why can't wlad be greater than Ali? i mean look at his last reign 10 years undefeated. WLAD/ 61 - 3 - 80% ko's vs 56-5 - 60% ko's for ali.. they both been involved in a lot of titlefights and many fans claim that ali would get spanked by wlad. or why champ mayweather with his 45-0 who's been holding titles for one and half decade isnt greater than sugar ray leonard? what ATG criteria do we look at when we crown the best?
lol Wlad lost his 80+ percent kayo ratio lol He lost it while he was getting intimate with Povetkin lol
The quality of opposition Ali faced was much stiffer than Wlad... I'm a big admirer of Wlad but their resumes are miles apart in terms of depth.
Everyone's criteria will differ, some will prioritise longevity and dominance over quality of opposition or perceived head to head ability over resume. Personally I prefer a fighters ranking based upon who they beat and how they beat them. It's easy for anyone to look great or potentially great against sub par opposition. Price looked like a potential contender, then he stepped up and was exposed, beating nobodies for me adds almost nothing to a fighters legacy. For me Wlad is not a top 10 ATG fighter. His level of opposition is poor. His best wins against Byrd, Haye, Peter and Povetkin are nothing spectacular compared to Ali's wins over the likes of Liston, Frazier, Norton and Foreman. Wlad simply can't rank higher than Ali, he doesn't have the opposition available to raise his ranking that high. In his key fights against Haye and Povetkin, Wlad has failed to impress. We still remember The fight of the century, The rumble in the jungle and The thriller in Manilla with fondness. Wlad's fights with Haye and Povtkin are scorned now and I can't see these signature wins ever being remembered fondly. If Wlad were to break the record for most defences and length of reign that could break him into the top 10 but even then he would not rank as high as Joe Louis because of the manner of his key victories. Louis' rematch with Schmeling and his comeback against Conn are talked about even now. Few fights will ever be as historic as the win over Schmeling. Wlad has no historically significant fights, they are all forgettable.
Ali did GREAT things and had many career defining fights. Wlad has done nothing of the sort. That's not a knock of Wladimir, he just hasn't had the opposition to shine. His greatest opponent was a blown up cruiserweight.
Or maybe Ali made his opposition look better than they were by going life and death with them, which raises the point was Ali really as good as he was made out to be? Most of the guys Ali beat would be bums if they were fighting in this era, they just looked exciting because they were facing evenly matched opponents. Personally I think Wlad destroys Ali.
What about his victory over prime Foreman, who came back in his forties and beat a load of 90's heavyweights, including Moorer who was no walk-over... Styles make fights, and if you're referring to Frazier and Norton when saying 'make opposition look better', I beg to differ. I personally think Liston would make mince-meat of most of today's HW's, with the excpetion of the Klits. Ali put Liston away with ease, and I doubt either Klit could replicate Ali's victories over him.
Boxing evolves. Skills evolves, nutrition evolves, training evolves. Boxing today is a totally different ball game compared to back then. And the guys you listed would have no problem whatsoever in putting away the likes of top HW contemporaries from the 30's and 40's. What's your point? Just because one boxer from era can beat one from another era, what difference does that make? Sprinters from today would wipe the floor with the likes of Carl Lewis and Michael Johnson. Does that hinder the older guy's legacy? Of course not! It's evolution!
atsch Congratulations for making the stupidest statement on boxing, I and I'm certain many others will have ever seen on a boxing forum!
