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

As to ring: Sure it is. Ring isn't held by the standard of if their rated fighters do well. They are held by the standard of placing of the popular and rated fighters into one rating by cutting the unpopular names found in four different body ratings.


There is nothing wrong, per-se, with the whose the best at a given time. Figg crowns champions during the era in which most recognize him as champion. Those names do not often make lists because historians feel Figg was still the best man with the best claim to superiority. Regardless of him crowning a few different men a champion of england.

Likewise, man-who-beat-the-man isn't always the best man around and sometimes a champion, the man, ages out while holding the title ransom. I do not mean this hyperbolically, Jem Ward did it in the 1830s or about a handful of times.

Man who beat the man has the same issue running backwards. It is hard as a "best during their era" debater to argue against man who beat the champion. Likewise as a champ who beat the champ proponent it is hard to argue against clear instances where that man and the best man during the era are two different men. Hard to place Big G on top when Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, Holy and Moore are abouts. Seems like consensus on man who beat the man is Foreman in 96. Mikes were champions.

 

I understand boxing debates get heated, but let's look at this objectively. My defense of Wlad has consistently been about highlighting his actual accomplishments while pointing out the double standard in how he's criticized. Many fighters throughout history have had similar stylistic "flaws" or resume gaps, yet don't face anywhere near the same level of scrutiny.

The criticism about Wlad not being undisputed is particularly weak when examined closely. The heavyweight division has rarely had undisputed champions over the last few decades - it's more exception than rule. Judging Wlad primarily on this technicality rather than his decade-plus domination, title defenses, and wins over multiple generations of contenders misses the forest for the trees.

What's interesting is how this conversation focuses entirely on "Wlad defenders" while ignoring the much larger contingent who consistently try to diminish his achievements. For a fighter who dominated for so long, won multiple titles, and dispatched virtually everyone put in front of him (often in devastating fashion), the resistance to acknowledging his greatness is telling.

The undisputed argument is ultimately just semantics that doesn't meaningfully change what Wlad accomplished in the ring. Boxing history will remember who he beat and how he beat them far more than whether he collected every alphabet belt simultaneously. Those are the tangible achievements that truly define a champion's legacy.

 

These are self appeasing arguments Mac. You're good at that. Likewise, when presented with facts you continue to spread misinformation. I have no confidence in your ability to admit flaws. You seem incapable and more than willing to knowingly spread lies rather than admit any flaw.

Whose ratings? What second place? How long were they second place?

On top of that, you guys tend to always make any mention of V holding a belt about the brothers fighting. The point was very clearly V was the other great during his era. As in to say Chagaev is a rando flash in the pan no better in career than the WBC champions Wlad avoided.

Likewise, the second man in a division where there's a x3 unified is the single strapper. Duh.

Dude, the fact you can say this shiz without any sense of irony or shame. All you said is you admit to picking and choosing based on convenience when you akcnowledge anything you acknowledge EXCEPT anything that would admit or leave open the idea your ideas are flawed.

Yeah, that's fair. I was driving more at outreach but the mandos is mandos and you have a fine point here sir. 3/4 the world's mandos. It's ****ing respectable. But also you are, conveniently, acknowledging the entire Wlad era's mandos were the best in the world at that time without giving any credit to the bodies for it. It was never Wlad who chose those fights. Wlad fought 0 vols. those were fights put together by the bodies and then rated by the writers. I already showed you rating archives. Have fun. Wlad got given mandos and then Ring and TBRB rated those men favorably. After the mandos, by the bodies, were announced. not prior.

Just like how Chagaev became number two on alt ratings. Because the bodies. Not Ring. Not TBRB. Wlad fought him because the IBF and WBA wanted it. Because the number two man is the single strapper not who ring rated 2 after the fight was announced. It's deep in your stance regardless of your incapability of recognizing any flaw in yourself.

 

This argument about Wlad's jab versus AJ's has several problems.

First, you're cherry-picking one fight (Wlad-Povetkin) while ignoring Wlad's entire body of work where his jab was clearly his primary weapon. Throughout his career, that jab established range, set up his right hand, and kept opponents at distance - that's literally what he was known for. His jab wasn't just good, it was devastating enough to break opponents down on its own.

Second, the AJ-Povetkin comparison conveniently ignores crucial context. AJ fought a 39-year-old Povetkin who was well past his prime, while Wlad faced him in his physical prime. And despite having this supposedly "better jab," AJ actually had much more trouble with the older version - Povetkin rocked Joshua badly in the early rounds and was competitive until he gassed and AJ finally caught him. Meanwhile, Wlad dominated Povetkin from start to finish, never in any danger. So if AJ's jab was so superior, why did he struggle more with an older, diminished version of the same fighter?

