The Greatness of Wladimir Klitschko

[LacedUp]

He's also a very big, heavy handed never was and also lost to Peter.

He also beat Shannon Briggs and knocked out Michael Grant in one round at one point. That was faster than Lennox Lewis.

And Baden Oui knocked out Leapai quicker than Wlad.

Oui > Klitschko.

[Boxing Goat]

You are literally too dumb to debate with.

Toney was not a heavyweight - no one in their right mind would ever say he had an ATG heavyweight chin.

Holyfield was damn near 45 years old when they fought!

He was 41 years old and still in title contention. Vitali was still the WBC champ at that age.

Next..........

[LacedUp]

He was 41 years old and still in title contention. Vitali was still the WBC champ at that age.

Next..........

Oh my god.

[Boxing Goat]

And Baden Oui knocked out Leapai quicker than Wlad.

Oui > Klitschko.

Obviously, I didn't say he was better that Lennox. Just made a reference to dispute the line of thinking that McCline was an absolute worthless fighter.

In fact, he was not.

[Boxing Goat]

Oh my god.

What, so in your opinion, the win was a pointless stitch in time?

So, if you can pick apart a fight of your choosing, it basically never happened?

Do you have even the slightest ability to look at anything you don't agree with subjectively?

[Boxing Goat]

Did he ever face a big puncher at heavyweight?

Lol! Really?

Holyfield, Peter twice and Rahman twice. To top it off, he had a tooth and nail battle with Jirov who was every bit of a puncher as 95% of heavyweights.

Get real man.

[Boxing Goat]

Looks like I shut down the haters, finally!

I officially close the thread.

////END

[BennyST]

People will always say that though, who was Joe Louis career defining win?
Schmelling?
Wallcott?

I mean Roy Jones Jr did the same thing he absolutely dominated the division and people gave Montell Griffin no respect during that time even though he beat James Toney a bit like how Tony Thompson in his prime years was undoubtedly a dangerous guy to mess with who's only loss in his prime years were against Wlad.
Perhaps If Wlad stuck to fighting in the US he might of been liked more.

People need to realize the days of old are over whilst they were entertaining I definitely think the heavyweight ranks are a more dangerous place to be fighting in now where the idea of one punch changes it all is definitely more of the case.

Wow....now you're trying to compare these two? Two names. James Toney and Bernard Hopkins. You lose. That simple. Don't even need to go into anyone else or the many, many, many more champions he beat over many divisions. Two names. You lose.

That's not even going into the fact that Roy Jones won titles from middleweight to heavyweight. What about the fact that Jones beat more HOFers and champions than Wlad or Vitali have ever even fought, combined, let alone actually beat.

What a crazy ass comparison.

See, the difference between this stuff is that when a great fighter dominates someone that is also supposedly good or great, like you guys so often claim with his opponents, that opponent will ****ing prove it with his own career outside of that fight. Do you understand this concept? James Toney is so much greater than any Wlad opponent that you should be embarrassed to even think of such a comparison, let alone actually say it. Tony Thompson beat .... I don't even know... David Price? Ibragamov? Krasniqi? Just no one.

You're comparing that to James Toney? James mother****ing Toney? This is why you guys are so ****ing pitiful. You just simply don't grasp how utterly idiotic, inane, lame, ignorant and just ****ishly ****** your arguments are. You'll never see it because you're so desperate to defend it, so you simply can't grasp how truly absurd what you are saying is. Tony Thompson is a contender in an era with five titles to win in each division. He's never beaten a champion. He has never even beaten just a crappy paper titlist. He's never beaten anything more than a fringe contender. James Toney and Tony Thompson in the same sentence!

When a great fighter has beaten great opponents, it is never debated like this. It's simple.

Roberto Duran: dominated a division like Wlad. Made many amazing fighters look average. Well, sort of. You can tell they were great, but he was just really great. But, no one debates whether he's great or, more importantly, whether his opponents were. Why? Because many of the opponents he beat were also clearly great fighters themselves and they proved it. They actually proved it in the ring. Not with debatable wins over so so guys, a few contenders, a faded former champion or two, but with proper, great careers, because that's what makes a fighter great.

Ernesto Marcel, an opponent you've probably never even heard of, beat a prime Alexis Arguello, Sammy Serrano and a bunch of other great champions. No one debates it as a great win, like I could with Peter, Povetkin and a million other guys, because he proved it himself with his own incredible championship career and seriously great wins.

If a fighter is great, he will prove it. If not, he won't. That's how simple this sport is.

You say Sam Peter was great...it was proven in the ring that he wasn't. Simple.

[bojangles1987]

Wow....now you're trying to compare these two? Two names. James Toney and Bernard Hopkins. You lose. That simple. Don't even need to go into anyone else or the many, many, many more champions he beat over many divisions. Two names. You lose.

