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

All the huggery killed me though.

 

You mean the joke strap his idols owned?

 

I didn't say anything about disliking the bodies.

He's literally in a league below Liston and that's why you need to make the discussion about anything but winning the award that is proof you are best during your era.

Resume is not objective, it's an act of bias. Like by definition.

Achievement? That's what my whole post is about. Wlad achieved being half a Liston for a long time. That is the objective truth. What you are doing is called rationalization.

Title defenses? How many undisputed title defense has Wlad got? 0. Cool, and since he fought only mandos that means he's skipping out on someone's mandatories doesn't it? Did Liston? Oh, didn't have the luxury of seeing WBA mandos exclusively.

No matter how you cut it Wlad did not bother. It should matter but instead rationalize why it doesn't.

 

That's why I mentioned him. Holmes under Wlad.

 

I mean the strap that legitimized Bermane freakin' Stiverne as the champion after he beat Chris freakin' Arreola, lol. The belt doesn't make the man, the man makes the belt.

 

Saying that undisputed status alone puts Liston above Wladimir Klitschko is absurd. You act like one fleeting moment of belt unity outweighs a decade of dominance.

Liston held the WBA and WBC in a two-belt era, knocked out Patterson twice, then got dethroned by Ali—a reign that lasted 17 months. Impressive? Sure. But razor-thin. Meanwhile, Klitschko unified three belts in a four-belt era, ruled for nearly a decade, and beat far more ranked contenders and champions. You call that “half a Liston”? That’s delusional.

Your claim that Klitschko “didn’t bother” with undisputed ignores the obvious reality: His brother held the WBC, blocking him from full unification. That wasn’t a choice, it was a deadlock. Meanwhile, Liston never faced top contenders post-Patterson, and Ali bypassed mandatories to take his belts.

If we’re talking resume and achievements, Klitschko beat eight titleholders or top-ranked contenders: Haye, Povetkin, Chagaev, Byrd, Ibragimov, Peter, Rahman, Pulev. That’s clearing out a field far deeper than what Liston ever had to deal with.

Undisputed isn’t the sole proof of greatness, it’s about dominance. If you really believe one-and-done with the belts is all that matters, then you’re left arguing that Liston’s 17-month reign is greater than a decade of Klitschko ruling the division. That’s nonsense.

 

Yeah. Imagine saying Leon Spinks was greater than Larry Holmes, only because he was undisputed.

 

“B.. but dat intimidation liston had doe!!”

lol could you just imagine if liston tried that **** on Wladimir Wlad would just meet his gaze back with his own and proceed to crack sonny with the hardest 1-2’s he ever ate in his life. If ali’s right hand put his ass away… Lol!

liston definitely was a good tough heavyweight but Wlad would show him within the first round that there are levels to this sport.

 

Multiple threads asking for examples of mean-mugging verifiably changing the outcome of a pro fight haven't turned up much evidence of it happening regularly.

A short, cruiserweight-sized fighter who isn't on PEDs? Yeah, I don't see Wlad shaking in his boots to the extent that he loses the fight.

 

Fury vs Usyk comes to mind

 

So your ranking criteria is literally undisputed champions over unified titlests, over single titlests, over non-titlests, without applying critical thinking or any other kind of analysis?

If so, whilst your ranking criteria is your own and you're certainly entitled to it, I can't consider any criteria seriously that results in an outcome where Canera is ranked as greater than Wlad and Holmes, Kambosos over McFarland, etc.

 

I mean, it's all preferences anyway, like ice cream. It's only when people cross over from "greatness" (who I like, and why) to "head to head" (who the evidence suggests would actually win a fight) that I think you can genuinely do a double-take at weird reasoning.

That said, I would withdraw that tolerance if someone with bizarre greatness standards is also insistent everyone else has to follow them.

 

Yeah, his criteria is his own and it certainly doesn't offend me or impact me negatively in anyway, it is just I'm normally interested in the rankings, and rationale for those rankings, of others, even when they differ significantly from my own, but I consider his so absurd I neither respect it nor does it hold any interest to me.

Speaking frankly, I suspect he's a troll - "oh look, I have an unconventional approach and consider Canera as greater than Holmes and Wlad". Fair enough, no harm done, he's just not to be taken seriously, imo.

 

Wlad by a good margin. Too dominant for too long. Great set of tools. Utter dominance during his long prime. Rarely lost a round for almost a decade.

GOAT.

 

You mean I do not insert myself into the mix.

You guys go by what you call resume despite it being a cherry picking of the actual records and rating despite not recognizing any rating that actually effects a fighter's ability to gain a title. That's not critical thinking buddy. That's inserting your opinions to rationalize rating a man who categorically did not achieve the heights another did over him.

My criteria, if you want to call it that, is acknowledging the actual achievements boxers made regardless of what my eyes, my knowledge of boxing, or peers have to say. Because though youse preach objectivity I defy you to explain to me the objectivity of consensus, the objectivity of resume, or the objectivity of rating based on writers' opinions whose credentials begin and end in writing.

The reality is Holmes nor Wlad did not achieve what Primo did and that should matter a whole lot more than how some of the names or performances during other mens' careers made you or anyone else feel.

It's not me being stupid and self important here pal.