It' s hard to rate Wilder when it comes to ATG rankings but I think he is at least A-level.

So belts matter when you want, but they don't when you don't want them? Gotcha!

If belts don't matter, then Vitali's win over Corrie Sanders that led to him having his belt, is irrelevant and therefore doesn't prove he is better than Wladimir Klitschko.

If belts do matter, then Wlad still comes out on top because he held more of them.

Besides, I don't even use belts as the main criteria to evaluate the boxers. I judge them based on resume and the quality of opposition. Wlad has Vitali beat in that department. As a result, he is superior. If you disagree, I am more than happy to take you on in a resume vs resume debate.

 

I’m done with you after this, no offence but you’re clearly out of your depth here and trying to argue without having any serious thought or consistency in what you’re saying.
I’m claiming that Wlad is immune to death now, right...
I didn’t claim that Vitali has the better resume. He had the better resume at the time. Stop looking at results, start watching and learning the sport.
Joshua is still green, he is going to make mistakes. He has lost one fight, in no world can you call that being exposed. You specifically criticised him for his stamina. His stamina is fine, as we’ve agreed upon he could be more economical like Vitali and he wouldn’t use up as much energy. When Joshua has as much experience as Vitali we can accurately make that comparison.
If your definition of being exposed is that there are exploitable weaknesses then guess what, every fighter in the sport to ever exist and will exist has already been exposed.
People age differently based on a million different factors. Your appeal to the general is pointless when we have the footage of the individual to see for ourselves.

 

You’re a proper boxing fan, and you’ve made too much sense in this thread. It’s time for us to dip out, this guy is arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Nothing against that, as long as you have a sharp mind, sense of logic, some consistency and coherency in your line of argument. I don’t think this guy has any of that so it’s not a productive argument, he doesn’t even know what he thinks.
Like myself you were around and watching boxing at the time, this guy clearly wasn’t. He’s another common case of fan of a boxer, not a fan of boxing.

 

Mercer would have killed Wilder.

 

Like he killed Ferguson.........what Mercers best win, Tommy Chin, while eating every punch in the book until Morrison gassed ?



Mercer could have would have but he never won a big fight.......and running a close fight with Lewis makes you no world beater....the Mohawk guy also ran a close fight, so what . he still lost.

 

Funny how you're accusing me of being inconsistent and being out of my depth, yet are unable to back that up in anyway shape or form. I'd expect that from someone who is precisely just what you described me to be.

I actually do watch the fights. I've watched each and every fight of both Klitschko brothers from the start of their careers, to the end. However, talent is useless without actual achievements to show for it. I am more than happy to agree that Vitali may have very well been the more talented heavweight with greater potential, but he certainly is not the more accomplished and this isn't even up for debate.

The less talented heavyweight that is more proven and accomplished, ranks higher than the more talented heavyweight who is less proven and accomplished. This is precisely why Wlad > Vitali. You can have all the talent in the world, but you need to actually prove yourself through greater accomplishments if you want to be considered greater than someone else.

I look at the totality of a boxer's career. Having the better resume at one point is irrelevant. Wladimir Klitschko's resume as a whole, is better than Vitali Klitschko's. Therefore, he is the greater heavyweight. It's as simple as that!

Experience excuse can't be used as an excuse for Joshua, since he is the champion and is expected to be experienced. If he wasn't a champion and lost those fights due to poor stamina based on limited number of fights, then the excuse is valid but the moment he becomes a champion, these excuses no longer apply because as a champion, you are simply expected to have the experience, irrespective of how many fights you've had. Otherwise, simply don't be a chahmpion if you aren't experienced and haven't had sufficient fights. When you become a champion, you are simply going to be held to that standard.

Joshua's stamina isn't fine, for the simple reason that his stamina has pretty much costed him in 3 fights, 2 of which he was saved by the referee for fighting in his backyard and one where he finally lost because he fought abroad.

My definition of being 'exposed' is having an area of your game, that constantly lets you down and leads to your downfall, especially in big fights. I.E. stamina. Joshua's stamina has been exposed and there literally is no ifs and buts about this. Only the nut-huggers who are still stuck on Joshua's nuts, are going to be blinded due to their obsession on him.

Everyone has weaknesses perhaps, but those weaknesses aren't REGULARLY leading to their downfall in multiple fights as Joshua's poor conditioning is.

If people age differently, then why is there literally 0 past heavyweight who has EVER beaten any top-tier heavyweight at the age that Wladimir Klitschko was when he lost to Fury and Joshua? Why is there barely, if any gold-medalists in the Olympics in boxing and in similar sports for athletes that were the same age as what Wlad was when he lost to Fury and Joshua?

Or maybe athletes don't differ that much in aging, any more than they differ in the need to breathe oxygen?

Actually, appeal to the general is absolutely not pointless because it gives us a large sample size of evidence, telling us with overwhelming evidence, that athletes from any athletic sport, would decline after a certain age.

The evidence is literally pointing right in your face, if you choose to ignore it, then you are deluded.

And even when it comes to footage, there is also overwhelming evidence there that Wladimir Klitschko had heavily declined due to his RELATIVELY poor performances against Bryant Jennings and Anthony Joshua. He had beaten Bryant Jennings like opponents before who were faster, more powerful, slicker and more athletic by wider margin. Either via shut-out, or via shut-out + knockout. That Bryant Jennings wasn't beaten as impressively, is evidence Wlad had declined. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for him to struggle as much.

Furthermore, footage alone doesn't tell us many things about an old boxer. Such as durability, muscle weakness and etc. That's where we require common sense. Common sense will tell us that if a boxer has been boxing for 2 decades, then by default, that boxer's durability and his body from all the training camps would have declined, making him weaker, more injury prone and less able to recover from damage. And this is where scientific and historical evidence comes in to play! If every athlete shows signs of declining during their 40's due to aging and mileage, there literally is no reason to assume Wladimir Klitschko wouldn't either. Otherwise, we'd be special-pleading!

I don't need footage to know that a boxer would become less durable and more injury prone at an older age and after being involved in the sport for a longer amount of time. I simply need to have a basic understanding of biology + historical evidence to come to that conclusion.

And those things, absolutely do handicap a older boxer. And there is literally nothing you can do, to prove Wlad wasn't more injury prone and more fragile at an older age. Zilch! Why? Because no human is immune to the effects of ageing and mileage / accumulation of damage.

 

I still think Pulev could out-box Joshua TODAY and would have been the heavy favorite to beat him in his prime.

So much for this era being so great!