Mickey Vann: "Klitschko’s place in history is stronger than Mayweather’s"

[LacedUp]

Those fighters (bolded) simply cannot hold up to Wlad's established title record and current championship duration.

Just because a fighter fights great on one given night, doesn't make them a great fighter or an ATG.

-All Frazier really ever did was beat Ali once after he came back from a considerable layoff.

-Foreman was 5-3 in title fights. He managed to come back and win a title at 45 years old but it was in his 3rd try.

-Holyfield was 11-6 in HW title fights with most of those wins coming from fighters that were well past their best. The two decent prime fighters he faced in title fights beat him. (Lennox and Bowe-I)

-Lennox who is 16-2 in title fights, I suppose I can understand one thinking he would beat Wladimir in a H2H matchup as I see him with the tools and size to do so, but he just doesn't stack up anymore based on Wlad's resume and longevity.

My questions is, aside from name recognition, what did those fighters do to rank higher than Wlad who is 26-2 in title fights, with mostly knockouts and several fight wins vs. the no 1 contender and top ten ranked challengers?

If you think beating the likes of Rahman, Peter, Chagaev, Jennings, Byrd etc is going to make you the best all of times, fair play to you, but I disagree. I also couldn not care less if he was 100-0 in title fights. Btw, no reason to count that WBO title as it wasnt even considered legit when he held it and Lewis was known as undisputed champion. If Wilder continued fighting the same caliber of opponents he is now, I also wouldnt consider him great if he got to 100-0. Quality is more important to me, and Wlad doesnt have a lot of it. When is the last time Wlad fought someone who´s last performance was absolutely devastating?

What you are saying about Frazier, Holyfield and Foreman is simply just not correct. Frazier beat several #1 contenders. So did Holyfield. Holyfields resume simply craps all over Wlads and most others. I cant even think of anyone other than Ali I would say has a better resume than Holyfield without question.

Foreman not only has the likes of unbeaten Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Michael Moorer on his resume, he won THE title 20 years apart. The man is great.

Klitschko is also a great, just not as great. And adding to that, he isnt entertaining me in the ring at all, so I cant say he is greater than top champions who did.

[Boxing Goat]

If you think beating the likes of Rahman, Peter, Chagaev, Jennings, Byrd etc is going to make you the best all of times, fair play to you, but I disagree. I also couldn not care less if he was 100-0 in title fights. Btw, no reason to count that WBO title as it wasnt even considered legit when he held it and Lewis was known as undisputed champion. If Wilder continued fighting the same caliber of opponents he is now, I also wouldnt consider him great if he got to 100-0. Quality is more important to me, and Wlad doesnt have a lot of it. When is the last time Wlad fought someone who´s last performance was absolutely devastating?

What you are saying about Frazier, Holyfield and Foreman is simply just not correct. Frazier beat several #1 contenders. So did Holyfield. Holyfields resume simply craps all over Wlads and most others. I cant even think of anyone other than Ali I would say has a better resume than Holyfield without question.

Foreman not only has the likes of unbeaten Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Michael Moorer on his resume, he won THE title 20 years apart. The man is great.

Klitschko is also a great, just not as great. And adding to that, he isnt entertaining me in the ring at all, so I cant say he is greater than top champions who did.

I just disagree, Wladimir's historical run and title fight appearance/win record does mean something substantial. Experts do understand this. In fact, Boxr*c even ranks Wlad 9th right now with none of those mentioned fighters above him. The WBO has been widely regarded as a legitimate world title for two decades now and of course it counts. It's why every expert recognizes it as a title fight wins and defenses when speaking of Wlad's records. Guys like Foreman did historical things, but winning the title on his comeback on his 3rd try when losing the fight doesn't eclipse Wlad's accomplishments. Not by a long, long way. Holyfield has some good wins in there, most notably, Tyson, but really he just beat a guy that wasn't at his best anymore. His overall heavyweight records and ranking is not even in the top ten. Frazier, as I pointed out, really only beat Ali. The rest of his title record was not impressive and he got starched bad by Foreman. I realize those guys have great name value, mostly because they came up in and had success in other, more notable fighters era's. If not for Ali, Frazier and Foreman would be after thoughts and without Tyson and Lewis, so would Holyfield. Sorry to break it down like that, but it's true I'm afraid.

[DreamerUSA]

Didn't say it was a deep division.

Just merely responding to the notion that Mayweather isn't Top 3 in a division.

I was'nt taking a jab. Actually probably agree with you.

