Wlad is already comparable to Liston or Holmes

Sonny Liston had an incredible chin .

 

Wlad would KO him in the later rounds, Wlads size advantage would be to much for Liston

 

liston is a bum.

holmes is an atg, top 3 heavyweight.

wlad top 10.

 

Circle jerk
Please give Wlad some respect
Or is this just racial?

 

I think Wladimir's longevity will put him up their with the greats - in some people's minds - but there is no doubting it will be under the cloud of a Heavyweight era, that had and still has a shallow pool of talent. The idea of Wladimir taking his place in the top 10 ATG Heavyweights will be contentious and there isn't a whole lot he can do about that now.

Squandered oppotunities perhaps, as I see them - against Povetkin, in particular, really have put Wladimir's 'greatness' into context. It is actually quite a disappointment, which is clearly felt by his hardcore fanatics and this thread highlights the dilemma they face and the need to address it - again and again, using the familiar patterns.

Despite the OP spending two posts and something close to two-thousand words, in support of the hypothesis that Wladimir Klitschko is already comparable to Holmes and Liston, it all seems (as this type of pro-Klitschko sentiment so often does) to hinge on Chris Byrd being "better". Whether it be better than Norton or Shavers or Mercer or "better than any of them", any such argument for Wladimir Klitschko invariably relies on Byrd being deemed better than he really was.

Byrd's magnum opus is a comfortable UD against David Tua. Tua, whose one and only shot at a world title had ended in failure, more or less a year prior, is the best Byrd has on his résumé, in terms of a genuine win over a prime (yet former) contender. If the OP considers Byrd, as comparable to Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon and Mercer, then that's his or her choice but it's a big stretch and since I do not recall a positively defining fight, win or lose, during Byrd's career, it's not a leap I'll ever be making.

By that I mean, I can't remember seeing anything in Byrd's fights which, for example, can be compared to Norton's win over Ali (and two subsequent contests with The Greatest) or participating in what is widely regarded as one of the best Heavyweight Boxing matches of all time (a la Norton vs. Holmes). I don't ever hear about how Byrd took Wladimir Klitschko to the wire like Mercer showed he could take Lewis. I don't hear about how Byrd was dangerous like a prime Shavers.

In short, I only ever hear Klitschko fanatics mention the guy, as a way of beefing up Wlad's credentials and it always seems a desperate approach; not least because of what I've just mentioned above. In turn, it follows that Wlad does not have a signature Win on his record. So longevity of reign aside, where does that leave him? To hardcore fans, he is near the top of the pile. To the remainder of the observant Boxing public, Wladimir Klitschko's legitimacy as a 'Great' is and probably always will be questionable.

 

Wlad's been a top fighter for 15 years now, nearly a decade as champion.

I'm not sure how long each heavyweight era lasts, but it certainly isn't that long. Saying he rules over a weak era (which, frankly, doesn't add up to much considering Holmes' and Liston's eras were also weak) implies that eras last way longer when it's Wlad under the microscope than other heavyweights.

Holmes, I'd argue, was also a top heavyweight across multiple eras.

Liston wasn't.

 

This is incorrect. Wlad spent most of the last decade as nothing more than a paper titlist...

 

Go back to the bucket of chitlins, troll. Adults are speaking.

 

It doesn't really matter whether you call it an era or 'eras'. Actually, the period of time is only relevant to Wlad's longevity, which surely will be the most prominent aspect of his legacy.

But, no matter the period of time and perhaps worse in Wlad's case because of it, the fact there is not one career-defining fight on his record against what fans, pundits and historians could call a marquee name, will count against him.

You can call the periods during which Holmes and Liston fought as weak all you like (which, frankly, considering this is an oft used retort to the charge that the last ten years has been absolutely dreadful, doesn't hold much weight) but at least they were involved in big fights.

 

Translation: Once again you are correct and have put me in my place. Thank you Mr Cisco Route for sharing your knowledge because, quite frankly, I don't know **** about boxing...

 

Interesting. The key points of your response involve patronising me and telling me I misread your original post.

What did you hope to achieve with this opening salvo? Was the idea to make me think you have some sort of authority over the matter, perhaps?

I think you need to lay off the schnapps, chap.

Then, quite ironically, the section of the my post, that you elect not to address, contains the points, which would have informed you that I had understood you perfectly.

However, to address a fresh assertion from you - If you think Byrd's wins over Tua, Vitali and Holyfield are comparable to Norton's victories over Ali, Quarry and Young then you are verging on the delusional. Norton's trilogy against Ali, alone, is vastly more noteworthy than anything Byrd did in his career.

Again - too much schnapps could cause delirium.

No. He would have to do considerably more than that and it would probably involve bending time and space so as to, e.g. beat a better than shot Holyfield, maybe in a trilogy of fights (not unlike Ruiz but an even fresher version of Holyfield than that would be required). Perhaps Knock Tua out and or at least have won a close but well-deserved decision against Wlad. Only then would it even become worth debating.

But it didn't happen and it's not going to.

Just by stating that all Byrd has to do is present his record demonstrates your penchant for grossly overrating Byrd, as a lot of Klitschko fans do, without thinking (or when drunk on schnapps).

OK - please tell me that you are not equating "dramatic" with a 'defining fight'. Because, if you do consider Peter a signature win for Wlad - just don't respond. I mean it.

I've already addressed Byrd's less than stellar CV.

I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that what you had said was ridiculous. I just vehemently disagree with all of it. (You must have emptied the bottle by now.)

Note: I may well have implied you are being ridiculous, in your last post, however.

I would have to say, your reply looks all too familiar. Are all Klitschko fans so formularized in their retorts to those who disagree with them? It seems the pattern is the same, no matter which 'alias' I end up debating with.

Not to worry - I am quite confident about what I saw at the time and what I have reviewed at various times since. Moreover, I think it is yourself who needs to go back and review the fights.

I'm quite grounded about the past and I can tell you, without looking, that Norton was a shedload better than one fat Super Middleweight called Chris Byrd.

 

Byrd was way better than that jello-jawed bum Ken Norton. That guy got crushed by every hard puncher he ever faced. Shavers and Foreman crushed him early as did Cooney but by then Norton was past his prime. Wlad would have neutralized the much smaller Norton with his power left jab, backed him up and finished him early with a big, perfectly timed right hand. At least Chris Byrd had a strong chin and was very elusive and hard to hit but Wlad figured him out and whipped the very competent Byrd twice.