-
-
I'm arguing it because it's utter speculation to claim Wlad was unconscious (unless you were somehow inside his consciousness at that time). It's also utter speculation to claim any boxer is unconscious if they manage to beat the 10 count (unless you have solid proof that they really were unconscious).
The more appropriate question is: where is your proof / evidence of your claims? Couldn't it have been possible that he was down and conscious, rather than down and unconscious?Comment
-
No one here is going to allow you to spew this nonsense and make everyone dumber for having read it.
He didn't allow anyone to be great? I guess by that token than Bernard Hopkins fought in the best middleweight era ever, murderers row, but they looked mediocre because he was so good? We all know there were a lot duff defences with Hopkins, and his era was a relatively weak era, because we use our eyes to measure ability and talent, and use results to support it.
We know Hopkins was GREAT because of his highly competitive loss to Jones, because of his demolition of a young undefeated Glenn Johnson, because of his one sided beat down of a HOF calibre fighter moving up in Trinidad, because of his move up in weight and wins over Tarver, Wright, and Pavlik.
Your problem is you can't make those claims with Wlad's career, so you have to make up an alternate reality to delude yourself. He beat ZERO HOF calibre fighters. Hell at least Vitali competed with one, and showed he belonged at that level.
Lennox Lewis beat a still very good Holyfield, a guy that was past his best, but coming off an unbeaten run from 95 and the Tyson wins 2 years earlier, he still had the goods. Do I think that the fight would have been different if it had happened 3 or 4 years earlier? Yes I definitely think its a tougher fight for Lewis, I think Holyfield had just regressed enough to allow Lewis to be superior. Trying to compare that to the 40 year old shot Holyfield that fought Byrd is mind boggling. Holyfield is a come forward, boxer puncher, who relied on his energy, speed, and toughness. A fighter like him is not going to last as well as a Klitschko or a Lewis, if all things were equal in terms of life style, dedication, discipline.
Lewis also beat Vitali - whether you like it or not it was a legitimate stoppage and win. That is two HOF'ers, one just out of his prime, the other in his prime, whist Lewis was probably just out of his.
After that there isn't much in there resumes, Lewis has most likely beaten more world champions, where they became champions before or after he beat them. Ruddock, Bruno, Mercer, Tua, Briggs, to name a few. Wlad also beat a lot of solid guys, a few good guys, no great guys. His claim to greatness is in his consistency and longevity.
You also can't ignore that Wlad was knocked down close to 15 times over his career, but yet you claim he is the most dominant heavyweight in history. He was knocked down a bunch of times even at a lower level, despite having a serious amateur pedigree. He lost to Purity, a guy with a 24-13 record. He then got destroyed by Corrie Sanders, a loss which he never avenged but had big brother do it for him. Not to mention big brother was champion alongside him, for much of his reign, so this total domination you speak of, didn't really exist did it? You do him a disservice, because I find myself undermining a great career, but you asked for this by claiming he's something he's not.
Even Manny Steward is on record several times claiming how poor the heavyweight division was during Wlad's reign. His own trainer. If you want an honest, accurate assessment here it is:
Q: Vitali Klitschko retired for several years before he came back to reclaim a portion of the heavyweight title. Does Vitali Klitschko still have time to be remembered as one of the greats?
A: I don’t think he’s going to enough time because even though he had his biggest claim to fame, and he tells me that and we laugh about it, he says, ‘The biggest thing that made me famous was losing to Lennox Lewis’, and he has still done nothing to really exceed that believe it or not still. It’s just a case of not having any fighters around for him to be the big name and the fact that he won’t be around long enough where you can say, well, he didn’t have any big name fighters but he had a reign for like five years or six years so you have to give some credit for that even though he fought a bunch of nobodies, but I don’t think he’s going to have that long of a career and that many big heavyweight championship fights to really reach that level. So I don’t think he’s in a good position to be considered a great yet, but who knows. He still may have a fight, you never know. He could end up with a high profile fight with David Haye possibly himself, or Nikolai Valuev with two of the biggest men ever. That would definitely be fights that would really be standouts in his career when people look back at him, but right now he would need about two more years to continue if he just dominated over these types of guys.
Q: Emanuel, where do you think the fighter you’re currently training, Wladimir Klitschko, fits into this discussion of heavyweight greats?