Third, styles make fights. Different tactics work against different opponents. Every great heavyweight adjusts their approach based on who they're fighting - Ali did it, Lewis did it, Foreman did it. Criticizing Wlad for adapting his style to neutralize specific threats is applying a standard you probably don't hold other champions to.

The claim that Wlad "would never fight Povetkin again under different conditions" is pure speculation. Wlad rematched fighters he'd already beaten and adjusted his approach as needed he just had no reason to fight someone he completely dominated.

Bottom line - Wlad's jab was the foundation of his offensive arsenal for over a decade of heavyweight dominance. Looking at his entire body of work rather than cherry-picking specific moments shows how effective it truly was as both a defensive and offensive weapon.

 

There's no cherry picking anything. AJ and Wlad have just one shared opponent - Povetkin. Its a valid argument to compare their performances.

Most importantly Povetkin is the best opponent Wlad "defeated". Fighters have been disqualified for less.

Put it this way.. Wlad won for the same reasons Henry Akinwande lost to Lewis.

When evaluating a fighters greatest attributes , you look at their best opponents , not their worst.

Povetkin was his best. We all saw how good his jab was in that fight. It was so bad he broke the compu clinch record.

So it doesn't matter if he beat some non-athletic plodders who stood right in front of him with a jab. Povetkin exposed his jab control and he's not even a hall of fame leveller.

This fact combined with AJs jab dominance renders your opinions bunk. The data simply doesn't lie and your reduced to making excuses.

Lets talk about the still dangerous Povetkin at 39.

He went on to beat Hughie Fury who was relevant at the time.

Got a draw with highly rated Hunter. A fight in which he came on stronger in the latter half. Past prime fighters get worse and the fight progress , not better. Povetkin got better and made good adjustments. Then he put Whyte to sleep proving he was still very formidable.

If Wlad was holding excessively holding past prime Peter in the rematch , 39 years old mormeck and Tony Thonpson with a bum leg , then its a fact he'd be all over Povs back as well.

AJ did what Wlad could not and systematically broke down a top opponent without the need to illegally hold , grope and hug.

On AJ , his rematch against Ruiz Jr was a display of distance control behind the jab , better than any Wlad ever produced.

Jabbing isn't just hitting what standing still. Wlad could not jab off the back foot or jab on the move. This is why he leaped on guys every time they got close to him.

Aj against Ruiz and Povetkin were two jab masterclasses. Wlad has zero. These are the facts

 

Go watch the first Brewster fight , im guessing it will be your first time.

This fact invalidates your opinion.

The ref went to Wlads corner and told him no more holding would be tolerated. Why was he holding so much if his jab was such an effective defensive weapon? Reality doesn't line up with anything you post.

Another homework assignment for you. Watch the Williamson fight and listen to Manny Stewart between rounds saying - - don't worry he's no Ali , he can't move like this all night.

There was panic in the corner because Wlad was struggling with Sleeps movement and was starting to tire. Later Furys movement would render Wlads jab absolutely useless.

 

I'm not going to get into any of the arguments because I don't have the time or the inclination. I have peak Liston ranked eighth all time and peak Wlad ranked 15th all time, because I think peak Liston was better, end of story. I will state for the record that I'd rather have root canal without anesthesia and be circumcised with a bottle cap opener than watch Wlad fight, but I have to acknowledge the man's accomplishments. Even though people put him on way too high a pedestal here because of his size. I've said this before here and I stand by it: Absolutely peak Ali would pitch a shutout at Wlad if it went 15.

 

Angelo Dundee and numerous others lied about a long delay in the Henry Cooper fight. So yeah I don't think it's impossible that people are lying.

In any case I'm skeptical of the relevance. I've yet to see the Bethea fight cited as evidence Liston hits harder than Tyson or Foreman despite lack of allegations of either guys knocking out 7 teeth

 

I have to admit another very fine post.


I don't have any ulterior feelings toward Wlad. He's just the unified who was pitted against an undisputed in this thread.



Style & Resume:
I can't be held by hypocrisy of resume or style, what I told youse was throw that garbage away because regardless it's an exercise in bias. If you like or hate Wlad, doesn't change the fact style and resume criticism and praise is an act of bias. I'm not saying I don't understand what you said to me. I'm saying I recognized this similarly but took a very different approach to exposing.

