being 2nd oldest HW champ in history, defeating WBC champ without tune up fight after 4 year lay off, never down, always leading on scorecards, lost only by injuries, is not impressive to a "historian" like yourself? lol You're probably one of those people from classical section who argue that all these 180 pound HWs from 1920s would out muscle and TKO Vitaly in 1 round.
firstly I have never called myself a historian and would not so don't take that attitude, some old fighters would beat him some would not all I am saying is that his opponents are not that impressive and the two best fighters he has faced have beaten him
1. That is the worst statistic I've ever heard 2. He beat Sam Peter.:-( 3. True 4. Always? False. 5. "Losing by injuries" is still losing. Not impressive.
The heavyweight division is better than it's ever been. There are more countries participating than ever before. All of the ridiculously overrated American champs of the past should have asterisks next to their names because they were really only local champs, not world champs. They never competed against Eastern Europeans, Cubans, Africans, etc. in the pros. The Klitschkos have dominated and cleaned out a global heavyweight division. All of the best heavyweights from America, Britain, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Africa, etc. have been defeated by the Klitschkos. The Klitschkos are the two greatest heavyweights of all time. They're real world champs, unlike those disgustingly overrated overhyped American frauds of the past. Eastern European fighters are superior. The Klitschkos would dominate any era. This content is protected
Ross Purity is better than Wladimir Klitschko. Wlad couldn't even beat the worst guys in the worst HW division known to man.
5 best losses 1. Pele Reid KO2 2. Lennox Lewis TKO6 3. Chris Byrd RTD9 4. Oleg Maskaev TKO1 (Amateurs) 5. Olympics Steroids DQ1 This content is protected