A: Right now, I think his last fight even though it wasn’t seen that much, is the first time that people are taking up notice that maybe we may have something special on our hands that we’re not really appreciating. I’m just reading what I see on these internet comments, and oh he’s been too cautious, he’s too this, he’s too that—but I think the public is starting to look at all of the knockouts, still, that he’s accumulating. So he’s right there still, just starting to get on the borderline where I’m just reading the fans that, the people have said maybe he is possibly going to be a great fighter because of his unbelievable one punch knockout power that you just don’t see from anyone, but right now he hasn’t arrived yet.
There’s, unfortunately for him, no big super fights but if he continues this totally dominating run for I say two years, and the way it looks maybe three years, he’s going to be considered up there. You’ll see these printouts about what would Wladimir Klitschko have done with a George Foreman—he would have moved into that era of those types of conversations. A David Haye fight would throw him right into that mix of being considered if he had an impressive knockout over a David Haye or something like that. It would throw him into the mix where maybe being like, whoa, this guy with his size, and jab, and everything, and his punching power, and his left hand, right hand would put him where people will start at least thinking and say, ‘Well, can’t just say that any fighter of any era would have beat him because nobody is around in this era’, but he hasn’t had that signature fight yet and he may never get it, so I think the only thing he can do is just continue having a long run and if he runs off about ten or twelve more defenses, I think that will qualify him to be considered when they talk about possibly the top heavyweights in history, but right now he hasn’t arrived at that.
He just is starting to get people to start thinking a little bit about the fact that he may be a little better than we give him credit for, just the fact that he’s still holding onto the title now after about almost two years or three years.
Q: On a somewhat related note Emanuel, a lot of fans claim that the heavyweight division is weak right now. Can you recall any time in history where the division had a similar state and what do you think needs to be done in order for this to recover in the eyes of the fans?
A: I think that the heavyweight division is the weakest that I ever saw it, that I can recall, I would put it this way, but if you look back at history it happens like this. I think it’s worse now because you don’t have anything coming from the amateurs. That’s what troubles me. It used to be weak, but you always had the George Foreman or even Klitschko. He is the last of the amateur program fighters from ’96. He’s the last product that came from the amateur system to the pros and that was what, about fourteen years ago now, and that’s what the problem is. There’s nothing coming from the amateur system, and I don’t see it worldwide, even these Cubans or whatever and the Russians. I don’t see much coming. I don’t see anything else coming up. It’s a weak heavyweight division and I don’t see anything too much coming up that’s going to make it any better in the future.
But if you look back through history, Joe Louis had that era when he went on the “Bum of the Month Club” as they called it and he was fighting with ‘Two Ton’ Tony Galento, the bar tenders, and this and that. Then I remember when Tyson was the same way. Nobody was up there for Mike. He was at the time considered fighting Pinklon Thomas and them, but I still thought those were better fighters but the public thought he was that dominating, but that was still a tough era. They said the same with Lennox. Lennox was having a weak division, but I thought that was better still. You still had guys such as Shannon Briggs and good competitive guys out there.
This is the weakest that I have ever seen it but it’s part of heavyweight history and that’s why we have these “Bum of the Month Clubs” and all that, and all of a sudden out of nowhere—somebody explodes on the scene. Right now, the biggest explosion has been David Haye and it’s nothing he did in the ring. Just verbally running his mouth he’s created a lot of excitement and a big buzz about himself. But it is weak, and I never saw it this weak and I hope that it will change but I just don’t even see it changing for maybe about another five years.Comment
-
1) In regards to Wlad not allowing anyone to not be great in the heavyweight division when he competed. Considering the fact that he beat every possible opponent that he could've boxed against that qualified as the best possible opponent for him (excluding his brother Vitali Klitschko). Then yes, he did! Otherwise, those other boxers would've had more success and would've had more 'greatness'.
2) As for the comparisons between Bernard Hopkins and Wladimir Klitschko. Why are you comparing a former 160 pound boxer to a REAL, GENUINE heavyweight? Apples to oranges like comparison that is!
3) As for me not being able to make my claims about Wladimir Klitschko. Actually, my claims / conclusions are backed up by concrete statistics (facts). Ergo, they are objective and ergo, those conclusions / claims have greater value than your unsubstantiated / unproven / non - fact based claims (e.g. Wladimir Klitschko's era is weaker than previous eras).