Wlad Defense:
I'd have to hunt the Wlad haters. The Wlad lovers came for me to defend what they perceived as a slight against him. I have no problem defending Wlad with the exact same stance toward the importance of bodies, belts, mandos, unis, and undisputed. Make this thread Wlad vs Holmes ATG ratings and apply what I said about the champions. I promise all these Wlad stans would treat me like I am a genius while the Holmes apologists make excuse after excuse calling on tired diatribes and unchecked convention to prove their points.

Undisputed Importance:
It seems a self-defeating statement "The criticism about Wlad not being undisputed is particularly weak when examined closely. The heavyweight division has rarely had undisputed champions over the last few decades - it's more exception than rule." I'd say the latter explains why the former is untrue. Penned from the same mind, I have no clue how in interpretations and inferences communication is lost. Interestingly you mention semantics. Yup, something like that, must be. The words are there, the meaning is there, and we have different takes from the same source.

I would say it is rather important and this debate spurned from it is all the proof you need. Wlad almost without any doubt, could have beaten Bermane. It's such a sure thing. Wlad could have beaten Bermane or Chris for the vacant. It wouldn't make everyone a Wlad fan but it'd certainly make it harder to argue against Wlad.

Tangible:
Going way back to when boxing was a dueling event on through to the earl days of QB, you see plenty of artist renderings and black and white photos of the sashes boxers wore about their waist. They would sell their color to the audience before the fight as a banner to wave in their favor. These colors are why our corners are red and blue, not black and white. A boxer would tie their banner to the post in their corner marking the color of the corner. after the fight the winning boxer would be awarded the losing boxer's sash. The boxers would tie these end to end as a sort of record keeping. Proof from the man you had beaten him.

Cribb would be the first man presented with a belt made to signify his status over the sport. It was commissioned by King George. Molyneaux would be the second.

This belt would be lost sometime around the time the Ward Gang took control of it. America as a boxing haven was born specifically to gain control over a title.

Sullivan's title was made by fans. Actually he had a few made for him. He commissioned none.

Foreman had a belt made, gave it to Briggs. Never saw that again.

Then Usyk. He has a tangible belt that says undisputed. Ugly thing, but he need only flash it and his credentials are known to all.

 

Here's a fact for ya.

Slow as molasses Tony Thompson OUTLANDED wlad on Jabs. How is this possible , Thompson was a great jabber?

Watch the fight and it very clear why this happened. Wlad simply did not box with Tony Thompson. He instead wrestled him and threw him around the ring. Wlad intentionally made it ugly and scrappy , hence why his punch output was lower than Thompsons in all 3 categories.

 

Comparing performances against a fighter at completely different stages of their career isn't "valid" - it's ignoring crucial reality. Povetkin at 33 versus Povetkin at 39 are different fighters, and your timeline on Povetkin's later career is selective. Yes, he had some decent performances after the AJ fight, but also showed clear decline and inconsistency.

Your argument keeps shifting. First Wlad's jab wasn't effective, now it's that he only won because of clinching. But the jab and clinch aren't mutually exclusive - the jab was still his primary weapon that set everything else up. It's like saying Ali wasn't a great boxer because he used rope-a-dope against Foreman or relied on the clinch against Frazier. Great fighters use multiple tactics.

Speaking of Ali, you could apply your same logic to Ali in the second Frazier fight where he held excessively, yet nobody questions Ali's all-time great jab because of it. Great fighters adjust their tactics based on the opponent in front of them - that's what makes them great.

The claim that "Wlad could not jab off the back foot or jab on the move" is simply false. There are numerous examples throughout his career showing his footwork and mobility while still landing that jab effectively. His jab was so dominant that it became the foundation of his offense for over a decade against all types of heavyweights - tall, short, pressure fighters, boxers. That consistency across different styles of opponents is the mark of an elite weapon.

Your argument about AJ's Ruiz rematch being a jabbing masterclass also ignores that Ruiz came in grossly overweight and unprepared, barely moving or cutting off the ring. That says more about Ruiz's lack of preparation than it proves AJ's jabbing brilliance.

You keep presenting your opinions as "facts," but they're actually just selective interpretations that ignore the broader context of both fighters' careers. The overall body of work clearly shows Wlad's jab was one of the most consistent and effective weapons in heavyweight history and all you can do to counter is nitpick, misinterpret and take specific moments out of their proper context.

 

Is this still going?

 

Bringing up the Brewster fight from 2004 (which happened before Wlad rebuilt his style with Emanuel Steward) as evidence against his entire career is exactly the kind of selective cherry-picking I've been talking about. That fight happened before Wlad developed the style and jab-centric approach that defined his championship run. It's like judging Lewis's entire career based on his loss to McCall.

