Wladimir Klitschko is now the greatest heavyweight who ever lived, according to Boxrec.

As a boxer I preferred watching Holmes, all day every day

 

So just to clarify, you're not saying Holmes is better, but you prefer his era because the fights were more competitive?

That's totally fair as a matter of taste, but if that’s the basis for comparing fighters, it gets a bit backwards. You're essentially giving Holmes credit for struggling more, while downplaying Wlad for being too dominant. That’s kind of a strange standard, no?

Also, just to be clear I never said Tim wasn’t a great boxer. I just don’t think it’s obvious that Byrd and Povetkin are worse than Holmes’ best wins like Witherspoon. That’s a fair comparison, not a diss.

 

Exactly, so it's a stupid point, punishing Wlad for being TOO good.

 

You don't box
Prove it

 

I don't have to prove anything to you, but thanks for confirming you never laced gloves in your life.

 

I have, but we can say anything on the Internet

You are a liar. You don't box
I'm worth billion quid

 

A billion? You pauper. I've got a trillion. On me. At all times. And I'm heavyweight champion, world's strongest man AND I can beat Bolt over whatever distance he chooses. Am a bad man, and I don't throw no air punches. Too accurate, too slick, too clever. No air punches here. Shoulders are like rocks man, rocks.

Gotta go, am off to the Oscars tonight. They put on a private show for me every year. But I know who wins all the awards...


I DO.....


LOSERS....

 

Lol show off
But yes, Internet boosts mean f..k all without evidence

I could say I'm a national judo champ, but that's a lie

I do train and compete, but again, it can also be a lie without evidence lol

 

I actually think Holmes would have beaten him H2H

 

The issue was Wladimir shared an era with his brother and they could never fight and most people think Vitali would beat Wladimir in a H2H match up so that's an issue.

Also Wladimir had some very bad losses before the age of 30 in his physical prime where as Holmes never lost in his prime.

For me why I rate Holmes higher than Wladimir......

No losses in his prime.

Better adaptability in fights.

Having great success in his 40s.

 

I don’t really see how that’s relevant to what we’re discussing. We’re talking about resumes, quality of opposition, and how dominance is being judged not who wins a hypothetical head-to-head. That’s a totally different conversation.

 

It's relevant because you mentioned at the beginning of your post about if I thought Holmes was better

By beating Wlad as I'd believe he would have done, he would show himself to be better

To be fair I'm not the best at debating these kind of fantasy topics as they are far too subjective

I just know I'd rather inject cooking oli in to my eyes than put up with Wlad's era again

 

Seems like there's a bit of a contradiction here, first you said you weren’t claiming Holmes was better, now you're saying he is, based on a hypothetical H2H outcome. On top of that, you're still suggesting that Holmes struggling more against similar-level opposition somehow reflects better on him than Wlad dominating his. This isn’t just about subjectivity of course everyone has different opinions. But if we’re going to compare fighters seriously, the reasoning behind those opinions should be consistent that’s all I’m getting at.

 

Not as laughable as many here thinking a big CW to very small HW from the 60s & 70s was the GOAT. A fighter who was dropped by a beefed up LtHW and went life & death 3X by a 5'11" 205lb. opponent

Wlad and many other top 2000s HWs would massacre the best 60s & 70s HWs.

 

Sorry I didn't ever say I wasn't claiming Holmes was or wasn't better
You've totally assumed that

I also think Holmes era ie his opposition was better so if at times he didn't do as well as Wlad did in a fight that's OK with me