After the Fury loss I am certain Wlad will not be regarded as favourably in 20 years

I wasn't referring to you regarding Klitschko being a top ten heavyweight. At least Holmes fought a prime Spinks. Spinks may be an atg light-heavyweight instead of heavyweight but at least he was accomplished in a division. Klitschko doesn't even have a hof boxer on his resume', prime or washed-up. I have never understood the adulation for this guy.

 

Well, I never understood the corpse of Ali being mentioned as nice scalp for Holmes. But these ranking things are just opinions after all.

 

Who has said that was a "nice" scalp for Holmes? Even Holmes felt bad after that "fight". Still, what is the signature name on Klitschko's resume'?

 

You have always defended it , just like you're doing again.

Wlad did nothin but peck at Haye with a jab. Haye outlanded him on power shots.

Everytime Haye moved in , Wlad threw all his weight down on him. Excessively until he got a point deduction.

He did the exact same with Fury. To the point he drowned out all his own work and Furys.

Fury was there to fight . Wlad was not. And he made sure of that with bear hugging enabled by Tony Weeks.

You have no clue how Fury won that fight. None. Fury landed more leather to Wlads body than all of his 10 year combined opponents did.

If Wlads punch out put went up , Furys would have went up further.

Fury was coasting to a victory doing what he was doing. Why should he have steered of course. You make people like you happy? Get with it son.

 

Angel Manfredy beat HOFer Arturo Gatti so certainly Mandrey's resume stands stronger than Wlad's doesn't it? :roll:

See how stupid that argument is?

 

My point was, there was nothing signatory about that win in my view. Or two straight losses to a LHW for that matter.

 

Nobody ever claims Gatti is an ATG , nevr mind a top 10 one. :roll:

 

Fury wasn't there to fight. How do we know this? Because he had a guy in front of him offering ZERO resistance and he still only managed to land a measly 7.1 punches a round. So 7.1 landed punches a round is "landed more leather" to you? :rofl Those numbers are an embarrassing disgrace which is what that fight was.

 

I don't get your point. No one is saying that Manfredy is a hof boxer just like no one is saying that Puritty, Sanders or Brewster are hof boxers either.

 

What fight defines Klitschko as a "great" fighter? I am not trying to be difficult but I can't get an answer to that question. I understand that he went undefeated over a long period of time but if he never even fought a hof boxer, how can he be rated that high?

 

Don't be stupid . The guy in front of him would've Pulev'd him in an instant were it not for his pugilistic excellence.

 

"That long" you mean many ranking him somewhere between 10-15 based on a decade long dominance with or without a win over a HOFer, which seems the most logical to me.

Like I said, these all-time rankings are just opinions.

 

I agree about the subjective part regarding the rankings. To me, having fought and lost to great fighters is a better indication of greatness than dominating an era of mediocre fighters but then again, what is "great" and what is "mediocre" is also subjective. lol

 

The funny thing is you kept telling us how Fury was going to dominate on the inside with infighting yet he never got on the inside or even tried. He was content to just lean back and throw a very low output of punches and try to win on the scorecards doing the bare minimum just like Haye tried to do. That isn't pugilistic excellence at all.