Tony Thompson says Wladimir Klitschko is an all-time great

I sincerely hope you are not likening him to Utah Jazz All-Star Mark Eaton. :twisted:...Because, Larry is a significantly more handsome man. :bart

 

Glazkov probably in semi-final eliminator.

 

strength, punch resistance? wtf. You missed fast hands, sneaky maneuvers and smooth moves....

 

Both Klitschkos are extremely overrated since they have annually been placed among the top 10 p4p for the past few years in several p4p lists. To claim that they are underrated is fallacious and a terrible farce. Simply copy pasting statistics such as the Klitschkos W-L record or KO ratios and numerically comparing them to other great heavyweights simply demonstrates an inability to use logical thinking and an inability to put these misleading statistics into context. After the Holyfield Bowe Tyson Lewis era was finished, the post early 2000s heavyweight division became the weakest division in the history of any weight class of any era since perhaps the beginning of boxing as a sport.

All of the wins in both Klitschkos resumes come against fighters years and years beyond their prime, with padded records, with no name fighters who should not be in a boxing ring to begin with, or some combination of these flaws.

The biggest and most impressive win on both Klitschko's resume is Samuel Peter - who still managed to knock down the bum Wladimir 3 times in one fight. Samuel Peter as your best win does not make you an all time great or a top 10 p4p fighter for several years. In a weak era where Samuel Peter was the best fighter you beat (and one that Wladimir struggled with), it doesn't matter how many title defenses, knockouts, wins, etc. you have. You are not among the elite.

Lennox Lewis - even at 38 years old, fat, in the worst shape of his career, was barely losing on the scorecard 58-56 to Vitali - which could easily have been scored a draw at that point (yet so many idiotic fans try to use this slim edge as validation that Klitschko "won" the fight) and still managed to take complete control of the fight heading into the 6th round and smashed Vitali's face so badly that a medical professional could not allow Vitali to get further annihilated and, in hindsight, Lennox exposed Vitali as a fraudulent champion fighting in a weak era like Rocky Marciano.

Vitali was not dominating the fight. He had a decent start and as the fight went on he was eating uppercuts left and right and continued to clinch excessively. Lennox Lewis (remember - a 38 year old, fat, out of shape Lennox Lewis) still gave him fits and forced a doctor to stop the fight because Vitali was taking such a beating. Ironically people consider this humiliating face bashing to be Vitali's shining moment - that shows how overrated of a boxer you are when getting your faced smashed while having the slimmest of leads on the scorecard is your crowning achievement.

What I have written is UNDISPUTED truth and FACTUAL. This is not opinion or conjecture. I challenge any human being on earth to try and dispute the infallible assertion that, in general, the Klitshkos are extremely overrated by the media and public.

The following arguments do not disprove what has been written above and if one uses these fallacious arguments it will only prove one's own incompetence - much like Wladimir proved his incompetence as a boxer in getting demolished by Brewster (and falsely making up a poison excuse, no less.) Sanders and Puritty, and how Vitali demonstrated his incompetence as a boxer in having a relatively terrible performance against a trash version of Lennox Lewis.

1) Vitali is 45-2 with losses coming by injury stoppages and a 87% KO ratio. Wladimir is 59-3 with 51 KOs. Few boxers can match these numbers.
And who was the best opponent these boxers beat? Samuel Peter. Padded records mean nothing. Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one point. Eric Esch was 61-1-3 at one point. Copy pasting statistics does not prove anything when you fail to put them in context. I highly doubt anyone is foolish enough to put Eric Esch above Evander Holyfield despite the fact that Esch has a higher winning percentage. If Holyfield fought both Klitschko's level of competition he would walk through them without a scratch.

2) Lennox Lewis was afraid of Vitali and ducked a rematch.
First of all - Lennox Lewis made Riddick Bowe duck HIM, he fought Holyfield twice, was willing to fight Tyson for several years and finally did, fought Mccall and Rahman even after being KOd, and Tommy Morrison, but some people are foolish enough to think he is scared of fighting KLITSCHKO of all people???
Secondly as mentioned several times - Lennox was 38, fat, in the worst shape ever, past his prime, and still made Vitali's face look like the deer my friend killed and put through the grinder a few weeks ago.
Thirdly - Why should a man in the physical twilight of his career (Lennox) risk his health for one more fight when he didn't take the fight seriously in the first place (still winning by TKO) and already proved his place among the all time greats? Vitali should be on his knees kissing Lennox's feet for even giving a bum like Klitschko the opportunity to fight an all time great like Lennox. Lennox isn't in the position of Joe Louis who had to come back and fight because of IRS problems, so he has no reason to risk his health after already risking it for over a decade against fighters lightyears beyond Klitschko.

3) the Klitschkos are foreign so they do not get respect.
really? Marquez, Pacquiao, Chavez sr, Duran, Monzon, Sergio Martinez, Genady Golovkin, Adonis Stevenson, Maidana, Rigondeux, Donaire do not get respect?
anyone who said this - shut up. No need to pull the race/nationality card

4) The Klitschkos have X amount of title defenses
Again, copy pasting statistics does not prove anything. Look at the men that the REAL heavyweights had to fight compared to the bum Klitschkos.
Bowe, Lennox, Moorer, Tua, Tyson, Evander, Morrison, Spinks, Foreman, Patterson, Frazier, Norton, Liston, etc.

Now lets compare the Klitschkos wins - Peter, old washed up Mercer, old washed up Rahman, Chris Byrd, Orlin Norris (who lost to a washed up Tyson), Purrity, Sanders, 38 year old fat Lennox, Chisora, Haye, Povetkin, Eddie Chambers. the hilarious thing is that they actually lost to some of these fighters on the list.

