Wlad is already comparable to Liston or Holmes

Patterson's best wins were from an old Moore about 25 years his senior, Chuvalo the tough but limited journeyman and Ingemar Johansson who was just a flash in the pan. Bryd's resume is better.

Oh and did I mention the part on how he was knocked down nearly 20 times:yep

 

What are Byrd's best wins? An old Holyfield, and limited Tua?

 

Old Holyfield (better quality win than Moore and closer to prime), Vitali (Patterson would have never been able to last 10 rounds with Vitali and get an injury win), Tua(good fight and top contender from 1996-2003, better opponent than Patterson beat his whole career) McCline, Williamson(solid big heavyweight contenders on par if not somewhat better than Chuvalo) Golota, Oquendo(quality wins).

Byrd's resume is superior. Better fighter, better resume.

 

I haven't revealed any metrics of my own. I'm just pointing out the glaring holes in your criteria.

Mike Tyson never beat a "prime" "great" heavyweight, but Oliver McCall has, and Elmer Ray has beat two. Your argument sucks.

 

My argument sucks but you are unwilling or unable to provide any metrics of your own. lol Tyson did beat "old" Larry Holmes. If you can provide the name of any "great" fighter that Wlad has fought, let alone beat, young or old, I would appreciate it. You can't because he hasn't. He is the best heavyweight of the weakest heavyweight era in boxing history. Maybe he would be great in other eras but I don't see it.

 

-I don't have to. Wlad is llikely going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer and is already being recognized as an all time great in his own time. You are actually the minority on this.

-And that version of Holmes isn't even a top 5 Tyson win. Razorx2, Biggs, Tucker, Bruno, and Bonecrusher were more formidable opponents than a "Larry Holmes in Name Only". It means nothing. You might as well be bigging up Sultan and Larry Donald's wins over Holyfield as great victories.

-You aren't educated enough to make such a comment. I doubt you know very much of HW history. And how does one even define an "era?" Wlad has reigned for nearly a decade now. The so called Tyson era was just 4 years in contrast. Holmes was just 6.

 

The emboldened part of your quote speaks volumes.

 

Because I'm not egotistical enough to think I can define "greatness" with a metric on a message board. History tells the tale of tape. Wlad is going down as an all time great, regardless of what you or I say on here.

You have nothing else to add?

 

The last thing I will add is that you have no problem spouting a lot of superfluous verbiage throughout this thread but when asked to justify your high rating of Wlad, you are suddenly strangely quiet. Either you are afraid your reasoning will be seen as suspect, which is highly likely, or you are merely basing it on your personal opinion, which is okay. Anyway, I won't take up any more of your time because you obviously have more important things to do like filling in the gaps in Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

 

-I don't do ratings but I would describe Wlad as one of the HW greats and history will remember him as such as well. His success, discipline, and longetvity over quality opposition is uncanny.

-Many ordinary fighters have beat great fighters on a given night, but oridnary fighters don't have the type of sustained success Wlad has had.

In my 4 decades as a boxing fan I see these men as the greats: Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, and Wlad. And I have never seen it universally agreed upon that any of these men beat a prime all time great. Not once.

-Aren't we all giving our personal opinion?

 

What quality opposition? That's my point. Name the quality opposition and I will agree with you about his greatness.

 

If Wlad stayed on top until he was 50 and surpassed the records or Holmes, and Louis there would still be people on this board that wouldn't give him any respect. it makes me sick......

 

You know who he fought, I'm not going to list anybody that will surprise you. He has beat a strong varied collection of good-excellent contenders that I would put on the level with the good contenders from any other era. It would be splitting hairs to contrast a Povetkin to a Machen to a Tony Tucker, all simply good contenders, simple as that.

 

Okay, that's your opinion and I respect it. We can just agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

 

Wlad shoud be much higher than Liston.

Holmes and Klitschko are close to even.