Wlad is already comparable to Liston or Holmes

Considering the success of Byrd and Povetkin, it is a terrible counter.

 

As already delineated, these men were not a much higher caliber. Each of these men had very embarrassing prime losses. They were good fighters, but by no means king makers. they have just been romanticized over time.

 

You aren't paying attention. He does have two losses to a lightheavyweight. That is pretty counterbalancing.

Brewster was a good fighter at that point. Brewster has quality wins on his resume.

Michal Spinks was a lightheavyweight. Holmes couldn't manage in two fights a decision against a guy that Wlad would have starched in a round.

Why, are you demented?

I don't know and neither do you. Perhaps the Brewster camp didn't want the fight. Neither one of us is privy to backroom negotiations. When Wlad had the belt and leverage, he chose to fight a guy who beat him. Good job Wlad. That is all.

Gibberish. Vitali beat no one of any consequence. Byrd, Povetkin, Haye, Thompson, Ibragimov and Chagaev were outstanding

Why, are you demented? This is a respectable thread. Please, employ logic rather than childish chest thumping. It impresses no one.

A) Not necessarily true. Larry got some dodgy decisions VS Norton, Williams, Witherspoon. One of the point I made is that Larry very often looked like crap in the fights he allegedly "won."

B) Completely irrelevant. Longevity adds to greatness, and Wladdy is still going strong at an age when Larry was faltering and losing to lightheavyweights.

Irrelevant. Great fighters from Jack Johnson to Manny Pacquiao have had losses, even embarrassing ones, before they hit their stride.

Losing to a semi-retired pro golfer who is 6'5", has lighting fast hands, power and a southpaw stance is not as bad as losing twice to a lightheavy.

 

Since Wlad one every round except the one where he gassed, I doubt that. I think he would have made adjustments and won handily.

A) but he didn't lose to Byrd like Larry lost TWICE to Spinks.
B) it isn't even true. Povetkin is now clearly his best win.

Childish. Why would anyone listen to someone who is either in JR high or debates with that mentality?

A) A lot of people don't agree with that record book.
B) It is irrelevant. Lots of fights lose before they hit their stride.

The only great fighter Holmes beat was Ali, who was a zombie. Wlad could have given Holyfield a fight and beat up a corpse too. Or even Bowe, who lobbied or a fight. it is to his credit that he didn't.

I would say Byrd and Povetkin are well beyond anyone Larry beat, including Ken Norton, who, despite his one good victory against Ali, has some dreadful losses. Norton was only good when not physically challenged at all.

Byrd, Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Thompson are all outstanding wins.

This is not an argument, but childishness.

The fact remains the Spinks was a lightheavyweight, and it was a major embarrassment at the time for Holmes to lose to him not once, but twice.

This is just silly. I don't even think you believe it.

 

I find it amusing.

Arguing about the past is a lot of fun, but I look towards the future. Once the dust settles on the WBC situation, Wlad will get the unification match and handle either Stiverne of Wilder to become the undisputed champ. Beyond that, I see a rematch with Povetkin, and given how much Povetkin is improving, I think it will be a great fight.