HUGE difference in competition.

Anyone who legitimately believes the farce that either Klitschko is an all time great heavyweight (let alone an ATG p4p fighter) is simply one of the many sheep that blindly follow the herd without thinking for themselves. I have blessed such blind sheep with my wisdom and knowledge and opened their eyes to the truth. It is time for these blind sheep to acknowledge the truth, otherwise I fear that these sheep blindly stumbling through the dark for so long will deny the truth even more vehemently now that these blind sheep have been exposed to the light of truth.

You do have to give the Klitschkos credit for dominating the division, even though it is incredibly weak. That in itself deserves SOME merit. You should not, however, put them among the all time greats after Vitali has been exposed by Lennox Lewis and Wladimir got showed up by Purrity Brewster and Sanders, and struggled against Sam Peter.

Again - I challenge any human being to try and refute my indisputable factual statements at the risk of making themselves look as incompetent as the Klitschkos in their attempts to be ranked among all time great heavyweights. If any human being can refute the irrefutable facts listed, I will respond and recognize their superior wisdom and knowledge. Unfortunately for Klitschko fans, the only people who possess wisdom and knowledge superior to myself would never try and refute these facts in the first place. For that reason, the chances of receiving a response from myself are negligible.

 

Both Klitschkos best win is Sam Peter. Your title defenses, W-L record, and KO ratio are only as good as your competition, making the Klitschkos' accomplishments not any better than the unimpressive accomplishment of beating Sam Peter. All these heavyweights are better than the bum Klitschkos. The Klitschkos are not top 20 heavyweights and not in the top 100 p4p all time

1. Ali
2. Louis

This content is protected

3. Holmes
4. Marciano - overrated like the Klitschkos, but his weak wins are not as weak as the Klitschkos
5. Dempsey
6. Jack Johnson
7. Harry Wills
8. Sam Langford
9. Mike Tyson
10. Sonny Liston
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jersey Joe Walcott - his robbery against Joe Louis is more than enough to surpass Klitschkos
13. George Foreman
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Riddick Bowe - his only good wins are Holyfield, but that is by far more than enough to surpass Sam Peter as your best win
16. Gene Tunney
17. Joe Frazier
18. Lennox Lewis - he destroyed the better of the Klitschkos despite being in the worst moment of his career at 38 yrs old, so obvious choice
19. Ken Norton - his wins over Ali and Young surpass anything the Klitschkos did, despite his multiple KO losses
20. Sam Mcvey - wins over Langford, Jeanette, and Wills surpass anything of the Klitschkos
21. Max Schmeling
22. Archie Moore
23. Jimmy Young - robbery vs Ali and only guy besides Ali to beat a 70s Foreman. Most of the guys he lost to were top level, unlike the Klitcshko bums' losses

 

Wlad is an all time great fighter.

 

Wow! That is so cool that a journeyman would call a guy that beat him an all time great.

 

Yeah, why should facts get in your way? :roll:

 

Wow, you're a sad, hateful little man. Here's how it is, son, using words like "rational" doesn't mean that you're being rational, and the plain truth is your not. You have no "facts" as you claim, just hate. Let me break down your (lack of) argument:
Paragraph 1: You say that objective stats don't matter. Instead, your subjective opinion about the state of the HW division matters. Sorry, son, that's literally the reverse of logic
Paragraph 2: Another subjective opinion on the quality of opposition, absolutely no indisputable facts
Paragraph 3: I agree, Sam Peter is the best win on their record. Their dominance prevented him from having more acclaim. If he beat VK in their match, won a couple more defenses as he almost certainly would have, then lost in a rematch to Vitali, his resume would actually have been more impressive than Joe Frazier's. The K's dominance makes it a less dramatic era, and to some extent, their reputation will suffer a bit because of it, but it doesn't change their base status as ATG's.
Paragraph's 4-5: LL was near prime, VK was preprime. Its was one of the great HW matches in history. It's ongoing controversy only proves the stature of both fighters. Post prime champs have beaten future champs in the past (Schmeling vs Louis, Frazier, who had become blind in one eye, vs Ali,) and a rematch showed the initially beaten fighter to be better after all. VK did indisputably better than those fighters did in their initial match, and its absurd to say a rematch wasn't warranted. If not for that match, then no rematch is ever needed.
Paragraph 6: you talk a lot about indisputable truth and then use words entirely too big for the logical limitations you have shown like saying its not conjecture etc. Except, as I've shown, everything you state is fact averse and conjecture dependent.

Rest of the paragraphs: Rinse and repeat. No logic. Just "I hate the current HW's and believe as an article of faith that they are bad, I refuse to make rational comparisons to past eras, and I refuse to acknowledge the actual facts that illustrate the dominance of the brothers, the only things that actually ARE facts, ko percentage, rounds won, height weight of themselves and their era." Guess what, those are about the only "indisputable", non "conjecture" based things about boxing, and they all demonstrate how dominant the K's and this HW era is.

Parting thought. The ironic thing is without the Klitschkos, its entirely possible some combination of the fighters they've dominated would have placed themselves above the rest of the competition like Ali, Frazier and Foreman did (and to a lesser extent Norton). Its quite possible a similar confluence of belt trading would have happened as in that era, and, presumably as long as an American was one of the victors, people like you would be talking about how great the era is.

 

There is no such thing as a 39-4, two time world title challenging journeyman. You don't know what journeymen are. Go learn.

 

He's a legend......