What the Klitschko fans predicted years ago turned out to be correct.

[sunny31]

I agree with the Wlad assessment. However, Wlad on his best night could possibly get a W against any heavyweight on a 10 ten list due to his height, natural athleticism and technique. If they don't get his chin, he will be awkward and besides Fury and his short fight loss against Sanders, has ever been behind on a scorecard.

I do disagree with the competition though. He has a decent record, especially after the Brewster loss. His 10 year(?) reign has some interesting names on it and he fought as good as the competition provided at the time. Including losing efforts to Joshua and Fury, I really don't think there were any notable ducks. His brother can't say the same....I remember how disgraceful the whole Rahman debacle was.

I think it's his one punch power that makes him a threat to most other heavies, including the qualities you mention.

I didn't say he ducked anyone, it's just that his competition for the most part was not good, and he only fought fighters of a similar size late in his career. But he beat everybody, apart from the Sanders rematch there were no notable misses. There have been comparable scenarios, Naseem Hamed cleaned out Featherweight, reigned for 5 years, he beat some good fighters, but no one looks back at his reign and thinks 'wow what tough competition'. That is how I feel about Wlads reign, ok fighters, and in most cases overmatched size wise.

[Commie]

This Version of Otziz made Tony Thompson and George Foreman Look like in their mid 20ies

[Commie]

1 Punch power from windmill only works against heart insuffiency suffering drunk grandpas, Polish hools or walking shîtbags from Haiti
For his next fights Bumsquad will try to prevent his opponents from eating and drinking
To be on an Even playing Field

[Tom Cruise]

This is always the case after a dominant champion retires. Eventually someone will establish themselves as the class of the division they will build that resume up to the point they can be compared to past greats.

Imo, this is the most interesting and entertaining period in a divisions development. Once the champ is established things can get a bit stale. Right now everything is up in the air and everyone is trying to claw their way to the top.

We should appreciate this period while it is happening.

[Mr Objecitivity]

First off their competition for the most part was definitely poor. There were no Wilder's, Joshua' s, Fury's during that era so it's all speculation.

Not one real boxing fan is drooling over Wilder. He is a dangerous but flawed heavyweight. An all round heavyweight will beat him, but until then he is a problem for anybody. His power is impressive, it's there for the full 12 rounds, and it's coupled with genuine handspeed.

Let's see. Today, the top 6 heavyweights are:

1) Anthony Joshua

2) Deontay Wilder

3) Alexander Povetkin (Wlad's left over)

4) Kubrat Pulev (Wlad's left over)

5) Luis Ortiz

6) Joseph Parker


I left out Tyson Fury because he is inactive and is currently irrelevant. if the current heavyweight division was really better than the Klitschko era, we wouldn't have 2 Klitschko left overs / defeat victims post age 35 in the top 5 heavyweight ranking.

And these were the top heavyweights during the Klitschko era:

1) Prime Wladimir Klitschko

2) Prime Vitali Klitschko

3) Prime Alexander Povetkin

4) Prime David Haye

5) Prime Samuel Peter

6) Ruslan Chagaev


Let's get real! If old versions of Pulev and Povetkin are in the top 5 current ranking, what makes you think prime versions of both wouldn't be even better in today's heavyweight era as opposed to in the Klitschko era?

Is Joseph Parker really any better than Ruslan Chagaev, never mind current Alexander Povetkin or prime David Haye?

Is current Deontay Wilder really any better than prime David Haye? The same David Haye who owned Wilder easily in sparring?

Is Tyson Fury really any better than Vitali Klitschko?

Is Anthony Joshua really any better than prime Wladimir Klitschko from 2006 - 2012, when he went life and death against a 41 year old Wladimir Klitschko and nearly got knocked out?

Upon deeper and further investigation. Nothing seems to suggest to me that the current heavyweight era is any better than the Klitschko era. The main difference is, Klitschkos never trash talked or hyped up their fights. Which is why they didn't appeal to the western fans.

