Exactly WHO has Klitschko beaten???

Given that anybody losing to either bro will be regarded as a never was or a bum by the keyboards warriors and boxing historians teenagers on here , you're right they never beat anybody :nut

 

He was robbed against Ali. He was considered the number 1 hw in the world.

If you disagree tell me who was above him?

Watch the fight, no way on earth is Norton past his best.

 

You could also say the same with Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Marciano, Tyson, etc.

 

There you go, rewrite history as if Pinklon Thomas, James Smith, Frank Bruno & Frans Botha were all great wins against top notch opponents.

Reeks of desperation. :yep

 

Funny how you rank Sam Peter as a good win for Wlad but not Vitali, who was the first to beat him by TKO. I guess Wlad's doiminating wins over Chris Byrd mean nothing right? How about his vicious KO of Chambers? The are many others but I won't bore you with what you already know.........

I think an unbiased observer would also consider the total rounds lost, KO percentage, and KOing guys who've never been KO'd as well as some who were undefeated at the time.

Now if either brother were going life and death against these opponents or winning close split decisions, we'd have to take that into account as well. But that's not what's happening is it?

 

I can guarantee if you put a prime Tony Thompson in front of Holmes he'd be doing well to manage a UD, and he might lose the decision like he did twice to Michael Spinks.

 

Between the spoon and berbick fights I think Thomas was the best hw in the world.

The rest you just are about the level of chag, iggy, haye etc.

 

I'd agree but being the best in a supposedly bad era is not the same as being ranked the best in a good era obviously.

 

Of course it ain't. I'm not sure which other era would see him rise to the top neither. Just putting the victory into perspective.

 

True. I always ranked Tyson's wins over Berbick, Tucker and Spinks as his best. His wins over Pinklon, Bonecrusher & Spinks are a step below in my opinion. The Spinks win was great, but it was such a blowout that it would be almost the same as saying Lewis' best win was over Golota.

 

You also have to give extra points for longevity and both brothers have that in abundance, especially Wladimir. Unification is much harder now than it was back then...........

 

wlad is a great, I dunno why people even debate that tbh.

 

I had Norton winning against Ali as well, and I thought Norton beat Holmes.
Holmes was considered better than Norton by 1978, and a lot of people still thought Ali was better. The division was extremely weak by that point and Norton still was not considered the best HW in the world.
I think my original point was that Holmes' record is very thin and I stick by that.
Holmes best win up to the Norton fight was Earnie Shavers, by a long way, and Shavers was good but he wasn't that good. Then Holmes lost to a past prime Norton but got the nod. As champ his best defence was Tim Witherspoon, who was decent but not that good, and he squeaked out a SD.
He fought a few more novices and then lost his belt to a LHW with gammy knees, not impressive.

 

Well if you had Norton beating both Ali and Holmes surely you believe he was number 1.

I'm nit debating his resume. I am saying Norton was number 1 when Holmes beat him.

 

It doesn't matter what I think, Norton wasn't considered the best at that time. But I think Norton was better than Holmes, Spinks, Ali, Weaver, and Tate at that time, but that is not saying much.