Wladimir Klitschko is now the greatest heavyweight who ever lived, according to Boxrec.

Fair enough, but it did come across like you were distancing yourself from saying Holmes was better earlier, only to now clearly say you think he was. That’s fine just say it outright.

But you’re still applying a pretty selective standard. You’re okay with Holmes struggling more because you believe his opposition was better but that belief isn’t backed by much, especially when Wlad’s top wins (Byrd, Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev) are easily comparable to Holmes’ (Witherspoon, Williams, Cooney, etc).

You don’t have to like Wlad style or his era totally fair if it bored you, but discrediting his dominance just because it wasn’t “fun” to watch while giving Holmes a pass for tougher fights in a supposedly better era… that’s still inconsistent reasoning, whether intentional or not.

 

Byrd got knocked out by Shawn George. Povetkin failed numerous PED tests, inluding all the PED tests he took before all his fights in 2016, so many, in fact, that the International Testing Agency recommended all of Povetkin's wins from Oct. 2014 until the end of his career be removed because of so many failed tests and the fact he was juiced to the gills.

That's worse, by any measure.

 

And I would certainly say Ken Norton in 1978 was better than Chris Byrd, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye and Ruslan Chagaev. I would pick NONE of them to beat Ken Norton over 15 rounds, like Holmes did that year. Hell, I wouldn't make any of them a solid favorite over the unbeaten Ray Mercer in 1992.

Byrd, at his best, couldn't even outpoint Golota.

 

Byrd getting stopped by Shawn George years after his prime at cruiserweight doesn’t erase the fact that he was a top heavyweight for nearly a decade, beat guys like Tua, Holyfield, and prime Vitali, and was a legit champion. If we’re disqualifying fighters for late-career losses, then are we tossing out Holmes for getting beat by Nielsen? Or Ali for losing to Berbick?

Povetkin’s PED issues are valid criticism, no doubt. But if we’re going down that road, are we also throwing out Holyfield, Toney, or even Tyson? Or is it just a problem when it’s convenient for discrediting Wlad’s resume?

And let’s not act like Holmes’ opponents were some invincible monsters, Norton, one of Holmes’ best wins, was knocked out by Garcia, Cooney, and Shavers. That’s three brutal KO losses, and not all of them past his prime either. So if knockout losses are your measuring stick, Holmes’ best wins aren’t immune either.

Bottom line: Byrd and Povetkin were highly ranked, legit contenders and chalps when Wlad beat them. You can nitpick all day, but that doesn’t erase his dominance over the division.

 

Based on what? Having a close fight with Jimmy Young and then losing to Holmes? Let’s be real: Norton lost to every legit puncher he ever faced, couldn’t fight off the back foot to save his life, and his resume outside of a win over a faded Ali is paper-thin.

Both Byrd and Povetkin have far better resumes and proved themselves over longer stretches at the top. Byrd beat prime Tua, Holyfield, and Vitali as well being a champion with multiple defenses. Povetkin was elite for over a decade, fought everyone, and beat top contenders in multiple eras.

And saying a slick, tricky boxer like Byrd wouldn’t beat someone like Mercer, who struggled with every skilled boxer he faced, is just delusional. Maybe take off the nostalgia goggles and look at these guys for what they actually did, not just how they made you feel watching them.

 

Hey, if that's how you see it
No issue

I think practically everything was awful during Wlad's era

 

To be fair he said he wouldn't make any of them the favourite
Not that they wouldn't win

 

I don't see it personally most of those guys he listed had the power to knock out Norton and force him on the backfoot especially a past his best Norton and Mercer was pretty inconsistent and most of his best performances were loses.

 

Wlad was very effective - but with a negative boring style

Today's HW era is 10 times as exciting

Wlad's era lost the viewing public worldwide and sent boxing tanking

He should never be rewarded for that

 

So you should know that if you're swinging at air thinking you're gonna hit the target and put some power behind it you can snap some shyte up.

 

Wlad's fights were being viewed by hundrets of millions of people around the world. It didn't lose anything, just shifted focus a bit to Europe, especially eastern Europe. His fight with Haye f.e. sold similar amount of PPVs as Lewis Holyfield.

 

There wasn’t any PED testing at all pre 1990’s in boxing.

The 1970s and 1980s US HW’s that a lot of fans pump up as if they are the elite of any era were juiced to the gills. The only reason why they weren’t popping constantly was because no one was testing them.

 

So now dominating a fighter that was juiced to the grills is somehow a bad thing? You just gave an argument why Povetkin was stronger than these guys.

 

Very high numbers in Eastern Europe and Germany.

In UK and US there was a definitely a lack of interest in Wlad unless you were a hardcore.

 

That's true, but UK and US fans aren't superior to other fans.