Meanwhile, since most of the top heavyweights today are westerners and they trash talk more and hype up their fights more. This is the reason why the Klitschko era APPEARED weak whilst this era APPEARS stronger where in reality, such isn't the case!

Out of the current heavyweight boxers, only Anthony Joshua appears unique and looks like he has the potential to dominate the heavyweight division, anywhere close to how the Klitschko did. The rest are more or less on the same level, or worse than Klitschko's best opponents.

[sunny31]

Every past heavyweight champion after age 37 was either retired, or losing to inferior opponents than Anthony Joshua or Tyson Fury.

What's so special about Joshua or Fury beating a Wladimir Klitschko that declined as much as he did from aging? It tells us nothing about how Joshua or Fury would've done against a Wlad from 2006 - 2012.

Well you could say the same about previous eras in any weight division, yet in this era we have seen Manny Pacquiao still fighting at an elite level at 38 years old. We have seen Floyd still fighting at an elite level at 38-39 years old. We have seen Hopkins at 45 years old, etc.etc.

Heavyweights historically have always lasted longer, and declined slower than the lower weight divisions. Wlad stays in shape, didn't take punishment, and generally lived a healthy lifestyle. To me he did not look old or shot during those fights. Declined? Absolutely, not the same as his mid 30s we can agree on that. But still very, very good, probably at least 75-80% of what he was in his absolute peak. I think his biggest problem in those fights and his preparation was no Steward.

[sunny31]

Let's see. Today, the top 6 heavyweights are:

1) Anthony Joshua

2) Deontay Wilder

3) Alexander Povetkin (Wlad's left over)

4) Kubrat Pulev (Wlad's left over)

5) Luis Ortiz

6) Joseph Parker


I left out Tyson Fury because he is inactive and is currently irrelevant. if the current heavyweight division was really better than the Klitschko era, we wouldn't have 2 Klitschko left overs / defeat victims post age 35 in the top 5 heavyweight ranking.

And these were the top heavyweights during the Klitschko era:

1) Prime Wladimir Klitschko

2) Prime Vitali Klitschko

3) Prime Alexander Povetkin

4) Prime David Haye

5) Prime Samuel Peter

6) Ruslan Chagaev


Let's get real! If old versions of Pulev and Povetkin are in the top 5 current ranking, what makes you think prime versions of both wouldn't be even better in today's heavyweight era as opposed to in the Klitschko era?

Is Joseph Parker really any better than Ruslan Chagaev, never mind current Alexander Povetkin or prime David Haye?

Is current Deontay Wilder really any better than prime David Haye? The same David Haye who owned Wilder easily in sparring?

Is Tyson Fury really any better than Vitali Klitschko?

Is Anthony Joshua really any better than prime Wladimir Klitschko from 2006 - 2012, when he went life and death against a 41 year old Wladimir Klitschko and nearly got knocked out?

Upon deeper and further investigation. Nothing seems to suggest to me that the current heavyweight era is any better than the Klitschko era. The main difference is, Klitschkos never trash talked or hyped up their fights. Which is why they didn't appeal to the western fans.

Meanwhile, since most of the top heavyweights today are westerners and they trash talk more and hype up their fights more. This is the reason why the Klitschko era APPEARED weak whilst this era APPEARS stronger where in reality, such isn't the case!

Out of the current heavyweight boxers, only Anthony Joshua appears unique and looks like he has the potential to dominate the heavyweight division, anywhere close to how the Klitschko did. The rest are more or less on the same level, or worse than Klitschko's best opponents.

Nice try - you can't try and strategically match Joshua against Wlad and Fury against Vitali.

I was discussing the Klitschko' s lack of competition. Different argument, they had weak competition, no fighters of equal size with good ability as you have now.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Well you could say the same about previous eras in any weight division, yet in this era we have seen Manny Pacquiao still fighting at an elite level at 38 years old. We have seen Floyd still fighting at an elite level at 38-39 years old. We have seen Hopkins at 45 years old, etc.etc.

