Wladimir klitschko is slaughtered for his level of opposition

Povetkin would care if he had a chance of getting in. Wlad and his brother will get in but that doesn't make the IBHOF any more legitimate in my eyes.

 

If Byrd and Ibragimov can't get into the HOF for utterly destroying one of greats Holyfield with ease amongst other things then the so called 'HOF' has no credibility.

Here's a fun promo for Holyfield vs Ibragimov.

[yt]?v=GdAnxNA7h-M[/yt]

 

All those guys were very good fighters and worthy challengers when Wlad beat them. Byrd in my opinion is a borderline hall of famer and could get in someday, there are certainly less deserving fighters who were inducted.
The overall quality of Wlad's resume is quite good and this magnified by his astounding longevity and dominance in the sport.

 

Didn't Byrd also make the "tougher" brother quit on his stool?

 

Povetkin probably doesn't even know what HOF is, and his career achievements speak for themselves, he doesn't need IBHOF, WBHOF or any other institution of that sort to recognize him.

Of course they will induct Klitschkos the first chance they get, but that really doesn't mean anything, especially today.

 

Exactly, two wins over ATG's. If he doesn't get in while chancers like Tyzu and McGuigian get in it will be a disgrace.

 

What other things, apart from beating a shot, 40-something Holyfield, make them HOF-worthy?

 

Byrd has phenomenal wins over

Tua, Vitali Klitschko, Holyfield. which ironically are also Lennox Lewis's best 3 wins. Some people say Lewis is a lock top 3 ATG HW. Well considering Byrd likely beat better versions of at least Vitali and Tua surely he must be a great as well.

Quite the pity Lewis shamefully ducked Byrd and threw his belt in the bin instead. That may well have turned out to be Lewis's best ever win if he managed to beat the elusive Byrd.

 

I wasn't just referring to Byrd - What about Ibragimov?

In any event, I'm going to assume you're joking because I can't believe you're being serious.

Phenomenal wins?
The Tua win was a comfortable UD but not phenomenal (Lewis had done a much better job on him a year before).
Vitali Klitschko, a guy who was injured and still 5 rounds ahead, when he quit to hand Byrd the win? Definitely not phenomenal.
Holyfield, who was well, well past his best and had already gone through his less than legendary trilogy with Ruiz (1-1-1)? Not phenomenal.

The above does not read as HOF-worthy, by any stretch of the imagination and Ibragimov has even less to talk about than Byrd.

 

I can't believe some people are trying to say that Joe Louis is overrated and that Wladimir Klitschko faced better opposition.

Classic case of living in the moment and wanting to see greatness.

 

Do all you folks pointing out the weight of Louis' opposition not realize the weight of Louis himself?

And to all the folks citing Billy Conn as a weak victory because, well, who cares if he's an ATG Light Heavyweight, he was coming up in weight... Uhhhh, tell me about Wladimir's clear two best victories over Chris Byrd? Lets talk about his size like we do Conn's. Lets try to be consistent here without choosing to mention what suits our arguments.

 

Two wins over Chris Byrd aren't Wlad's best victories, that much is obvious. And Byrd had proven himself at heavyweight, he was the champion and defeated proven heavyweights as well. Against Wladimir, he was just outclassed.
On the other hand, Conn was a light heavyweight champion who never defeated anybody at heavyweight, let alone proven himself in the division. He only fought for the HW title against Joe Louis, and contrary to Wlad outclassing Byrd, he was actually outscoring Louis prior to the KO in 13th round.

Bottom line is that Conn isn't comparable to Byrd at heavyweight.

 

Bob Pastor, Al McCoy, Lee Savold, plus a few more HW victories for Conn before facing Joe Louis.

But you're right. Given the era, beating the LHW champ in Conn at HW might not be comparable to Byrd, it's probably better... Vastly different eras. You've got to study them and determine greatness from what you find to value in fighters' of the long past. Impossible to do and stay consistent, really. If I'm being consistent with what I value, then I say yes, Billy Conn > Chris Byrd. Sort of like how I wouldn't massively discredit Hagler's win over Hearns because Hearns jumped up 2 divisions from WW, skipping JMW for his first ever fight at MW. If that happened today, Hagler would be coined a "cherry picker" who is "dragging up smaller guys with no experience at the weight." Eras are just different and it's almost pointless comparing guys who fought more than 15 years apart.

 

So now Bob Pastor (40-5), Al McCoy (68-15) and Lee Savold (54-20) are better wins than Vitali Klitschko, David Tua, Holyfield and McCline? Yes, whatever you say.

You could as well proceed with your claims even further and say that Billy Conn is better than Klitschko himself. You're on the right path.