Vitali Klitschko vs Evander Holyfield

It became clear to me that your are living in complete denial when you said that VITALI has better wins than Holyfield., fanboy.It speaks volumes of your boxing knowledge.

 

It became clear to me that you DKSAB when you said Holyfield > Vitali, fangirl. It makes it clear that your knowledge is limited to hype and feel-good BS.

 

https://www.ringtv.com/488242-ring-greatest-heavyweight-time/

Here are the ranking from the RING done according to a poll with specified criteria. The electors were:

Trainers: Teddy Atlas, Pat Burns, Virgil Hunter and Don Turner.
Matchmakers: Eric Bottjer, Don Chargin, Don Elbaum, Bobby Goodman, Ron Katz, Mike Marchionte, Russell Peltz and Bruce Trampler.
Media: Al Bernstein, Ron Borges, Gareth A Davies, Norm Frauenheim, Jerry Izenberg, Harold Lederman, Paulie Malignaggi, Dan Rafael and Michael Rosenthal
Historians: Craig Hamilton, Steve Lott, Don McRae, Bob Mee, Clay Moyle, Adam Pollack and Randy Roberts
Lewis and Tyson also particpated but did not rank themselves

YOU CALL THEM LIMITED TOO, FANBOY?

I will take the opinion of these knowledgable experts over the opinion of a biased fanboy on a boxing forum like you any day!!! NOW LOGOFF IDIOT

 

Hold on, I showed your own list that lesser fighters rated above Holyfield. Wasn't Jimmy Bivins about Holyfield? Are you going to believe it?

As I said Non-American heavies often get the shaft by an all North American panel. Which one of these names was born in Europe? That would be zero. And yes, I call Atlas a king hater, and Roberts a fanboy. Dan Rafael? A 300-pound fan boy. I don't know the opinions on most on that panel, but I can say this with historical accuracy. Foreign-born heavyweight champions like Carnera and Schmeling were not embraced by the USA press. The Klitschko's starting out were viewed with antipathy from many in the press. Some evolved out of it, others like Atlas kept the hate.

 

LOOOL Jimmy Bivins is not even on the list. Read the list and the criteria. And your attempt to play the race card in this one is hillarous LOOOL

Again, I take the opinion of these above that one of a Fanboy, every day of the week. At least they have some credibility unlike you!

Trainers: Teddy Atlas, Pat Burns, Virgil Hunter and Don Turner.
Matchmakers: Eric Bottjer, Don Chargin, Don Elbaum, Bobby Goodman, Ron Katz, Mike Marchionte, Russell Peltz and Bruce Trampler.
Media: Al Bernstein, Ron Borges, Gareth A Davies, Norm Frauenheim, Jerry Izenberg, Harold Lederman, Paulie Malignaggi, Dan Rafael and Michael Rosenthal
Historians: Craig Hamilton, Steve Lott, Don McRae, Bob Mee, Clay Moyle, Adam Pollack and Randy Roberts
Lewis and Tyson also particpated but did not rank themselves

 

I took a look at those rankings. I see that according to your interpretation of the list they made Marciano beats:

Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Lewis, Tyson, both Klitschkos, Bowe, Holyfield ... etc.

Interesting opinions. I assume you agree with all that?

If so, the only LIMITED thing around here is your understanding of what that list means. Have a good day, kid.

 

Are you too damned LIMITED to read the criteria. It says amongst others "In weighing greatness, the electors also considered intangibles and how important the heavyweight championship of the world was, once upon a time."

You and Mendoza are too dumb to read the criteria and the list . It should not be too difficult to just read

 

So you disagree with the list when it doesn't say what you want to hear? Is that it?

 

Nowhere does it say or imply that at all ,its a historical ranking not
a head to head one.If anyone is misunderstanding the list its YOU!

 

I do not know how limited you are or what your problem is. The list ranks the greatest heavyweights of all times according to a panel of experts.Now do you have any other excuses fanboy?

 

So basically you admit the list has little to do with H2H and more to do with a historical standing.

In other words, it's mostly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Consider yourself schooled again, dumbo.

 

It sure factors in because you and Mendoza argued that Vitali has a better resume than Holyfield!!! That is what ticking me off not so much the fact that you believe that Vitali would win in head to head. In my opinion, Holyfield would win a competitive decision.But you blew the whole thing with your unresonable assertion that Vitali has a better resume and you like to base that mostly on some fights where Holyfield was past his prime. That is when you lose credibility

 

Quote me saying that

What you will find me saying is that some of Vitali's wins are underrated and that the Briggs Vitali fought > the Thomas Tyson fought.

 

Which clearly is not the case.Thomas was a ranked heavyweight with only one loss.Briggs was an unranked back number.

 

Make a case that this Thomas

This content is protected

is better than this Briggs:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

I'll be interested to hear your breakdown.

My breakdown: Briggs would have crumpled Thomas up into a little ball and tossed him into the trash.