Where does Wladimir Klitschko rank among ATG HWs?

i cant believe the basis of jacks argument is because wlad has lost 3 times..its ****ing crazy and it canot be justified..hes basicly saying fighters cant improve and every fighter who beat wlad was better than anyone hes faced since which is complete and utter ballix..in fact he should be shunned for even putting forth such an arguement..

 

If you're trying to point out that the majority of the general forum is ******ed, that's already been mentioned thousands of times.

 

That's ok, I'm quite happy to admit I got the fight wrong. I thought Haye would fight a bit better but he was disappointing. I can hold my hands up to being wrong and I won't add anything onto that either.

And no, the majority don't know a thing about boxing.

 

It's easy to pick apart one fighter's career and rank them below the majority consensus because of that. You can do that with anyone. There is no fighter you can't accuse of either

1. Fighting cans
2. Having no ATG wins
3. Losing to bums
4. Beating shot fighters
5. Having a style that wouldn't be able to compete with modern fighters
6. Ducking
7. Weak era
etc.

You can apply at least one of these (and other criticisms) to practically any fighter in order to shoot them down.

Ali- why didn't he rematch Foreman? Fought a lot of cruiserweights
Lewis- his ATG wins came against past prime greats, lost to bums
Louis- best wins weren't actually very good, weak era
Marciano- same as Louis, and fought worse opposition overall, weak era
Holmes- no ATG wins, weak era
Tyson- fighting cans, weak era, mentally weak
Anyone pre Louis- primitive styles wouldn't compete with larger modern fighters

I'm not trying to **** on these guys because they're all ATG fighters that dominated boxing for a time, but no heavyweight fighter is beyond criticism. If you wanted to really take it far enough you could claim there are only 3 or 4 top 10 heavyweights and the rest of the top 10 is vacant because none of them deserve to be in it

My point is if you hold any supposedly ATG fighter up to high enough standards you can easily pick apart their careers and make them look like ****. I think Jack is doing that to some degree because he just doesn't like Wlad or his fans :bart

 

and the winner is

 

Oh, absolutely, you're right. If you look at any fighter, you can pick their record apart. Even the consensus greatest of all time, Sugar Ray Robinson or the guy in my avatar, Carlos Monzon.

The difference is though, when you go into analysis about Sugar Ray Robinson didn't fight Charley Burley or the Black Murderers Row, you can still do a counter argument and mention the great wins Robinson has, over guys like LaMotta, Gavilan, Turpin and so on. When people analyze Monzon's record, and there is a more salient here as we're talking about Wlad, they'll see that he didn't ever beat a 'great' middleweight. The difference between his record and Wlad's though, is once Monzon stepped out of Argentina, he never lost a single fight. He has plenty of draws in the notoriously corrupt Argentina but no losses. That's dominance. You can't hold it against Monzon for not beating a great middleweight but the fact is, he dominated the division and earned the right ro be called great in a way that Wlad hasn't done.

The two things which you hold against Wlad are that he hasn't beaten a great fighter and he has losses against poor opposition. So where is the flip side? If Wlad had losses to poor opposition and yet had beaten a great fighter, such as Lewis in 2003, then I'd be quite happy to consider Wlad great himself. That fight didn't happen though, so if Wlad was able to dominate his division completely, like Larry Holmes did, and avoid losing to any C-class opponent, then Wlad would be considered a great. However, Wlad hasn't done that either, so like I said, where is the flip side? What criteria can you use to call Wlad a "great fighter"?

That's the issue for Wlad and any other fighter in his predicament. There is no proof of greatness there. You can't hold it against Wlad that he hasn't beaten a great fighter if none are around but if that's the case, then Wlad would have to entirely dominate the division and he simply hasn't done that. He has for the past few years, yes, but the losses to Brewster and Sanders will always linger over him and rightly so. Unlike Monzon or Holmes, who didn't get the chance to fight a truly great opponent, Wlad has lost whereas they didn't.

I've made this point many times throughout the thread and nobody has argued against it. There isn't a single fighter who is accepted as 'great', who lost to poor opposition and didn't beat a great opponent. Why should anyone hold Wlad to a different set of standards?

When people talk about Wlad, they constantly deflect the issue, saying things like "if ___ is considered great despite ____, then so is Wlad". That's all their argument consists of. There is no argument to say that Wlad can be considered a great fighter in his own right.

If anyone wants to, they can name a fighter who is considered 'great' and I'll tell you why. All I ask in return, is that someone make an argument for Wlad's greatness based on his own achievements.

 

:deal And don't you love the "Facts" jack is always making up to make his case the guy is a troll and a liar. :hat

 

Wlad is the undisputed heavyweight boss. And he beat a great opponent in David Haye decisively. Look at the ****in odds it was a 50/50 affair and Wlad ****ed him up. Jacky you even predicted Haye will KO Wlad in 4 rounds you laughing stock.

Its only a handful of these haters like delusional Jackline who cant get over the Klits dominance. They are ATGs and HOFers already.

 

There's a group of posters who seem to follow me around saying "Jack said this, Jack said that". I don't know who any of you are and from your posts, I'm glad too.

As for my predictions on the Haye fight, I got it wrong and I'm not bothered about that in the slightest. I make bad predictions all the time. In fact, I made another last night, when I bet on Montiel stopping Terrazas in 3 or 4 rounds which obviously didn't happen. If the sport was predictable, I wouldn't love it as much as I do.

 

Im a fan of yours mate. You are my favourite delusional brittard on this board. Always fun to see you get owned in threads like these. You make brits look more delusional than they already are and I appreciate that.

 

:deal

 

Well, if you're wrong so much, Could it be a sign that maybe you need to learn more about boxing and post less about it?

I'm not trying to put you down, I think outside your admitted hate for Eastern European fighters, your a good poster. You just dont need to let your dislike for a boxers get in the way of a fair evaluation of them.