an absolutely outstanding fighter.

Holyfield? CW champion, genuine heavyweight champion for years, beating bowe, tyson, douglas, foreman, holmes, Moorer, Mercer etc etc. Probably one of the best resumes of all times in the hw division. Clearly in front of Wlad as well. I don't care about his fighting on for too long, it means nothing to me.