Are The Klitschkos Some of The Worst Heavyweight Champions Of All Time?

[SN!PER]

It's the age of Michelin Man Millennials. A strange world of Arreolas and Andy Ruiz Juniors whose manboobs make the ring card girls jealous. Where Cuban Good Year Blimp Solis blows out his knee because his legs can't support his body. Where obese Joe Frazier wannabe Chisora gets manhandled by a British oaf who landed an uppercut on his own face.

[KBRO]

43-3 (42ko's) Thats a 91.3% of KO's. Doesn't matter who he beat according to you.

According to you watered down comp is as good as unified top 10 comp, so we need not even get into who Clark fought. The guy was obviously awesome and would be a legend today. Hell, Brian Neilsen must be an ATG in your book, he's got 9 world title wins and was 64-3 (43) and was 1-1 against HOFers and ATG's!

You're comparing apples to oranges.. Are the Klitschko's NOT joined undisputed heavyweight champions? That means there accomplishments have been made at the highest level of the heavyweight division... that means they have all the beltS that were previously held by other greats before them. They won the championship just as any other champion. What you're saying is that this year's super bowl champion or NBA champion or world series champion is somewhat inferior to past champions when all it's just an opinion.. you have no proof whatsoever past greats were greater..


If you had full 100% proof that those other greats cn beat a Klitschko then you'd be saying something as boxing is an individual sport... I wanna know since you think other champions were greater... then that must mean they beat a Klitschko head to head.. where I come from that is the determining factor... not who faced better fighters... can you actually say they can beat a Klitschko head to head as that is how you determine who is better when you've accomplished the same exact thing in terms of championship pedigree?

[JAB5239]

You're comparing apples to oranges.. Are the Klitschko's NOT joined undisputed heavyweight champions? That means there accomplishments have been made at the highest level of the heavyweight division... that means they have all the beltS that were previously held by other greats before them. They won the championship just as any other champion. What you're saying is that this year's super bowl champion or NBA champion or world series champion is somewhat inferior to past champions when all it's just an opinion.. you have no proof whatsoever past greats were greater..


If you had full 100% proof that those other greats cn beat a Klitschko then you'd be saying something as boxing is an individual sport... I wanna know since you think other champions were greater... then that must mean they beat a Klitschko head to head.. where I come from that is the determining factor... not who faced better fighters... can you actually say they can beat a Klitschko head to head as that is how you determine who is better when you've accomplished the same exact thing in terms of championship pedigree?

Fantasy fights are a determining factor in who's better? Um...ok. In the real world greatness is based on who you beat and who those opponents beat. I didn't figure you'd take my challenge though, it shoots down your whole "this era isn't weak" theory.

And boxing is not a tag team sport. Not sure if you realized that.

[KBRO]

Lol, he only beat a prime Ali and had 10 or 12 fights against Ring tated top 10 comp. How many has Vits had again?

LeT'S STOP ACTING like there weren't fragmented belts back in the day.. sure there's more fragmentation now but how quickly we forget champions of yesteryear like Bruce Seldon or Frans Botha.. for most of the 90's THERE were 3 separate champs.. 80's you had similar stuff going on until Tyson cleaned it up.. 70's even had one or two differing organizations.. when you have greedy boxing orgnizations & sleesy promoters this is a way of life.. Wlad beat 3 different titlists outright to get his belts.... Vitali retrieved his lone belt destroying Sanders & subsequentially 4 years out of the game straight to a title fight & retrieving it.. so let's not talk about excessive top 10 lists without remembering the immediate past.

[JAB5239]

LeT'S STOP ACTING like there weren't fragmented belts back in the day.. sure there's more fragmentation now but how quickly we forget champions of yesteryear like Bruce Seldon or Frans Botha.. for most of the 90's THERE were 3 separate champs.. 80's you had similar stuff going on until Tyson cleaned it up.. 70's even had one or two differing organizations.. when you have greedy boxing orgnizations & sleesy promoters this is a way of life.. Wlad beat 3 different titlists outright to get his belts.... Vitali retrieved his lone belt destroying Sanders & subsequentially 4 years out of the game straight to a title fight & retrieving it.. so let's not talk about excessive top 10 lists without remembering the immediate past.

