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

So, by your logic, the only thing that matters is being undisputed, regardless of actual dominance or resume? That’s laughable. If that were true, then Leon Spinks and Carnera all outrank Wladimir Klitschko just because they were undisputed at some point. Do you actually believe that? Because that’s what you’re arguing.

You keep claiming Wlad “avoided” competition without naming a single elite fighter from his era that he “ducked.” Who are these “better names” that overlapped his career but aren’t on his record? Because I can list the top-ranked guys he actually beat—Haye, Povetkin, Byrd, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Peter, Rahman, Pulev. That’s a deeper list than Liston’s entire career.

And this whole “co-champ” argument is just word games. Lennox Lewis spent years with Holyfield and Tyson holding belts, was he a ‘co-champ’ too? Was Ali a ‘co-champ’ in the 70s when Foreman, Frazier, and Norton had titles? Being undisputed is great, but it’s not the sole metric of greatness. Dominating a division for a decade is.

Liston reigned for 17 months and never defended against a ranked contender after Patterson. Wlad ruled for 9 years in a four-belt era, fought every mandatory, and cleaned out an entire era. If you seriously think a short reign with an undisputed tag outweighs a decade of dominance, then you don’t understand boxing history at all.

 

One day Wlad might win a poll against Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali that's the next step

 

Sadly never but we're making progress!

 

Yes, I see how that changes the fact Wlad co-championed with more then 10 men and failed to meet the mandatory obligations of the singular planet wide champion.

Sometimes I think you guys get emotionally charged, which is weird btw, and then start just saying whatever you think is convincing regardless of how loosely related it is to the subject because it gives you feels, rather than paying attention to what's being said.

It's an interesting take you have. Making Wlad sound like he went after anyone ever. Tell me, how many of Wlad's defenses were voluntary so that Wlad could "pop the cherries of 'tough guys'."?

 

Start from the beginning.

Is boxing organized by Ring and TBRB into various levels or is that something the bodies do?

Do men around the world have to work with in the sanctioning body rating systems to become champions?

Was Wladimir champion over all of these routes to a title?

Did Wladimir ever fight a voluntary fight in his career?

Oh but he really impressed you doe. Cool bro. He did me too, but, goals is goals, leagues are leagues, and awards are awards. He did not earn, prove, reign, over all of boxing. Leon did.

 

This post is the chefs kiss

 

You’re not really answering any of his questions, I don’t know if he isn’t answering yours but he is raising some good points that I think you know what he’s asking you seem like you should be able to answer them you’re smart and I’m curious too.

 

I have Wlad at #10 and Liston #11 ATG.

H2h I think Liston wastes him.

 

The statistics speak for Wlad. I value him more than most but he didn't dominate like Liston for a moment, he dominated less and didn't look as impressive but it lasted longer and as someone explained to me, quantity can be quality. In that respect I have to bow to Klitschko. But should he be higher? The fights with Ibragimov, Haye, Povetkin and many others tell me that not necessarily if I just watch them again which I'd rather not do.

 

I hope he answers this you are raising some good points. I think at times here we hide behind “undisputed” and “ATG” or “HOFer” as wards against more modern fighters to preserve “Legends” for example Wlad > Liston is very obvious to me but not being undisputed seems to matter more then who you beat or if you run the division LOL Wlad was “The man” no doubt, no one thought otherwise.

 

You keep dancing around the actual discussion to hide how flimsy your argument is. Boxing isn’t just about what belts a guy holds—it’s about who he beats and how long he stays at the top. Wlad ran through an entire era of ranked contenders. You still haven’t named a single elite fighter from his time that he ‘avoided.’ Because you can’t.

• Leon Spinks was undisputed for 7 months, lost immediately, and never won another belt. If undisputed was the only thing that mattered, then I guess Leon is better than Frazier, Foreman, or Holmes? Absurd.
• Wlad reigned for nearly a decade, won three of the four major belts, and defended against mandatory after mandatory—which you’re trying to spin as a bad thing, as if fighting ranked contenders is a flaw.
• You act like “voluntary defenses” are some sacred test of greatness when all they mean is you fight who you want instead of mandatories. If Wlad had cherry-picked voluntaries instead of clearing mandatories, you’d just say he avoided tough fights.

And let’s get real, if being undisputed was all that mattered, then Liston, Spinks, and Carnera would rank above Holyfield, Holmes, and even Tyson since those guys spent years without all the belts. Does that actually make sense to you? Because that’s what you’re arguing.

Wlad didn’t have “all routes” to a title? That’s because there were FOUR major belts in his era, not two. The IBF, WBA, WBO, and WBC all existed separately, and the only reason he wasn’t undisputed is because his brother held the last belt. If that’s your argument against him, then you don’t have one.

 

@Seamus have you posted here yet? Me and you are both pro Wlad I’m sure you can rattle the bird cage a little if you tried.

 

Usyk never defended his “undisputed” status guess Liston > Usyk… Patterson > Usyk… Tunney > Usyk - such a silly stance.

 

Yeah its absurd to value something like undisputed more then idk resume and how good they actually were leads to bad arguments like this guy is making

 

Being undisputed is more important then who you actually beat and if you’re actually the best in the division… seems like a very “classic” bit of trickery lol.