lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

And the only reason VITALY lost to LL was a cut cause by a lucky glancing punch ( thats a fact ) . LL in fact got koed by the ROCK . MASKIEV koed the rock twice . Does that mean he's better then LL :yep . You characters are making assclowns of yourselves trying to make the KLITS look bad . Its really pathetic .atsch

 

:deal Exactly .

 

And people saying that were wrong, but it has absolutely nothing to with people saying the same about Wlad, because it's very true in his case. The second half of Lewis' career was mostly a succession of former world champs, ATGS, Hall of famers and the main man from the successive era. Wlad doesn't have that excuse.

 

I am a hugh klitschko Fan but Lennox's resume trumps Wlad's at this point... however If Wlad does beat a few top guys who go to rule the division in future years things could change. Lenox had the chance to fight guys who were considered Great by the time he fought them... Wlad didn't have the same chance. Just guesstimating here but if you pool the oponenets from both resumes then the best 2-3 wins belong to Lennox. Ultimatly it depends how you rate Wlad's opponenets, personally i think byrd would beat holyfield (styles make fights) but holyfield has acocomplished more at heavyweight and is a better name. Tyson is a great name but at the time he fought lennox he probobly wasn't even top 10 heavyweight. Vitaly is a great win for Lennox... outside of those 3 names all other opponenets are similar for both resumes.

 

How do you know how many of Wlad's past and future opponents will make it into the HOF :think

There lies the fallacy of your argument.

When Lennox demolished Vitali nobody thought it was a meaningful win for his resume. Now - 10 years later - it looks like one of his best wins altogether.

 

The TKO6 thread is that way ^^^

 

K2 Fans: Did the Klitschko's at any point in time (late 90's - early 00's) attempt to make a fight with Holyfield?

 

No, the fallacy would be if your argument is that Wlad's opponents will all go on to be ATGs, world champs and Hall of Famers, despite their being no evidence to back that up, and Lewis beat most of his opponents when they had already had succesful careers or were being thought of as Hall of Famers. The win over Vitali doesn't add much to his legacy (although it is one of his best wins in hindsight), he was already a certain ATG at that point and he would never get near Ali and Louis.

 

I don't know. I think Vitaly never wanted to fight holyfield but it was based on Holyfield being his idol more than anything else.

 

That's not going to sound familiar to anybody. Because your claims on how Lewis was viewed in the 90's are patently false.

He made his name by completely walking thru, in short time, opponents that were previously highly regarded (Ruddock, Golota, Grant etc.). Not by boxing with "hesitancy" & cautioness and stinking out the joint in his biggest showcases.

Vitali lost to Lewis because he failed to heed the referee's dressing room instructions... "protect yourself at all times"... and utterly failed at defense and took a beating so savage that he was physically unable to continue.

 

Lewis was viewed by some as too thoughtful, especially coming after the Tyson whirlwind. He was always far more aggressive than this version of Wlad though.

 

Their oponents won't go on to any of this . Not because they dont match up well with past eras but because the KLITS have been so dominant . :deal The cause and effect have these clowns confused .

 

How can two fighters 'dominate' the same division at the same time? I've asked this question many times but a Klitard is yet to answer.

My version of domination is what Lewis did to Vitali's face btw.

 

atsch VLAD has lost less rounds and KOed more oponents and has actually had more fights over a longer reign then LL . get over it .

 

Your version of domination is you getting bent over and taking a **** up your ass . :yep