[Build That Wall]

Showtime television commentators Steve Albert, Bobby Czyz and Ferdie Pacheco were very biased and misleading in favor of Whitaker, showing favoritism for the home-country boxer.

Julio Caesar Chavez took the fight to Whitaker, who was backing off and on the defensive for most of the fight. Mickey Vann was being generous to Whitaker with his 115-115 score.

Ex-Millionaire Boxer 'Sweet Pea' Whitaker Says Evicting Mom Is "Beautiful Moment"



Why would anybody be a fan of a despicable scumbag like Pernell Whitaker?

Whitaker was the only one doing something.

[LacedUp]

I just disagree, Wladimir's historical run and title fight appearance/win record does mean something substantial. Experts do understand this. In fact, Boxr*c even ranks Wlad 9th right now with none of those mentioned fighters above him. The WBO has been widely regarded as a legitimate world title for two decades now and of course it counts. It's why every expert recognizes it as a title fight wins and defenses when speaking of Wlad's records. Guys like Foreman did historical things, but winning the title on his comeback on his 3rd try when losing the fight doesn't eclipse Wlad's accomplishments. Not by a long, long way. Holyfield has some good wins in there, most notably, Tyson, but really he just beat a guy that wasn't at his best anymore. His overall heavyweight records and ranking is not even in the top ten. Frazier, as I pointed out, really only beat Ali. The rest of his title record was not impressive and he got starched bad by Foreman. I realize those guys have great name value, mostly because they came up in and had success in other, more notable fighters era's. If not for Ali, Frazier and Foreman would be after thoughts and without Tyson and Lewis, so would Holyfield. Sorry to break it down like that, but it's true I'm afraid.

I am an expert. And I'm saying it does mean something. As I said in my original post, some see at as an insult to be in the same breath as the likes of Marciano, Tyson, Dempsey, Lewis and Liston. I don't. It's an honour to be mentioned with those guys.

Yes, George Foreman has been involved as the winner and the loser in some of the most memorable fights in history. Has Klitschko? No. Was Klitschko merely a belt holder until 2009? Yes.

How can we count defenses when there was a universally recognized undisputed champion? I don't understand that. So really, Wlad's actual "champion" record is more like 12-0 which is also great and similar to Tyson's.

We did not count the WBO then, I was there and I remember. It was not considered a proper world title, especially at heavyweight. There's no point in discussing it, because it's simply not true and everyone who were there would agree. It was like an interim belt.

Check out this thread: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=571748

So Holyfield beat undisputed champ Buster Douglas. He beat George Foreman. He beat Larry Holmes after Holmes was coming off a gigantic win against Mercer. He then fights Riddick Bowe twice, sandwiched between "stay busy/ homecoming" fights vs Alex Stewart and Bert Cooper - Two very very solid heavyweights. Then fights Michael Moorer, Riddick Bowe and Ray Mercer on the spin. Then Mike Tyson twice, Michael Moorer again then Lennox Lewis twice. As if it isn't evident that his resume already at this stage kills every other resume before and after Ali, he then continues to fight at championship level into his 40s, beating Hasim Rahman after a trilogy with John Ruiz.

Evander Holyfield was a stone cold great and his accomplishment exceed that of Klitschko.

Why wasn't Frazier's title reign impressive? Who should he have fought that he didn't fight? Frazier fought absolutely everyone in line for the title and only lost to two certified top 5 ATGs. Klitschko lost to 3 guys who weren't ranked in the top 15. Which is worse?

Of course greatness is reliant on other great fighters. Beating a bunch of no-hopers is not being great. Unfortunately, that's what Wlad has done over the last decade. Through no fault of his own though. It's not his fault that the second best heavyweight, and only other great heavyweight, of his era was his brother. But when he was 28-30 years old he had the chance to face a true champion, but lost to that champion's former sparring partner in Corrie Sanders. So he can only blame himself for that one.

Imagine Wlad being in the same era as Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson and coming out on top - That would put him at the very upper echelons of heavyweight history. But he isn't in that era, and his greatest "rival" is David Haye, a guy with 7 heavyweight fights or so, 1 win over a top 10 opponent. it's not great.

That's my take on it. Some agree, some disagree. At the end of the day, you are entitled to think Wlad is top 3 or the best ever or whatever. It's your own opinion, so you can never be proven wrong.

I just don't share that view, as I don't think Wlad has faced good enough competition. And I don't recall more than 1 rewatchable fight he's had - Which was Sam Peter 1. That was a very good fight where he showed a lot of things I haven't seen much of since.

