Wlad klitschko better than Ali!!!!!!

WLAD LOST TO ROSS PURRITY:think

WLAD LOST TO CORRIE SANDERS:think

WLAD LOST TO LAMON BREWSTER!!:think

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

You can take the number 1, multiply it by 50, divide it by 2, square it, divide it by the slope of an equilateral triangle then multiply it by its eighth power.

That still wont change the fact that 1 is less than 2.

 

knn, could you please explain to me why the KO ratio is so important to you? Like most anyone else I'll agree that KOs are exciting, but the biggest thing to me is winning the fights while taking as little damage as possible.

Also, titles held today is a completely different story then when Ali was fighting, the IBF didn't even exist. In theory someone today could hold way more titles then any great from the past, since there are so many more titles available to hold. If we went by a lineal title, for instance (making it only one true title) then Ali held more than Wlad, who hasn't fully proven he's "the man" yet (he needs to beat Chagaev in my view, I'll excuse him from fighting his brother).

I'm a Wlad fan, but there's no way this adds up properly.

 

But on the other hand, Klitchko hasn't faced a fighter with the speed of Ali. Or the footwork. Or the ring intelligence and ability to adapt. Moreover, Vitaly employs a bit of an awkward swinging style. What makes you so sure he would even be able to connect effectively? Ali has made far sharper punchers look foolish and miss with their punches. And what about cuts? Vitaly has shown he can be cut quite badly. Ali has only been slightly cut once, I beleive. Is it not reasonable to assume that Ali's flicking, slicing jab may open up cuts, forcing a stoppage?

 

Head to Head Ali vs. Klitschko would be an interesting match up.

Alis resumee is much bigger, no doubt.

People who think Ali would beat Klitschko with ease are simply ******ed and should stop posting at this board, because of lack of knowledge.

 

A simple NO,No he isn't is enough here.

 

Yup you still cannot change tha fact that Ali's last 10 mean win opponents were worse than Klitschkos.

 

I'd place every last penny on Ali by KO around the 9th..TO FAST MAN!! :bbb SPEED KILLS!

 

Why dont you compare the resume as whole instead nit-pciking at it!atsch

 

Ali would knock his ass out in a 12 rounder,15 rounder whatever.

 

YOU SHOULD BE SLAPPED AND KICKED OFF FOR TALKIN ABOUT ALI LIKE THIS!!!:bart

 

atschJust because people dont agree with your logic doesnt mean that they dont have knowledge of the sport...What makes your opinion more valid than anyone who thinks ali can beat Wlad?

Get the **** out of here with that bull****!

 

worse inherently has subjectivity.

try again semantics boy.

 

The KORatio ALONE is not that important.

However it shows you how you DOMINATE your opponents.

KORatio and the other stats (world titles won etc) give a pretty accurate picture of a fighters resumee.

Yup, then KOing many opponents shows that you were winning dominantly while taking the least punishment, as opposed to winning by SD or losing by KO.

The problem with the linear title is that if A is a linear champ and loses his title to B and then wins it back in a rematch then A has beaten 2 linear champs. Whereas when Wlad keeps his title without losing he has a worse record than A, the loser. Thus you can only count "Wins in heavyweight titles" not some linear championship.

Now let me repeat that Wlad has not a better record than Ali. The topic title is WRONG, and I didn't start the topic. But aside from Ali, Lennox, Foreman and some very few others there is noone who comes close to Wlad.

Those fans of "good old times" have actually no clue how bad Marciano or Dempsey or Tunney or Langford were. The only reason why they are compared to Wlad is because the division 175+ was once also called heavyweight. But apart from the name they have nothing in common.

 

Read my posts. I did.