Heavyweights historically have always lasted longer, and declined slower than the lower weight divisions. Wlad stays in shape, didn't take punishment, and generally lived a healthy lifestyle. To me he did not look old or shot during those fights. Declined? Absolutely, not the same as his mid 30s we can agree on that. But still very, very good, probably at least 75-80% of what he was in his absolute peak. I think his biggest problem in those fights and his preparation was no Steward.

Except that isn't the case! Historically, pretty much every past heavyweight champion after age 37 was either retired or losing to inferior opponents compared to Joshua or Fury.

Other weight divisions aren't relevant to this comparison. Manny Pacquiao doesn't apply because Manny Pacquiao hasn't faced and beaten the likes of Errol Spence jr or Keith Thurman at age 39 or 41, which is the equivalent of Wladimir Klitschko facing Joshua and Fury at age 39 or 41.

No heavyweight champion in heavyweight boxing history has ever defeated the next future number 1 heavyweight champion after age 39. It's never happened! Especially with a 10+ year age disadvantage.

Let's run through history:

- Evander Holyfield was losing to the likes of James Toney, John Ruiz and Larry Donald after age 37. All whom are inferior to Joshua or Fury.

- Mike Tyson was losing to the likes of Danny Williams and Kevin McBride after age 35. Both whom are inferior to Joshua and Fury.

- Muhammad Ali was losing to the likes of Trevor Berbick and Leon Spinks after age 35. Both whom are inferior to Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury.

- George Foreman was losing to the likes of Shannon Briggs, Tommy Morrison and Axel Schulz after age 35. All whom are inferior to Joshua or Fury.


So no, none of the past heavyweight champions did any better than Wladimir Klitschko did after age 35.

So if you want to diminish Wladimir Klitschko's greatness for his failures at such an advanced old age, then be prepared to do the same for past heavyweight champions and also the current heavyweight champions after they also reach the same age.

Otherwise, you expose yourself as a hypocrite!

[Mr Objecitivity]

Nice try - you can't try and strategically match Joshua against Wlad and Fury against Vitali.

I was discussing the Klitschko' s lack of competition. Different argument, they had weak competition, no fighters of equal size with good ability as you have now.

Except, that is my point! The quality was always there and quality boxers of decent size was always there. Competition that the Klitschko faced wasn't any 'weaker' than the competition that today's boxers are facing. No matter how you try and twist it. It ain't going to work! The top boxers of today aren't any better than the top boxers of Klitschko's era.

Period!

Get over it!

[sunny31]

Except that isn't the case! Historically, pretty much every past heavyweight champion after age 37 was either retired or losing to inferior opponents compared to Joshua or Fury.

Other weight divisions aren't relevant to this comparison. Manny Pacquiao doesn't apply because Manny Pacquiao hasn't faced and beaten the likes of Errol Spence jr or Keith Thurman at age 39 or 41, which is the equivalent of Wladimir Klitschko facing Joshua and Fury at age 39 or 41.

No heavyweight champion in heavyweight boxing history has ever defeated the next future number 1 heavyweight champion after age 39. It's never happened! Especially with a 10+ year age disadvantage.

Let's run through history:

- Evander Holyfield was losing to the likes of James Toney, John Ruiz and Larry Donald after age 37. All whom are inferior to Joshua or Fury.

- Mike Tyson was losing to the likes of Danny Williams and Kevin McBride after age 35. Both whom are inferior to Joshua and Fury.

- Muhammad Ali was losing to the likes of Trevor Berbick and Leon Spinks after age 35. Both whom are inferior to Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury.

- George Foreman was losing to the likes of Shannon Briggs, Tommy Morrison and Axel Schulz after age 35. All whom are inferior to Joshua or Fury.


So no, none of the past heavyweight champions did any better than Wladimir Klitschko did after age 35.

So if you want to diminish Wladimir Klitschko's greatness for his failures at such an advanced old age, then be prepared to do the same for past heavyweight champions and also the current heavyweight champions after they also reach the same age.

Otherwise, you expose yourself as a hypocrite!

Still trying to twist facts to suit your agends i see. Haha whatever Tunney, it's boring, honestly have zero interest in debating with you. I gave you your due attention.