What All Time Greats do you think Wlad Klitschko would beat?

I can care less about Tiger woods and your golf analogy, anyone that spends enough time applying them selves to hitting a ball in a hole can be good regardless of body type


Bad example because the population of jousters is probably less and I can't say that I know of any jousting tournaments.

 

And: Your wolf example is poor as well. And Darwin may disagree with you. Who would you rather fight? 30 infantrymen currently stationed in Afghanistan or 120 infrantryman guarding the Canadian border? (maybe a poor example, but you get my drift...)


I think Darwin's theory supports my reasoning. Survival of the fittest so the most fit individual of large population would reasonably be the most fit individual of a small population. You have it backwards.

 

:good I'd that's about right

 

Klitschko's offense makes him dangerous for anybody and I think a fighters with legendary toughness never took a punch from somebody like a modern heavyweight, at least one of the big punchers. I think Klitschko would expose a large percentage of the ATGs.

 

Before the senior citizens on this board get their Depends bunched-up; it should be pointed out that just because you can expect Klitschko to beat most pre 1980s fighters head-to-head, that does not mean that he's a greater boxer than they were. As they accomplished more in their eras than he has in his, which is the only rational way to measure a fighter's 'greatness'

 

this is dumb of course he could beat alot of those guyz doesn't mean he's greater then them

 

My point was that boxing is a dying sport (arguably). The amount of current boxers is not necesarily greater just because there is a larger population.

 

Yes, you're right as long as you are talking of the fittest individual of the two eras...its not necesarily correct, but reasonably.

Klitschko vs any ATG? Yes, he has a chance with anybody. This is irrelevant to his potential long-term chances of being placed in the same class.

 

regardless of whatever skill and talent he may have, there are too many interests working against eachother in the heavyweight division today. the chances of klit doing anything significant in this environment are pretty slim. he will most like be remembered as a good boxer who was part of the the eastern euro take over of the heavyweight division, and nothing more than that

 

But the amount of professional heavyweight boxers are most likely much higher today than ever before. Think about it; the global population is much bigger, there are more people of heavyweight stature now than during the good old days, there are more countries e.g. Russia, Kazahkstan, Ukraine et al that have allowed their citizens to box professionally so it would be reasonable to presume there is a greater number of professional boxer today than during the golden age. I think the same mathematic principle also is why Johnny Weismueller and Jesse Owen's record times aren't impressive as they were back then. In fact, I remember about twenty years ago there was a high school kid in track who broke Jesse Owen's record. The same thing probably applies to boxing it's just since boxing isn't measured with a stopwatch we have to extrapolate how good a fighter is from his records and records in boxing are often very misleading and they become even more misleading when one considers that the whole level of talent in boxing probably elevated itself above the talent of bygone days. Boxing is the sport where one single contest could completely alter everyone's perception of who is great and who is not great. Tyson was a fearsome force until Buster and then he was once again a fearsome force who was suppose to flatten a supposedly outgunned and over-the-hill Holyfield. Things turned around. The most recent example is Jermain Taylor and Kelly Pavlik. Taylor was the impressive bullgoose looney until Pavlik flatweeded him and now Pavlik has reached demigod status but what if Taylor gets his rematch and manages to land that one extra punch he needed to KO Pavlik in the second round? Then Pavlik becomes a one hit wonder in the eyes of many although that's really not the case at all. The thing is the All Time Greats do not have to compete vs today's fighters and myths tend to overshadow reality but I think after one considers the numbers involved in the competitive sports the contemporary athletes in boxing don't get the recognition they deserve. What's more precious one in a thousand or one in a million?

 

A matchup that stirs up a lot of debate is Klitschko vs. Holmes

 

Wlad is too big and too strong for every heavy but Foreman, Lewis, and Ali. But I think he is way too technical for Foreman.

Lewis and Ali are the only two I would bet against Wlad.

 

Why is it irrelavant? :nut Why not just say that Ali's 2-1 record vs lil Joe Frazier (by todays HW standards) is irrelevant? Maybe Ali's inability to soundly defeat Norton in 3 fights is relevant. There is nothing Wlad could do to get recognition among the haters. He could beat Peter in a return, beat 4 other top HWs soundly, and the naysayers will just come back w/their "HW no good now" chant. I've learned that much reading ESB for nearly 4 years. :-(

Butch Coolidge's posts explain it in cold logic, but you can't reason with people that have such strong biases, dislikes, hate, or whatever you want to call it.

Jouster's??? :rofl sheesh, think before you post man. Almost nobody is jousting today. If the same (even less) percentage of people were jousting now as they were in the middle ages, the top jousters would be the ones we'd be seeing today !

As others have noted the politics and split belts also will be held against Wlad and other fighters of this era - especially by the older guard and younger fans who have an irrational dislike (race, nationality, etc) of a current champ. Slowly, but surely, fans will change their perceptions.

 

Agree re Foreman & Lewis. I think he could beat Ali - as could others on a good nite (Tyson at/near his peak for example, Lewis).

 

Its irrelevant because a boxer's greatest is not defined on how he would perform against his contemporaries of a different time (although it is fun to argue at times). A boxer's greatness is defined by what he has actually done during his reign. Klitschko better get his act in gear (admittedly, prob. no fault of his own that the necessary big fight aren't being made) and start staking his claim or nobody will care if he could have been an ATG. Just like nobody (I hope) has Vitali or Ibeabutchie in their ATG list.

yea, yea...I was trying to find a sport that has dropped in popularity over time..thats all I came up with.
The fact is the current larger population does not necessarily mean the better boxers are alive today (and talking of just heavyweights, I believe they definitely are not if you look at just skill i.e. take away their sheer strength and size). Are there more boxers today? Perhaps. I don't know. Can the current Heavyweights beat past greats? Perhaps. Quite likely in fact. Fun to argue. But irrelevant. Just because I think a '07 Klitschko can beat a '70 Frazier doesn't make Klit a more skilled boxer, or a more exciting boxer, or a better achiever or one that is on my ATG list.