Holyfield missing link in K's resume

This is basically a companion piece to my other thread asking why they never faced him, but its got a different point.

The first thing that comes up in criticism of either Klitschko's resume is that they never beat an ATG. That does NOT come up for Johnson, Holmes, Tyson. And either K resume is otherwise better than those fighters (with only Holmes being debatable.) The only real ATG's Johnson et al beat were shot to pieces versions of Jeffries, Ali, and Holmes, respectively. None of those fighters were any less shot than the Holyfield coming off a close, disputed loss to title holder Valuev at the end of 2008. If either K fights and beat him at that stage, the "never beat an ATG" argument disappeared against them. Missed opportunity by the K's.

 

5'7 Sam? Of the 32/14/15 boxing record? I count neither him nor Tommy Burns (also 5'7) as true ATG's, that is definitively in the top 30 all time. Sure he was ducked, Corrie Sanders was ducked a lot too. Unlike either Langford or Burns, Sanders had a win over a real ATG. I rank them all fairly similarly, none is a legit top 30 ATG. Arguments to the contrary are largely just revisionist.

 

Go break down, you are a very bad, bot. So what re: age, he was coming off a good performance against a belt holder. He showed more than Jeffries, Ali, Holmes had shown in the last 12 months before their returns.

 

Money, I think you're mistaking me. I'm not really criticizing them, so much as highlighting how easily the biggest criticism against them is countered. No real argument can be made that 1. Holyfield was less deserving of a shot than Jeffries, Ali, or Holmes and 2. That either K would not have destroyed him.

And simply doing what is almost undeniable would have eliminated the #1 charge against them.

 

My first was a legitimate question on why they never did it. This one is pointing out that if they had, arguably the major gripe about them would be resolved. Complimentary but very different.