4) In regards to the comparison between Chris Byrd's performance against Evander Holyfield to Lennox Lewis's performance against Evander Holyfield. It's utter speculation that Holyfield was any worse against Chris Byrd than against Lennox Lewis. A so called 'prime' version of Holyfield lost to Michael Moorer (a southpaw). Chris Byrd has a better heavyweight record than Michael Moorer. So perhaps he would've still beaten Evander Holyfield at the time when Lennox Lewis did.
Fact is, Chris Byrd beat Evander Holyfield and it has just as much value as Lennox Lewis's win over Holyfield. That's my point!
5) In regards to Lewis beating Vitali Klitschko. I've never claimed the win didn't count.
6) In regards to beating hall of famers. Boxers who are selected for the hall of fame aren't selected based on any OFFICIAL / OBJECTIVE / UNIFORM criteria. It's based on personal preferences by an American establishment. Ergo, it's as valueless as an Ukrainian establishment selecting boxers that they prefer into their own version of the hall of fame.
7) In regards to Lennox Lewis beating more world champions. Have you got any evidence for such a claim? As in, a proper value for both in terms of the number of champions Lewis beat compared to Wlad?
8) In regards to why I claim Wladimir Klitschko is the most dominant heavyweight champion of all time. That's because of the fact that Wladimir Klitschko has cleaned out the heavyweight division (along with his brother Vitali Klitschko) by beating more number of 'BEST POSSIBLE OPPONENTS' for a longer period of time than any past heavyweight champion in history. Despite the knockdowns he suffered, he still has more wins (against the best possible opposition) than any past heavyweight champion.
9) In regards to Wladimir Klitschko not avenging all of his losses. When you analyze records of ATGs and world champions there is NO OTHER heavyweight with 50+ fights 200×2 and LESS unavenged losses than Wladimir Klitschko.
There is no other boxer with as many real heavyweight fights as Wladimir Klitschko and less unavenged losses.
In fact, no other REAL heavyweight with 50+ bouts has a better win / loss ratio than Wladimir Klitschko.
11) In regards to Wladimir Klitschko's era being weaker (compared to past eras) and using Emmanuel Steward's opinion as evidence / proof of that. Someone's opinion isn't fact based evidence of a claim. Provide me with actual concrete, fact based evidence that are objectively measurable. Otherwise, your evidence is based on subjective opinion that has very little value.
I'll provide you with actual numbers and stats = facts to compare Lennox Lewis's era with Wladimir Klitschko's era.
Lennox Lewis's era:
1) Total fights:1800+ fights
2) Total boxers: 1000+
3) Average weight: 220 pounds
4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 51% (500+)
5) Total knockouts: 1200+
6) Era KO ratio: 65%
7) Total KO'ers: 186
8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 KO's: 51
Wladimir Klitschko's era:
1) Total fights: 2000+
2) Total boxers: 1200+
3) Average weight: 224 pounds
4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 49% (500+)
5) Total knockouts: 1200+
6) Era KO ratio: 62%
7) Total KO'ers: 224
8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 knockouts: 66
According to the numbers, it is close (compared to the quality difference between Wladimir Klitschko's era and pre Mike Tyson's era) but Wladimir Klitschko's era is slightly better statistically than Lennox Lewis's.
It's one thing to prefer one boxer over the other (subjective). It's another thing to evaluate the quality of both's heavyweight record and era objectively.
A typical reproach to the numbers and statistics (facts) I've provided is that 'one can can misrepresent / twist / misconstrue facts and statistics'. Well, I challenge anybody to counter the facts I've provided objectively by providing facts of their own or at the very least, demonstrating how the facts I've provided are misconstrued / misrepresented / twisted. So far, I've met nobody that has ever managed this!Comment
-
It has everything to do with how big the talent pool of fighters is. Americans don't have any serious presence in boxing anymore because Eastern Europeans and Cubans arrived. If this didn't happen you would overrate the hyped Americans like Wilder and Jacobs much more because there wouldn't be that many fighters to challenge them. The eras before the 90s were a bunch of hyped Americans fighting each other.
You can't bring up any serious argument to back up your opinions while I posted facts. You just post statements that make no sense.
Both fighting professionally only after the collapse of communism. It further proves my point.Have you heard of Kostya Tszyu, probably the greatest Soviet fighter of all time, or Yuri Arbachakov? Probably not.Comment
-
Lennox easy for me.Comment
Tweet
Comment