Biggest "forums darlings"

So when I actually looked at the ranking I got your main point: that Wlad didn't fight his brother Vitali, therefore he didn't beat the best until after Vitali retired. Next time make that more clear from the beginning because I was confused what you meant when you said "best"

But to actually address that argument:
First, it ignores that Wladimir consistently fought and beat the best fighters in the world outside of his brother. You cited the TBRB and their own rankings confirm that David Haye was #3 when Wlad beat him. Not to mention you ignored Kubrat Pulev who was #2 when Wlad beat him. He systematically cleared out the entire top 5 for years so the question becomes why does him not fighting his brother lead to you dismissing his victories over #3, #4, and #5?

Second when you said that Wlad didn't beat the best until after Vitali retired you're ignored 2006 to late 2008 when Vitali was retired. During that time, Wladimir unified belts against the undefeated champion Sultan Ibragimov, beat the reigning champ Byrd and beat Sam Peters who would go on to be the 2nd ranked HW in the world before he lost to Vitali. Wlad beat all the best fighters available at the time including the ones who were the "second best" as you say but for some reason it doesn't count?

So end of the day it seems like when you say he didn't beat the best it comes off as you dismissing all his victories when Vitali was around just because he didn't fight Vitali but it also ignores him actually doing so when Vitali was around, therefore I really can't see why it would be considered a strong criticism against him.

 

Once again yet another Wlad debate steals the show.

 

McGrain were do you personally rank Wlad for heavyweights if you don't mind me asking?

 

I'm glad I read this post before responding to your earlier post.

 

Debates are somewhat competitive, this isn't.

 

When someone doesn't understand your point the impetus is on your to clarify not to act smug about it. That's the core of basic conversation especially when you keep changing what best means since you ignored when Wlad fought the best when Vitali was retired.

When you say 'he didn't fight the best,' that's implicitly what you're doing. The entire purpose of that critique in a legacy debate is to devalue a fighter's other wins by highlighting the one that's missing. You're trying to use the criticism without accepting its dismissive intent.

Its a dumb gotcha because it ignores context.
The entire basis of the criticism depends on why the fight didn't happen. Since this debate isn't about a fighter ducking an opponent but two brothers dominating a division.
You are applying a generic critique to a unique situation to which it doesn't apply. Penalizing a champion for not fighting his own flesh and blood is not a valid standard, and this entire hypothetical is just a deflection from the errors in your argument that you have been unable to address.

 

That's what usually happens when one person has a clear consistent argument and the other doesn't. I'm glad we can agree on that though

 

Just to be clear, you are claiming you had a clear consistent argument, and McGrain didn't? McGrain wasn't competitive?

 

Your words not mine

 

Yup.

 

I know you two clash heads but I rather thought it was a interesting read.

 

Agreed @themaster458 is actually a good poster, I’m not, he is rock solid though and knows his S.

 

I think digitally calculated lists will become more common, perhaps invoking more contention and debate.

I am not sure about the Golovkin example. I have not yet seriously sat down and considered the whys and wherefores of a placement. Although, I do see him as a useful test case for what it means to be an ATG or not, as the case maybe.

Expanded lists seem inevitable but, outside of automated/calculated listings, i.e., those with human observation and anecdotal rationale, I can see it being quite the undertaking (for someone with the time and without bills to pay).