Is Wladimir Klitschko a top 10 HW of all time? - Please remember to vote

Larry Holmes ATG

Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Langford ATGs

Willard may not be great but better than everyone on Wlad's resume..

 

Good post bro. If there were no Klitschkos, we'd have 20 different titlists this past decade and it would have been just like the past 100 yrs of the sport.:-(

I for one am happy we finally have a legitmate claim to the HW throne, unlike the preceding eras where the belts passed hands like a hot potato.:yep

 

Great fighters have intangible qualities which make them great fighters, so as long as they aren't shot, a win over a great but aged fighter is more significant than one over a good, young fighter.

It's like Tyson vs. Holmes. People often bring up Holmes when they diminish Tyson's resume as proof that he only ever beat one great who was shot, but whilst Holmes was old, he had qualities which would allow him to mix with the elite for years. Hopkins is another like Holmes who is old but has intangible qualities which mean that a win over him now is still very significant.

There is no clear cut answer to this question because fighters age differently. However, in the example of Tyson/Holmes and others like it, whilst the aging ATG wasn't a great fighter at that point, it's still a great win.

By who? Morons, white supremacists and the blind? If you think that is true, you know nothing about boxing.

 

If you find Larry Holmes to be a prime and not a severly rusty version....

Jeffries...c'mon 37 y/o 3 year layoff....Langford and Fitz don't warrant a comment...

Willard again c'mon...

Boxrec is a valuable supplementary tool.....But it does not make a good alternative to watching boxing and researching history....

You make yourself look more foolish with every agenda driven post you make.

 

I don't even like Wlad...well at least not his fighting style and fine it extremely BORING...

BUT, why can't people recognize the value of their favorite or most disliked fighters without being blinded by them.

Wlad is arguably 10-15 and will likely be credited as top 10 after he retires and he can be more acurately viewed in retrospect...

I don't like Ali but he is a clear 1-2 atg...almost universally.

People are so stupid

 

Tyson beat Holmes and Spinks, Dempsey didn't lose in his prime and neither did Johnson.

Try again.

 

Never heard of fireman Flynn???? Willie Mehan.....Dempsey's losses to Tunney don't count they are every bit as viable as Holmes losing to Tyson...Both past prime...Spinks an atg at HW you have gotta be kidding me.

Johnson was not in his prime at 27 y/o against Hart and Jeanette????

I am not a Wlad fan, but if he is going to be held to a certain standard, then everyone else must be held to that same standard or it becomes agenda driven biased drivel....

I don't appreciate/enjoy Wlad's style same with many others....but I do love boxing and studying boxing history...Wlad has alock on a top spot...like it or not.

 

:good

 

Those Dempsey losses are comparable to Wlad losing to Purrity, which I discount because Wlad clearly wasn't prime. You mention Meehan, which is absurd.

And, no, Johnson was not prime. Read the book about him for further information ad to why.

Again, the losses these fighters suffered are not comparable to Wlad's, so I ask the question. Which great fighter has never beaten a fellow great and yet has lost to poor opposition during his prime?

 

An agenda that changes rules to suit your whims cannot be debated...Hold all to a similar standard and judge them accordingly!

 

Top 5 is ridiculous at this stage IMO as a big Wlad fan.

 

Guys who don't have brothers probably...............:yep

 

Yeah, about 44 of them

Outside the Top 20 just rings of serious butthurt hatred.

 

Please enlighten us with Larry Holmes' best wins, or Marciano's or Tyson's or Joe Louis' or Jack Johnson's, etc, etc.

Let's see your list *******................