Seldon and Botha were never thought of or seen as the real champ the way you want us to think of Vits. And please, lets do talk about the top 10 and do the comparison using the Rings rankings. You completely ignored that Quarry fought more Ring contenders than Vits, this shows you how watered down the era really is. The Klits are very good fighters and would be in any era. Lets not pretend though that this isn't an awful era, its unbecoming of any true fan of the sport.

[altparm]

Yeah the era is bad but I think their size alone presents problems to ATG hw's especially the shorter ones like Rocky, Tyson, Holy, Frazier, Tunney etc. Both Klits have very good amateur backgrounds so the boxing skills are there but the punch resistance of Wlad makes him more of a liability. It's hard to know where to place them all time.

[JAB5239]

Yeah the era is bad but I think their size alone presents problems to ATG hw's especially the shorter ones like Rocky, Tyson, Holy, Frazier, Tunney etc. Both Klits have very good amateur backgrounds so the boxing skills are there but the punch resistance of Wlad makes him more of a liability. It's hard to know where to place them all time.

Wlad has fought far more of the top fighters. I currently rank him 16th and expect him to crack the top 12 and probably top 10. Vits on the other hand has a very weak resume and has missed most of the Ring top 10 during his active years. Since being ranked and excluding the years hes missed he's fought 6 or 7 top 10 rated fighter while missing 24 others for one reason or another. H2h he's up there...tough guy...but I don't rank on who I think you can beat but rather who you've actually beaten. When it comes to that Vits misses the cut for all time greatness in my opinion.

[KBRO]

Fantasy fights are a determining factor in who's better? Um...ok. In the real world greatness is based on who you beat and who those opponents beat. I didn't figure you'd take my challenge though, it shoots down your whole "this era isn't weak" theory.

And boxing is not a tag team sport. Not sure if you realized that.

Again... opposition strength is all in the eye of the beholder.. when you're great.. opposition is secondary. Vitali Klitschko already has shown what he's capable of doing vs the very best of heavyweights in Lennox Lewis.. if this was his ONLY fight.. he'd already be thought of as a special fighter as he did things in this fight to Lennox that No OTHER heavyweight ever did to him & Lennox has faced according to most boxing scribes some of the best comp in the business.

He might have a loss vs him but he certainly proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he was just as good as him or better... so even if he faced 46 other stiffs.. doesn't matter because we know what he did against the very best.. so saying his comp which btw has been utterly destroyed by him is weaker is an oxy-moron.. He's faced the worst & he's faced the best so you have proof of what he does against ANY type of comp but let's keep on thinking that we DON'T know what Vitali is capable of doing vs any type of fighter..


47 have tried & 47 have failed miserably to try & outbox him.. no one has come close to outlanding him... outthrowing him.. outjabbing him.. landing more power shots.. that's 47 different fighters & not ONE o them has ever come close to even competing with him on ANY compubox statistic that involves quantity of punches landed.... this statistic is unheard for ANY champion in the history of boxing in any weight class but let's KEEP on not giving him the benefit of the doubt.. never once losing 3 rds in a bout in the judges eyes is ABSOLUTLE ridiculous even if he was fighting 47 tomatoe cans which he hasn't..


It'd be hardpressed to duplicate.. all this while never tasting canvas.. Wilder has been knocked down.. he's most probably been outpunched & probably lost 2 rds in a bout despite only going the 4 rd minimum just to give you an idea of how difficult it is to do what Vitali unprecedently has done.

[altparm]

Wlad has fought far more of the top fighters. I currently rank him 16th and expect him to crack the top 12 and probably top 10. Vits on the other hand has a very weak resume and has missed most of the Ring top 10 during his active years. Since being ranked and excluding the years hes missed he's fought 6 or 7 top 10 rated fighter while missing 24 others for one reason or another. H2h he's up there...tough guy...but I don't rank on who I think you can beat but rather who you've actually beaten. When it comes to that Vits misses the cut for all time greatness in my opinion.

I think vitali has a better resume although its not exactly the 70s era. I think legit KO losses to sanders, Brewster and that journeyman puts wlad lower than vitalis losses to ATG Lewis and Byrd by a freak accident.

[KBRO]

Fantasy fights are a determining factor in who's better? Um...ok. In the real world greatness is based on who you beat and who those opponents beat. I didn't figure you'd take my challenge though, it shoots down your whole "this era isn't weak" theory.

And boxing is not a tag team sport. Not sure if you realized that.

& TRUST me Wlad is the weak link here. Vitali by himself is fine by me as all weaknesses in the ring get hugely dismissed that way.