Who do you rate higher as an ATG and why? W Klitschko or E Holyfield

Wlad was boring to watch, but I think you have to go with him. I believe he had, what the second highest consecutive defenses of the HW Crown.

 

If you know the definition why do you continually ask the same questions yet expect different answers? I said all I needed to say to you within the first few posts.

All I want now is you to enjoy some Holyfield fights and see if your opinion changes on him being a faded boxer by the 3rd fight with Bowe.

 

I'm gonna say this quietly, lol.... but I tend to agree.

 

So does that make him the second greatest HW of all time?

He didn't begin to defend the actual HW Crown till after Haye , some would argue Povetkin. Mike Tyson has multiple defences of the undisputed HW Crown. Klitschko was never an undisputed champion.
Holyfield beat Tyson twice. What undisputed champion did Klitschko ever beat?

 

I didn't previously see it because I haven't been around in a long time. But you still haven't explained why you brought Haye up after you took someone to task for bringing up Lennox. You simply can't have it both ways. Well I guess you can.

 

He was as close to undisputed as you can get with 4 belts (5 if you count the WBA chaos). Considering sanctioning organization politics, TV contracts and promoter wars, there likely will never be a HW champion that unifies all 'recognized' belts again. Lennox Lewis was the last one when the WBO wasn't considered eligible.

 

Klit was the Lineal Champion all the other belts are alphabet. Of which Klit I believed defended it 18 times. 2nd most. You can argue that his competition wasn't as great as others (it was better than Tyson's), but you can't argue his successful defences. that's record book stuff. Look it up

 

My Bad, Larry Holmes had the 2nd most with 20, Wlad had the 3rd most with 18, but the 2nd longest reign. That's still double the defences Tyson had at 9, and his reign was 6 years long at 9 to 3 years. My point was not to say who was better Wlad or Mike though, the OP topic was who rates higher Wlad or Holyfield, and with Wlad having the 2nd longest reign, and 3rd most defences, I think that's a no brainer. IMO

 

Wlad didn't become lineal champion when he beat Chris Byrd. He just became an alphabet titlist.

 

But you want to consider the IBO a credible strap for Wlad? The WBO had far more worth back then than the IBO does now.
The IBO is worthless. Nobody will ever need to hold that to become undisputed.

 

Rocky Marciano's entire career was shorter than Wlads championship run. Yet Marciano ranks higher on the ATG list. As does Frazier who didn't have any reign.
There's a lot more to the discussion of greatness than blind statistics. Wlad benefited greatly from an extremely weak era and even had the added bonus of a brother who acted as a tag team partner on a few occasions.

Its easier than ever to grab a belt and hold onto it now. Ruling over a roster of bums isn't what legends or ATGs are made of. . Klitschko has very damming loses , life and death struggles against no-marks and a style heavily reliant on illegal clinching. Not to mention a very poor chin and fragile mentality . These factors matter.
Its not a case of looking up his run on boxrec and determining his ranking as an ATG is based of that and that alone.

 

Of course not.

 

Not sure why you are comparing Rocky Marciano on a post that asked about Wlad vs Holyfield, lol. But whatever. I the facts I posted are not debatable they are just that, FACTS. Where hey rank is debatable yes. But again this is a post about Holyfield vs Wlad