Sonny Liston or Wladimir Klitschko who rates higher as a all time heavyweight?

It's 22 including Mormeck.

Byrd x2, Peter x2, Haye, Povetkin, Mormeck, Sanders, Chagaev, Thompson, Jennings, Johnson, Bostice, Barrett, Rahman, Mercer, McCline, Brock, Brewster, Jefferson, Ibragimov and Chambers. Though it should be noted that this is the total of Boxers who were ranked at some point in their careers. It could be the case that only 15 of them were ranked during the time Wlad fought them.

 

[

I would imagine the 15 was at the time of the of the fight. Thanks.

Pulev instead of Sanders who beat Wlad.

 

Plus, there just aren't that many examples of elite professional fighters being intimidated into defeat, period.

 

Just juxtaposition. You can't really tell how strong an untested belief is until you test it.

At what point in a fighter's career are they up for a Ring or TBR rating? Is there a specific goal to achieve to get these ratings that every boxer knows about and has known about since they began their career?

Rhetorical of course, the promo ratings have no set means of achievement where as the sanctioning bodies and their regional authorities do.

To be like super direct and give an exact example; BBBoC champions must be rated by the EBU, EBU champion must be rated by the WBC. Regardless of if the WBC likes them or writes articles glowing about their skills or not. However, to be rated by ring does a BBBoC title guarantee you a rating? No. How about the EBU title? No. Okay but sure Ring is forced to rate all major champions? No. There is NOTHING that forces Ring OR TBRB to rate anyone. Their mechanism is "consensus". Popularity contest that afford no room for the idea they might all be wrong and gives no mechanism to an athlete who lacks charisma and sales acumen to achieve within their system.

 

So as someone who's not familiar with the mechanisms used for the sanctioning bodies' ratings, let me see whether I understand your view. (Or at least the view you're putting forward to be tested.)

You're saying that to get a rating with a particular belt -- whichever, doesn't really matter for our purposes -- you need to meet objective benchmarks. Like winning one of their silver/junior/regional belts, or whatever. Each of those belts are goodies that lots of pro boxers want, since it gives them access to a title shot. So you have some level of guarantee that at least some motivated, competent pros will be fighting for those goodies. So whoever gets a title shot has probably fought his way past the challengers for a couple levels worth of goodies, and so is unlikely to suck. Since there are four prominent parallel systems in place, and each of them sometimes reach different answers, a wannabe champion should really beat all of them to ensure that he's knocked off the guys with the best evidence of being tested by competition.

Is that about right?

 

Wlad was never recognized an Undisputed Champion during his career. . Not once . Ever. Point blank period.
Lineal Yes. Undisputed no. You won't find a single shred of evidence that claimed Wlad was undisputed champ.

 

Check out his introductions before the Leapai and Pulev fights. Is that a shred of evidence you need, or you will say it's coincidental just to dig yourself deeper in a hole?

 

Never happened.

Why don't we just ask the man himself. You need the WBC strap to be Undisputed. Imagine being a boxing fan and not knowing this

Thursday 19 December 2013
Boxing: Wladimir Klitschko sets his sights on becoming undisputed world heavyweight champion after brother Vitali relinquishes WBC title

 

How about this

Usyk beats Fury to become first undisputed heavyweight boxing champion in 24 years

Hows that hole. Can you hear me??? LOL

 

How is Bermane was able to get to Vitali's vacant belt before Wlad?

I don't really see these as heavy hitting questions and I'm pretty sure youse lot can already guess my responses. Or to say that differently, flaws in these arguments are too obvious for me to believe you did not consider them which has me question why even ask.

 

Repeating falsities will not help you. It is untrue. Not ranking champions does not prevent champions from earning belts. Yes, I did prove this. I gave you links from the bodies. You are giving me words from yourself. One of these things has value.

 

You're just laughable at this point. Living in the alternate reality.

This content is protected

 

Facts have value and if you don't want to accept that your precious WBC is a shyte sanctioning body is your cup of tea. Crowning Stiverne as their champion, lol. You will deny that Wilder blocked Wlad vs Stiverne fight and ducked Wlad after that too?

 

Eurosport LMAO

The "Undisputed" HW Crown on Eurosport? LOL

Even the lineal titles on Eurosport was a major embarrassment for Wlad.

What exactly does universally recognized mean?. The opposite of officially recognized ?

Clearly lower tier Eurosport got it wrong. The were probably paid off by k2. The fledging channel could've used a few quid.

Answer me this? If Wlad was undisputed , why didn't Fury become undisputed when he beat him?

 

Fine words, but the reason the boys jumped my ass isn't simply because I put forward a different perspective than they are used. I charged them with the flaws of the normal criteria. Mainly, I pointed to how opinion based Ring and TBRB ratings are and how resume is nothing but cherry picking records based on your opinion of the names.

To present it like I did not antagonize the group at least to some degree is unfair to them.

Likewise I do feel it's crucial to my argument. If you are claiming objectivity, a word fans love, then be objective. Objectively speaking what you and Mac agreed on "Yup. At the end of the day, Wladimir was universally recognized as the undisputed champion from when Vitali retired even without the WBC belt." is objectively untrue. To say i'm simply saying I see it differently just isn't fair. I am telling Mac he is wrong. Outright and in no uncertain terms.