Vitali Klitschko vs Evander Holyfield

Peter's a bit better than that. I think Peter is more a heavier handed Ray Mercer if we have to compare him to a 90s boxer. Quick hands but a similar lack of discipline. Mercer probably better inside, Peter maybe better outside and bit quicker.

 

It is not my fault your points are irrelevant

 

Vitali and Holyfield together. After Vitali leaves Holyfield explains how he'd fancy his chances at midrange and inside but he concedes both brothers clinching would negate his strength here. He don't fancy a dose of Grabamir Clinchko

This content is protected

 

- Douglas is a better win than Sanders for 2 reasons. Douglas was 30 when he fought Evander. Sanders was close to 40 when he fought Vitali. Douglas actually has some decent wins whereas Sanders only beat Wlad. Douglas win > Sanders win, by objective standards
- Vitali never beat anybody as good as prime Moorer.
- Holyfield stopped Cooper. Your point is irrelevant.
- Holyfield was past it against Ruiz. Your point is irrelevant,

 

Solis's leg went on him WTF! And he never did anything worth talking about anyway.

 

Yeah Vitlai knocked him down which caused the injury. He was doing just fine before Vitlai caught him with a good one.

 

LOL, Douglas was fat an under motivated. Sanders was the better win. A

Prime Moorer has glass jaw and beat whom aside from Holyfield? Moorer wasn't much better than Ruiz, who if you can score fairly is 2-0-1 vs Holyfield. Morrer went life and death with journeyman Bert Cooper, who floored and nearly had Moorer. Holyfield was also floored by Cooper!

If you want to see an impressive performance, watch Corrie Sanders of Bert Cooper! He did MUCH better than Holfyield. Even you will be impressed.

 

Douglas is a better win than Sanders. But both were coming off absolutely great wins and Douglas looked like he quit. Which kind of lessens it as a win

I think Sanders and Gomez are better southpaws than Moorer. Holyfield shouldn't have lost to him in the first place really

 

Regarding Douglas that is just your opinion. I note that you have no arguments why Sanders should be a better win than Douglas. I gave you 2 reasons why the Douglas win is better: age and resume. You have no arguments. another defeat for you.

 

At least you can recognize something. The other poster is living in complete denial.

 

That's where you are going wrong. I don't need to big up Thomas or any other of the opponents I listed, whom Tyson dispatched. You seem to be forgetting that we're comparing them to Shannon Briggs - and not the prime version; the old, 'wanna payday', journeyman version.

The Tyson opponents I listed were all ring-ranked and/or Titlists and/or former Champions, when Tyson faced them, and all of them can quite likely be found in most lists of the Top-100 Heavyweights of All Time. I doubt you can put a sensible case forward to dispute this.

All you want to do is to keep boosting the prowess of an ancient Briggs, in your usual, peasant-minded manner - i.e. comparing apples to oranges and thinking your smart for doing so. (Give yourself a big pat on the back - if you haven't already)

And, all this, because it was Vitali, who gave Briggs a hammering and this makes Vitali look good in your, his adoring fan's, eyes - LOL


To bring up the 'lineal' championship argument shows some real desperation. Especially, when his win over a then 'belt-less' Foreman is widely considered a robbery. And that was a prime Briggs facing a Foreman in his last fight, who would turn 49, seven weeks later.

Just think about that a second... ...Briggs, in his prime, fought the oldest ever version of an active Foreman and still needed a gift decision to walk away with the win. Yet, somehow, in the eyes of you - a Klitschko fan with a man-crush - Briggs, after 12 years of being little more than a journeyman, becomes better than any prime fighter, bar Tyson, in the mid-to-late '80s.

That^ is essentially what you are trying to sell...

Sorry, but...

All the above reads like a demented digressive, from a person I have already identified as being delusional.

Get a grip. I can tell you are losing it, when you start to strawman.

LOL - Now you are just writing the kind of crap that makes you feel better.

If it comforts you to believe the drivel you have just posted then more power to you.

Get well soon.

See above. If you think a polite way of telling you to **** Off was a beg for mercy, your case is probably worse than I thought.

Hope your personality disorder and obsession issues can get resolved, at the earliest opportunity.

OK, I'll admit that it was a mistake to think that you might have by now outgrown your Klitschko-Print Nightie. And, perhaps you're right. This is no joke. You do have serious issues.

PS I have already moved on.

 

Sanders was fat and unmotivated. He was also much older and spent the last year being mugged around since winning the title from Wlad.
He had no interest in boxing at that time.. He turned up only for a pay day , his physical condition is reflective of that.

One again you are exposed as somebody who can't debate boxing. Your counter argument was pitiful and non-existent. You got struck-out. AGAIN.

 

Fair point. However, Sanders was a better fighter than Douglas overall.

Good wins like what? Tyson? Granted. What else? McCall was 'ok' except that he conspired to lose virtually every time he stepped up. If you compare Sanders' and Douglas' common opponents, like Mike Williams, it's obvious who was the more devastating and imperious fighter. It's Sanders.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

According to which basis is Sanders a better fighter than Douglas? Besides Wlad, Sanders has beaten nobody of note and he lost to Nate Tubbs and Rahman. Douglas has the better resume and was considerably younger when he fought Holyfield.

Not to mention that Douglas is not even Holyfield's best win. But the Douglas win seems to be better than anything on Vitali's record.

 

And yet that's what you are desperately trying to do.

Correct. And I already showed how he was better than Thomas, for example. At this point you are trying to desperately dodge that fact.

So? Big deal. Briggs is the former LINEAL champion and title holder. He was top 10 by the WBC. Try again.

I'm comparing him to Thomas, who you said was a credible win for Tyson, and I showed how ancient Briggs was still beating BETTER opponents at the time than Thomas was. And yet, in your peanut-sized brain, you don't want to accept the fact. I guess there's not much room in that miniscule dot of a mind of yours to hold too many facts at once, but please do try.

And all this, because YOU slipped up and proclaimed Thomas a better win than old Briggs, which he was not. You could just admit your mistake and move on, but unfortunately your flea-sized intellect is coupled with an elephant-sized ego. You are physically unable to reach the dizzying heights of a realization that you were wrong.

Then go argue with the judges. Fact is, you seem to think that the belt Thomas won off the dregs of Berbick (who was never a very great fighter himself) is worth mentioning. That's desperation! Should I mention that one of Vitali's victims, Manuel Charr, still holds a belt TODAY? Or do belts no longer count?

Becomes better than Thomas. You don't want to seem to want to argue the point, and I understand why. Because you are wrong.

I doubt it.