If you actually compare the first Brewster fight to the second, you'll see Wlad's jab was noticeably much better in the rematch. The first Brewster fight was literally Wlad's first fight under Steward, and if you watch it, the commentators even point out that this was the first time he regularly used the clinch - almost like he was just beginning to build his new style under Steward's guidance. Using his very first fight under a new trainer as your evidence against his entire career is beyond misleading.

As for the Williamson fight - again, you're taking single moments from early fights and trying to apply them to Wlad's entire career. Emanuel Steward was still refining Wlad's style at that point. The fact that Wlad went on to win and outlanded Williamson despite those challenges actually proves his adaptability.

Regarding Fury - yes, Fury's unique movement gave Wlad problems. That doesn't invalidate Wlad's jab effectiveness across his entire career any more than Douglas beating Tyson means Tyson wasn't a great fighter. Every great fighter has opponents whose styles give them trouble. Fury's movement and size presented a unique challenge that Wlad couldn't solve, but that doesn't erase the decade-plus of dominance against everyone else. It's also worth noting that Wlad was clearly past his best by the time he fought Fury - he was 39 years old and had been champion for nearly a decade.

This is exactly what I mean by selective interpretation. You keep pointing to individual moments or fights (many from early in his championship run or before it) while ignoring the vast majority of evidence that demonstrates Wlad's jab effectiveness against multiple generations of heavyweights. That's not an objective assessment of his skills - it's just confirmation bias.

 

First, which Thompson fight are you referring to? They fought twice, and Wlad knocked him out both times. If Thompson was so effective with his jab, why couldn't he avoid the knockout?

What you're missing is that Thompson was a southpaw, which naturally complicates the jab dynamics for an orthodox fighter. Wlad adapted by using his lead hand more to set up his right hand - a common and effective adjustment against southpaws. This actually shows Wlad's boxing IQ and adaptability rather than a weakness.

It's well documented that even great jabbers throughout boxing history have struggled against quality southpaws. The fact that Wlad was able to adapt and still dominate multiple southpaw opponents during his career is actually impressive, not a point against him. Great fighters adapt to the challenge rather than force a tactic that might not be optimal for that specific matchup.

As for the Mormeck quote you've pasted - again, you're focusing on isolated incidents rather than evaluating the entire fight or career. Mormeck was completely outclassed and eventually knocked out. If Wlad was just "wrestling" without an effective jab as you claim, how did he manage to set up the knockout?

Your arguments continue to follow the same pattern - cherry-picking individual moments or statistics from certain fights while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of Wlad's jab effectiveness throughout his career. You're arguing ad hoc - starting with a conclusion that Wlad wasn't a great jabber and then selectively looking for evidence to support it, rather than objectively evaluating all the evidence first. That's why all you can do is cherry-pick specific moments while dismissing the overwhelming body of work showing Wlad's jab effectiveness.

The fact remains that Wlad's jab was his primary weapon in dominating the heavyweight division for over a decade. No amount of selective focus on certain moments or fights changes that reality.

 

I appreciate your thoughtful response and the historical context about championship belts. Boxing discussions are often colored by our own biases and perspectives, which makes these debates both fascinating and sometimes frustrating.

On the undisputed point - I see your perspective better now. When I said undisputed status was rare, I wasn't suggesting that makes it less important, but rather that we shouldn't judge fighters too harshly for not achieving something that has become increasingly difficult in the modern era of multiple sanctioning bodies. The fact that it's rare does indeed make it special when achieved.

Where I land on this is that I only truly value undisputed status when it comes with a great resume behind it. As much as I admire Usyk as a fighter, I can't rank him above Wlad simply because he was undisputed and Wlad wasn't. Doing so would discount all of Wlad's impressive wins and decade-plus of heavyweight dominance. That body of work has to count for something substantial.

While I think symbols like championship belts are important in boxing's tradition, I much more value the real work that goes into achieving those symbols rather than the symbols themselves. The belt is just the representation - it's the years of dominance, the quality of opposition defeated, and the manner of those victories that truly matter in historical context.

You make a fair point about Wlad potentially beating Stiverne for undisputed status. That's a fight he likely would have won handily. But I still maintain that while undisputed is certainly a prestigious achievement, it doesn't mean much historically unless a fighter also has the resume to back up their claims to greatness.

The historical context you provided about championship belts is genuinely interesting - the symbolism of belts has deep roots in boxing history. I think we may be closer in our viewpoints than it initially appeared.

Boxing debates like these help us all appreciate the nuances of the sport's rich history, even when we land in slightly different places at the end.