Where is Wladimir in the ATG's now?

That argumentation goes in circles. Several top contenders from other eras would have been annihilated by Wlad. Still those guys are rewarded higher because there where other "ATG's" they could beat and lose to. Wlad is the only HW of our era we consider a possible ATG. Therefore he only fought and lost to "bums".

There are three HW that have better resume and probably would beat the Wlad of today: Ali, Tyson and Lewis. You can forget about the rest, because they where to small, to slow and lacked the skill the compete with him.

 

That's a bull**** argument. Then how did the "greats" ever start appearing, how did the first ever ATG in the history of boxing beat a previous ATG?

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg[/ame]

 

whenever these guys fight all their loser fans always come up with these crazy questions and polls. I could never ever consider these guys within the top ten because I do not think they would fair any better then the mid-lower ranked contenders in the 60s and 70s. to fight those SKILLED, TALENTED and TOUGH fighters on a regular basis I do not feel either Kbros could do it. They both would need more than their amateurish 1-2-hold-push . . . even Manny could not help them!

 

You stupid ****. Have you ever heard the expression 'the man who beat the man who beat the man' when reffering to the TRUE champion? Well that doesn't work either if you are autistic, pedantic and take everything litteraly toan absurd level. To be great you have to beat great fighters, WK will never do this, not his fault, butit is a fact.

 

Let's wait until they both retire. Then we'll clear our mind and see where they rank.

 

Your logical reasoning skills are quite underdeveloped. Then explain to me how the very first ATG in boxing history ever came to be called "Great"? He *NEVER* beat "the man" and he *NEVER* beat a great fighter (because there was none before him)

This entire "the man who beat the man" idea is completely ridiculous and only works if you declare some random fighter (who never beat a great) at some point in history to be the first "great" that started the lineage.

So.. what was first? The chicken or the egg? :deal

 

Come on.

If Samuel Peter would have been fighting during the 70's he would have been considered greater than Wlad. It would go like this: "Well, he only lost to ATG's, and even beat one at one occasion. Wlad lost to bums and only beated bums."

H2H Wlad is clearly an ATG.

 

HA HA HA. You question my logic and you can't even read you dumb ****. You have just made my point again but without any sarcasm as you are an autistic ****head. Go count cards or whatever it is you people are supposed to be good at because you are making yourself look a twat here.

 

Somewhere between 11-15 at the moment.

 

That would be nice if you could explain the funny part in it :think

 

How about someone actually define the term "ATG" first.

List all the attributes that add up to the title, then I'll tell you if Wlad qualifies.

 

Almost spot on but the inclusion of perez and mitchel? Or are you assuming considering timeline they'll be worthy in a couple of years?

 

Here here! We've had 13 pages of arguments and noone has defined the criteria of what an ATG is.

Is it head to head? Best in his era? Most entertaining? Best record?

I've been puzzled a thousand times as to how some ATG lists have guys like James Jeffries and Jack Dempsey in the top ten. When I look at their videos, their boxing skills seem primitive and their size Lilliputian. They could never compete in this day and age.

Me, I go strictly H2H in their primes, but I am willing to at least consider there are other criteria to look at.

 

I see it the same way, except I have Wlad around 6-8 right now with Holy Tyson, Lewis, and Holmes fairly interchangeable depending on one's pov.

I don't rate the ancient HWs as some do since they often fought club fighters, and some had even been known to "take on all comers" including farmers, factory workers and even one milkman!