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

Yes Olympic steroid testing technically began in 1968. But let’s not pretend it was effective or comprehensive. Testing back then was primitive at best, steroid use in amateur and pro sports exploded in the '70s and '80s, and detection methods were nowhere near what they are today. That’s not opinion that’s historical fact, backed by decades of doping scandals that were only uncovered years later.

As for Byrd, you’re seriously diagnosing steroid abuse based on him developing nerve damage after two decades of fighting guys 40–60 pounds bigger than him? That’s not evidence, that’s speculation dressed up as science fiction. You’re basically saying, "He got sick, so he must be guilty." If that's the bar, then we can accuse any fighter with long-term health issues of PED abuse.

And that analogy? Comparing Byrd’s condition to STDs from sleeping with sex workers? That’s not clever it’s gross. It says more about how badly you want to discredit him than it does about Byrd.

If you’ve got a failed test or credible source linking Byrd to PEDs, post it. If not, stop pretending baseless assumptions are facts just because they support your bias.

 

You asked why Povetkin and Byrd were worse than Witherspoon and Williams. I told you why they were worse. You denied Povetkin's wins were removed. Called it Fan Fiction. Said WADA wasn't involved.

I discounted all that.

If you want to call that a "win" on your part, have fun getting out of the knots you tied yourself into to come to that conclusion.

I also said you left out Ken Norton as one of Holmes' big wins, and said he'd beat all of Wlad's top opponents, too.

You ignored that. So, I'll take that as a sign you have no argument.

 

You denied Povetkin's failed tests, you denied any testing org recommended his wins be taken from him, and you denied any WADA involvement ...

And I showed you that you were wrong, and you still tried to ignore it all.

A guy can have years of fights taken due to PED use, or suffer the ravages of years of PED abuse, and you still just dismiss it if it doesn't fit your argument.

You will accept nothing I tell you.

 

Not really sure who I side with in this greatness discussion, since I think "He took steroids!" is largely irrelevant to 90s/2000s+ heavyweights. Guilty until proven innocent is a better standard for that era.

One of the reasons they'd beat the 70s guys you're talking about, BTW. I don't doubt that the 70s brigade would have used PEDs if they'd had the chance -- Ali and Duran certainly tried -- but I don't think the knowledge was as widespread back then to make it work. Boxing training methods were still locked into Ye Olden Tymes.

 

Most of them were on some kind of PED. I would think that's true regardless of most elites possibly all.

 

No, you didn’t tell me why Byrd and Povetkin were worse you repeated subjective takes, then tried to retroactively erase Povetkin’s career based on a ruling that happened after I called out the exaggeration. When I said no authority had erased “a decade of wins,” that was factually accurate at the time you responded with a link that confirmed the ruling just came out so let’s not rewrite the timeline.

And I never said WADA wasn’t involved I said no body had officially erased his resume at the time you made the claim, and that the extent of the erasure was being exaggerated. Once it was confirmed, I acknowledged it directly while still pointing out it doesn’t affect Wlad’s 2013 win or Povetkin’s skill level and competitiveness, which are still relevant to resume discussions.

As for Ken Norton I didn’t “ignore” it. I addressed it before: Norton was a good fighter, but he was KO’d by every big puncher he faced, never won a title in the ring, and his best win was a decision over a declining Ali. The bulk of his resume is having 3 fights against Ali winning only 1 and then having a close fight against Holmes, but he was also brutally knocked out by Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney, and never won a title in the ring. His style didn’t hold up against power, and he had no plan B when guys pressed him hard. So when someone says Norton would beat all of Wlad’s top opponents, that’s still hypothetical. Meanwhile, Byrd and Povetkin were consistently ranked top 5 for years, beat world champions, and were legitimate threats across a full era not just known for three fights with Ali and a gutsy loss to Holmes.

You can call that “tying myself in knots” if it makes you feel better, but from where I’m standing, you’ve sidestepped resume comparisons, projected bias, and tried to score points on hypotheticals instead of actual accomplishments.

 

Let’s clear something up: I never denied Povetkin had failed tests. What I challenged was your claim that “a world testing organization had recommended all his wins from the better part of a decade be removed.” When you said it I didn't know about it and you didn't provide a source until later so I though you were talking about the earlier rulings and when you provided a source I acknowledged the ruling immediately not ignored it I just said that it doesn't take away from my argument which it didn't since I was never claiming that Povetkin was clean.

I also never denied WADA’s involvement I said that no such punishment had been officially issued at the time of your claim, and that you were making it sound like some universally enforced verdict had erased his career, when in fact that ruling only became public recently and is not yet official.

You’re trying to rewrite the conversation as if I was denying established facts, I wasn’t. I was pointing out that your argument jumped to conclusions before any facts were verified, and when they were, I adjusted accordingly that’s called having a rational position.

As for Byrd, you’re not a doctor, and wild speculation about nerve damage being "proof" of steroid use is just that: speculation. You have no positive test, no evidence, no confirmation just assumptions based on symptoms. If that’s your standard of proof, you’d be discrediting half the sport’s history.

I’m more than open to facts I just don’t accept narratives dressed up as facts, big difference.

 

In actual fact the first test that he "failed" was for meldonium and it was well under the acceptable limits. There's a reason why people were pissed at Wilder. He ran like hell for no valid reason.

 

Which is the one I thought he was talking about wasn’t aware of the newer ones tbh

 

I must say Wladimir's popularity has really picked up ever since the AJ fight. In the much of the 2000s and most the 2010s there was so much negativity surrounding him I can remember it very well since his era was the era I started watching the sport.

 

Exactly this

 

Yep total duck job by Wilder and it is why he ran back to the states instead of going to Moscow he seen an out and he ran for it the WBC had not even ruled on the fight yet when Wilder ran.

 

You can say the same about Lennox, especially when it comes to US fans.

 

BoxRec’s formula is pure numbers and algorithms, not real historical context.

Wlad’s résumé is strong, incredibly dominant for a decade, dozens of title defences, cleaned out multiple generations. But anyone seriously ranking him as the greatest heavyweight ever based on a computer formula is ignoring the obvious: he ruled a weak era, had serious vulnerability under pressure (Sanders, Brewster, Joshua, Fury), and never had a win over a true all-time great in their prime.

You can argue Wlad is top 10–12 all-time, maybe even top 8 based on longevity and consistency. But greatest heavyweight ever? No way. Ali, Louis, Holmes, and a few others still sit above him based on who they beat, how they beat them, and the level of competition they faced.

BoxRec ratings are fun to look at, but they aren't a serious measure of all-time greatness.

 

Yeah, it's funny how selective people get when they break these fights down.

Calzaghe’s hand issues were brutal, that's documented from way before he even turned pro, and he still fought aggressively, stayed active, and took risks. He didn’t just potshot and coast through fights trying to protect his hands. Even with bad hands, his volume, workrate, and willingness to exchange never really dropped.

The narrative that he "couldn’t punch" is exaggerated too. Early career and in the amateurs, he was blasting guys out, and not scrubs either, future world champions and top-level pros. The reality is, later on, he adjusted his style because he had to, lighter shots, higher volume, otherwise his hands wouldn’t survive 12 rounds. It wasn't about lacking power, it was about self-preservation.

And you're right, when it’s hypothetical threads about Calzaghe vs Roy or Hopkins, suddenly all that context just vanishes. Nobody wants to admit he fought with ruined hands against guys who still needed to foul and slow the fight down to survive him. Nobody wants to admit prime Calzaghe had an iron chin and absorbed bombs from real punchers without blinking.

It's always the same, context matters when it suits the narrative. When it doesn’t, it magically disappears.