Fat Dan: Wlad "one of the greatest heavyweight champions in history"

[devon]

Originally Posted by JAB5239

20 consecutive title defenses and the career defining Norton fight.

Ill give you that he is more accomplished but not by that much . Both have similar dominated/continue to dominate and both don't have a "great win"
Norton was never that good of a fighter other than beating Ali

[gobblock]

Originally Posted by JAB5239

So how do Klitschko fans justify this question?

If he wasn't prime (and he was) than how do you justify everyone calling for him to fight Pulev, Arreola, Price, Mitchell, Fury etc.? Shouldn't these fighters be allowed to develop the way he did if he if fact was not prime?

He's the champ. Why should he give a shit if they're prime or not? People are offered title shots and that's their problem is they're not ready for it yet, as they so frequently say they aren't. He's running out of challengers since he's cleaned out the division. He can beat down brash green prospects who think they're ready, seasoned mandatories who earn a second shot at him after losing to him years ago, or frightened contenders who are just in it for the money like David Haye.

I'm sure, as a hater yourself, you'd love for these prospects and former contenders (Arreola) to be allowed to "develop" so that you can whine about how "Wlad is wasting his time fighting bums instead of young hungry lions like Pulev, Mitchell, Fury," etc.

The fact is, when people reflect objectively on his career so far based on all his past performances, they tend to believe his prime started with the Samuel Peter fight where he overcame adversity, showed the heart of a champion, won, and has never looked back. Deal with it.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by devon

Ill give you that he is more accomplished but not by that much . Both have similar dominated/continue to dominate and both don't have a "great win"
Norton was never that good of a fighter other than beating Ali

Norton was better and more accomplished than anyone Wlad has fought. Beating Ali (arguably 3x, at least twice) trumps ANYTHING any fighter Wlad fought has done. And the fight with Holmes was career defining for Larry.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by gobblock

He's the champ. Why should he give a shit if they're prime or not? People are offered title shots and that's their problem is they're not ready for it yet, as they so frequently say they aren't. He's running out of challengers since he's cleaned out the division. He can beat down brash green prospects who think they're ready, seasoned mandatories who earn a second shot at him after losing to him years ago, or frightened contenders who are just in it for the money like David Haye.

I'm sure, as a hater yourself, you'd love for these prospects and former contenders (Arreola) to be allowed to "develop" so that you can whine about how "Wlad is wasting his time fighting bums instead of young hungry lions like Pulev, Mitchell, Fury," etc.

The fact is, when people reflect objectively on his career so far based on all his past performances, they tend to believe his prime started with the Samuel Peter fight where he overcame adversity, showed the heart of a champion, won, and has never looked back. Deal with it.

Lol, you're a pathetic nuthugger!! So in your world its excusable to lose with plenty of experience and ok to fight green fighters. Thanks, that tells us all we need to know about your objectivity!

[Rock0052]

Originally Posted by devon

Ill give you that he is more accomplished but not by that much . Both have similar dominated/continue to dominate and both don't have a "great win"
Norton was never that good of a fighter other than beating Ali

If Wlad never unified, never gave rematches to his toughest opponents, and actually dropped his belt instead of facing a deserving mandatory for a much easier fight, he'd never live it down.

Even if one wants to make the argument that Norton was better than anyone Wlad beat, that doesn't outweigh the three things I mentioned.

[devon]

Originally Posted by JAB5239

Norton was better and more accomplished than anyone Wlad has fought. Beating Ali (arguably 3x, at least twice) trumps ANYTHING any fighter Wlad fought has done. And the fight with Holmes was career defining for Larry.

Not when you consider the fact that Norton was at the tail-end of his career and Holmes was in his prime.

[gobblock]

Originally Posted by JAB5239

Lol, you're a pathetic nuthugger!! So in your world its excusable to lose with plenty of experience and ok to fight green fighters. Thanks, that tells us all we need to know about your objectivity!

Wladimir Klitschko has more than made up for his losses that are now in the distant past, as evidenced by his consensus status as one of the ten greatest heavyweights of all time and his ongoing historic title run. Similarly, none of the fighters he's beaten will be labeled shitty fighters for the rest of their life for having lost to him at any stage of their development, prime or not.

Let that sink in.

Now that you understand that much, we can continue. It isn't Klitschko's job to decide if his challenger is at the peak of his career or if he'll be better in six months or three years. Guess whose interests a fighter has in mind? His own. He's not the guardian and protector of the people he fights. He fights the best he can find and he always has.

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by devon

Ill give you that he is more accomplished but not by that much . Both have similar dominated/continue to dominate and both don't have a "great win"
Norton was never that good of a fighter other than beating Ali

Lol.

You gotta love the Klit licker "logic".

Norton's win over Ali is miles ahead of ANYTHING either Klitschko has ever done. Let's be honest here, what is the greatest accomplishment of any Baby Klitschko opponent? Chris Byrd outpointing an ancient Evander Holyfield?

And speaking of Evander, why hasn't either of the Klitschko sisters fought him?

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by devon

Not when you consider the fact that Norton was at the tail-end of his career and Holmes was in his prime.

Lol.

Answer me this; exactly WHO has Klitschko ever beat?

Chris Byrd is the best heavyweight on Wlad's resume. He also began his professional boxing career as a super middleweight.

Need I say more?

[Manning]

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

Lol.

Answer me this; exactly WHO has Klitschko ever beat?

Chris Byrd is the best heavyweight on Wlad's resume. He also began his professional boxing career as a super middleweight.

Need I say more?

So if Wlad went back in time and beat a prime Ali that wouldn't count due to Ali starting his career as a light heavyweight. Is that correct?

[PowerHoock]

Originally Posted by Dan-Vano

Louis
Ali
Jack Johnson
Lennox Lewis
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Fraizer
Holyfield
Tyson

All those achieved more in my opinion. Liston, Jersey Joe, and Ezzard Charles would also be ahead of him on my list. Still a phenominal fighter, and ranks very highly even tho his career isn't over

yes
no
hell no!

[Sheikh]

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

Lol.

Answer me this; exactly WHO has Klitschko ever beat?

Chris Byrd is the best heavyweight on Wlad's resume. He also began his professional boxing career as a super middleweight.

Need I say more?

who did dempsey and jack johnson beat? how about liston?

[derrick]

Who cares what that lard ass says. Wlad in not a top 10 ATG. He hid behind his brother his entire career. Vitali is a top 10 but WLad is not. Vitali would kick Wlads ass and Wlad has said this himself.

[Asterion]

I rank Wlad in the lower part of my Top10. I think he's done more than guys like Johnson, and arguably Tyson.

However, Holmes is clearly above Wlad. He has more defenses, he was undefeated for more time and didn't have embarrasing loses early in his career. Yes, Holmes ranks higher.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Marciano
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. W. Klitschko
9. Liston
10. Tyson

Wlad will soon be 37, btw.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by gobblock

Wladimir Klitschko has more than made up for his losses that are now in the distant past, as evidenced by his consensus status as one of the ten greatest heavyweights of all time and his ongoing historic title run. Similarly, none of the fighters he's beaten will be labeled shitty fighters for the rest of their life for having lost to him at any stage of their development, prime or not.

You need to look up what consensus means, and his HW title run won't be historic for at least another 5 years or 12 defences. Wlad is only mentioned in ATG lists because of his longevity and mythical H2H ability, and he's barely halfway to Louis' record without beating any Hall of Famers along the way.