Where does Wladimir Klitschko rank among ATG HWs?

Good post, and where can I see more of that Avy?

 

There's a huge difference between being slightly past it and absolutely ****ing done.

You know this though. The fact is, if we were talking about any other boxers, you wouldn't be coming out with such idiotic points. You know that you have no defence for Wlad here, which is why you're spouting this bull****.

 

Yeah I have been here for nearly 5 years, and it never seems to change... Best ignore the ones who won't listen.

 

They were all around before the crtuiserweight division and campaigned as heavyweights, winning the heavyweight championship of the world.

They deserve to be ranked as heavyweights, you complete moron.

 

The idea that Wlad can be ranked in the top 10 already is simply ludicrous. he's already lost to three average fighters, so what's to say he won't again? If you want to argue that two of those losses were when he was slightly before his prime, then what if he loses to a Brewster calibre fighter when he's slightly past his prime? A top 10 place would be even more ridiculous. Actually, if Wlad loses to another C-class fighter, he won't go down as a top 20 heavyweight, so let's put his achievements into perspective.

Dominating a poor division, whilst picking up a couple of losses, is not the recipe for greatness. It proves Wlad is better than poor opposition and that's all.

 

Its not just about size as Peril and many others have already explained.. Carnera, Willard and several others were big men in their day, but didn't have the all around package of conditioning, skill, and athleticism that some later big men have possesed... Sure, Any man whoever won the heavyweight title could beat a journeyman super heavyweight like Mike White, but that's not what we're talking about... Do you think that size is the only thing that say Lennox Lewis has? Or on the flipside do you thing Lewis would be as good if he only stood 6'0" and wieghed 205 lbs?

 

Have you seen who voted for that though? I'm not kidding when I say this but they are some of the worst and most biased posters on ESB. Bremen, bretchko, Bubby, jisi, dave-slave, macp1, chitownfan, Faerun etc. are all horrible posters who know nothing about the sport.

If they are the majority, I'm glad I'm in the minority.

Well, he isn't. There isn't a single ATG in history who has lost to average fighters, like Wlad has, and hasn't beaten a great fighter himself. Not one.

History will judge him as a good champion, an asset to the sport and possibly a fighter who had the potential to be great. However, potential means nothing otherwise we'd all be wanking off over Tony Ayala Jr.. The fact is, Wlad hasn't proven he is a great fighter and he never will do.

What you'll find if you look at the history books, is that fighters who are entertaining are often highly praised. Wlad, as a person who was so boring that he was blacklisted by HBO, shunned by America and hated by MSG, has dug his own grave. Whilst fans are nationalistic, they will take to anyone who provides entertainment and for proof of that, look at Pacquiao.

History won't recognize Wlad as a great champion. If morons want to consider him one, that's fine, but the people who actually make decisions on who is great and who isn't, won't give him a sniff of the Top 10 all-time list. If Wlad retires as a consensus top 15 it'd be a surprise.

 

:think

 

The difference being that Pacquiao has beaten Juan Manuel Marquez, Miguel Cotto, Oscar De La Hoya, Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera whereas Wlad has beaten Chris Byrd and Calvin Brock.

Why don't you ask Santa for a book on boxing?

 

:nono

11-20 ranking is quite impressive and reasonable for a still active fighter.

Don't be the extreme counter point to Nay_Sayer and those clowns.

 

I will, so I can forward it to you with my kindest regards

I see you're Switching the topic from losses, which was your original message, to level of beaen opposition.

So let me show you how you should have done this:

Dear Peril, you showed me that I was wrong and out of line to put so much emphasis on the losses, when clearly they don't mean much, as example of Paquiao illustrated. However, Paquiao beat much better opposition.


My response to that would be:

Of course Paquiao has better opposition, he had 8!!! weight classes to pick fighters from! Klitschko only had one. That's the problem with the Heavies, there aren't that many of them. I am 210 lbs and 6'2 and I am one of the tallest at my university, and I am not even a real heavy, I am a cruiser. Real heavyweights are one a tiny fraction of the world population, whereas 118 to 154 covers a vast majority of it. And don't even think of bringing up america's obesse population, I am talking fight weight not fat weight.

 

Peril, I enjoy your posts and response. Where I initially critized you was when you ranked Wlad #1 on the ATG list. I place him at about 11-15 but on a H2h basis your list is as good as any I've seen although I personally would have found away to put Holmes somewhere in the 6-7 range as I'm pretty sure he'd beat Holyfield.

But I too am not a fan of calling any boxers names, china chin, sisters etc. tells me they have zero respect for boxers which also tells me they've never boxed. In fact I've blocked a couple of posters out, because of their ridiculous china chin never ending comments.

 

No, we actually watch tape of the oldtimers and compare them to the fighters of today, who even David Haye, had he competed before 1960 would be the GOAT at 7000-(6999KOs) and 1(DQ).