[Boxing Goat]

I am an expert. And I'm saying it does mean something. As I said in my original post, some see at as an insult to be in the same breath as the likes of Marciano, Tyson, Dempsey, Lewis and Liston. I don't. It's an honour to be mentioned with those guys.

Yes, George Foreman has been involved as the winner and the loser in some of the most memorable fights in history. Has Klitschko? No. Was Klitschko merely a belt holder until 2009? Yes.

How can we count defenses when there was a universally recognized undisputed champion? I don't understand that. So really, Wlad's actual "champion" record is more like 12-0 which is also great and similar to Tyson's.

We did not count the WBO then, I was there and I remember. It was not considered a proper world title, especially at heavyweight. There's no point in discussing it, because it's simply not true and everyone who were there would agree. It was like an interim belt.

Check out this thread: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=571748

So Holyfield beat undisputed champ Buster Douglas. He beat George Foreman. He beat Larry Holmes after Holmes was coming off a gigantic win against Mercer. He then fights Riddick Bowe twice, sandwiched between "stay busy/ homecoming" fights vs Alex Stewart and Bert Cooper - Two very very solid heavyweights. Then fights Michael Moorer, Riddick Bowe and Ray Mercer on the spin. Then Mike Tyson twice, Michael Moorer again then Lennox Lewis twice. As if it isn't evident that his resume already at this stage kills every other resume before and after Ali, he then continues to fight at championship level into his 40s, beating Hasim Rahman after a trilogy with John Ruiz.

Evander Holyfield was a stone cold great and his accomplishment exceed that of Klitschko.

Why wasn't Frazier's title reign impressive? Who should he have fought that he didn't fight? Frazier fought absolutely everyone in line for the title and only lost to two certified top 5 ATGs. Klitschko lost to 3 guys who weren't ranked in the top 15. Which is worse?

Of course greatness is reliant on other great fighters. Beating a bunch of no-hopers is not being great. Unfortunately, that's what Wlad has done over the last decade. Through no fault of his own though. It's not his fault that the second best heavyweight, and only other great heavyweight, of his era was his brother. But when he was 28-30 years old he had the chance to face a true champion, but lost to that champion's former sparring partner in Corrie Sanders. So he can only blame himself for that one.

Imagine Wlad being in the same era as Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson and coming out on top - That would put him at the very upper echelons of heavyweight history. But he isn't in that era, and his greatest "rival" is David Haye, a guy with 7 heavyweight fights or so, 1 win over a top 10 opponent. it's not great.

That's my take on it. Some agree, some disagree. At the end of the day, you are entitled to think Wlad is top 3 or the best ever or whatever. It's your own opinion, so you can never be proven wrong.

I just don't share that view, as I don't think Wlad has faced good enough competition. And I don't recall more than 1 rewatchable fight he's had - Which was Sam Peter 1. That was a very good fight where he showed a lot of things I haven't seen much of since.

FIRST OFF, YOU'RE NO MORE OF AN EXPERT THEN I AM.

If you think you know more or have credentials, put them up and we'll discuss whether or not your opinion makes more sense than mine.

Next, Klitschko has been the no. 1 heavyweight with a world title since 2006. It's not debatable. That my friend, is FACT.

When he beat the no.2 guys in Peter and Byrd, he became 'the man' because the lineage was broken when Vitali retired. Just because some other bozo held a title in the division doesn't mean Wladimir wasn't ranked no. 1 with a belt.

If you're only counting the lineal title then on a technical level, that went away when Gene Tunney retired almost 90 years ago.

[New England]

ridiculous.

wladimir fought lesser competition and has three knockout losses.

[New England]

"all joe frazier really did was beat muhammad ali in '71."


-some dumb dude

[New England]

FIRST OFF, YOU'RE NO MORE OF AN EXPERT THEN I AM.

If you think you know more or have credentials, put them up and we'll discuss whether or not your opinion makes more sense than mine.

Next, Klitschko has been the no. 1 heavyweight with a world title since 2006. It's not debatable. That my friend, is FACT.

When he beat the no.2 guys in Peter and Byrd, he became 'the man' because the lineage was broken when Vitali retired. Just because some other bozo held a title in the division doesn't mean Wladimir wasn't ranked no. 1 with a belt.

If you're only counting the lineal title then on a technical level, that went away when Gene Tunney retired almost 90 years ago.

i had media credentials for several years. i don't care if you don't believe me.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Mickey Vann?

The British ref?

Who says "no nawties with the head" before every fight???

He probably would have DQ'd Wlad repeatedly.