That's not even going into the fact that Roy Jones won titles from middleweight to heavyweight. What about the fact that Jones beat more HOFers and champions than Wlad or Vitali have ever even fought, combined, let alone actually beat.

What a crazy ass comparison.

See, the difference between this stuff is that when a great fighter dominates someone that is also supposedly good or great, like you guys so often claim with his opponents, that opponent will ****ing prove it with his own career outside of that fight. Do you understand this concept? James Toney is so much greater than any Wlad opponent that you should be embarrassed to even think of such a comparison, let alone actually say it. Tony Thompson beat .... I don't even know... David Price? Ibragamov? Krasniqi? Just no one.

You're comparing that to James Toney? James mother****ing Toney? This is why you guys are so ****ing pitiful. You just simply don't grasp how utterly idiotic, inane, lame, ignorant and just ****ishly ****** your arguments are. Tony Thompson is a contender in an era with five titles to win in each division. He's never beaten a champion. He has never even beaten just a crappy paper titlist. James Toney and Tony Thompson in the same sentence!

When a great fighter has beaten great opponents, it is never debated like this. It's simple.

Roberto Duran: dominated a division like Wlad. Made many amazing fighters look average. Well, sort of. You can tell they were great, but he was just really great. But, no one debates whether he's great or, more importantly, whether his opponents were. Why? Because many of the opponents he beat were also clearly great fighters themselves and they proved it. They actually proved it in the ring. Not with debatable wins over so so guys, a few contenders, a faded former champion or two, but with proper, great careers, because that's what makes a fighter great.

Ernesto Marcel, an opponent you've probably never even heard of, beat a prime Alexis Arguello, Sammy Serrano and a bunch of other great champions. No one debates it as a great win, like I could with Peter, Povetkin and a million other guys, because he proved it himself with his own incredible championship career and seriously great wins.

If a fighter is great, he will prove it. If not, he won't. That's how simple this sport is.

You say Sam Peter was great...it was proven in the ring that he wasn't. Simple.

It really is a huge problem with the heavyweight division and many of Wlad's victim list that they do nothing besides lose to Wlad. Most of them lack any notable wins, even against other fighters within the division let alone good names that proved anything.

How am I supposed to care that Wlad beat Tony Thompson or Wach or half these challengers when all they've ever been is a challenger? They don't go on to do anything else.

[SBleeder]

Wow....now you're trying to compare these two? Two names. James Toney and Bernard Hopkins. You lose. That simple. Don't even need to go into anyone else or the many, many, many more champions he beat over many divisions. Two names. You lose.

That's not even going into the fact that Roy Jones won titles from middleweight to heavyweight. What about the fact that Jones beat more HOFers and champions than Wlad or Vitali have ever even fought, combined, let alone actually beat.

What a crazy ass comparison.

See, the difference between this stuff is that when a great fighter dominates someone that is also supposedly good or great, like you guys so often claim with his opponents, that opponent will ****ing prove it with his own career outside of that fight. Do you understand this concept? James Toney is so much greater than any Wlad opponent that you should be embarrassed to even think of such a comparison, let alone actually say it. Tony Thompson beat .... I don't even know... David Price? Ibragamov? Krasniqi? Just no one.

You're comparing that to James Toney? James mother****ing Toney? This is why you guys are so ****ing pitiful. You just simply don't grasp how utterly idiotic, inane, lame, ignorant and just ****ishly ****** your arguments are. You'll never see it because you're so desperate to defend it, so you simply can't grasp how truly absurd what you are saying is. Tony Thompson is a contender in an era with five titles to win in each division. He's never beaten a champion. He has never even beaten just a crappy paper titlist. He's never beaten anything more than a fringe contender. James Toney and Tony Thompson in the same sentence!

When a great fighter has beaten great opponents, it is never debated like this. It's simple.

Roberto Duran: dominated a division like Wlad. Made many amazing fighters look average. Well, sort of. You can tell they were great, but he was just really great. But, no one debates whether he's great or, more importantly, whether his opponents were. Why? Because many of the opponents he beat were also clearly great fighters themselves and they proved it. They actually proved it in the ring. Not with debatable wins over so so guys, a few contenders, a faded former champion or two, but with proper, great careers, because that's what makes a fighter great.

Ernesto Marcel, an opponent you've probably never even heard of, beat a prime Alexis Arguello, Sammy Serrano and a bunch of other great champions. No one debates it as a great win, like I could with Peter, Povetkin and a million other guys, because he proved it himself with his own incredible championship career and seriously great wins.

If a fighter is great, he will prove it. If not, he won't. That's how simple this sport is.

You say Sam Peter was great...it was proven in the ring that he wasn't. Simple.

Horse feathers. Sam Peter beat Gabe Brown, who weighed over 350, which means he's great.