Wladimir klitschko is slaughtered for his level of opposition

Corrales - Elite fighter in his prime
Castillo x2 - Elite fighter in his prime
Alvarez - Elite fighter in his prime
Marquez - Elite fighter in his prime
Jesus Chavez - Elite fighter in his prime
Ricky Hatton - Elite fighter in his prime

You can safely fvck off now, trolling *******.

 

Hatton and the young pup Alvarez elite?

:rofl

 

Tua was actually in shape for Byrd. He was 12 lbs lighter, closer to his prime weight of 230. He was a 245 whale against Lewis.

Ha...that's ironic. Vitali was also ahead against Lewis when the ref forced him to stop. Byrd made Vitali quit.

Many would argue Holyfield was also well past his best agianst Lewis. Evander was robbed against Ruiz in the rubber match. Prior to Byrd, Holyfield also took Rahman to school. The same Rahman it took Lewis two fights to beat.

 

Wlad simply fought best availiable!!!!!

 

Seems you have an unbreakable habit of missing the points made by other posters and doing so in spectacular fashion. Typical deflections of a Wlad fanatic or just plain ignorance? A bit of both, I suspect.

In this case, it was pointed out to you that Conn had established himself in several Heavyweight contests, which was in contradiction to your assertion that "Conn was a light heavyweight champion who never defeated anybody at heavyweight". This is clearly an incorrect statement but one you completely omit to acknowledge as an error on your part. [Why am I not surprised?]

Instead, in the process of bypassing your mistake, you set about demeaning the level of Conn's Heavyweight opposition, clearly ripping some figures from Boxrec to try to make yourself look knowledgeable and to underpin a case, which didn't need to be made in the first place.

Why needn't you have attempted to make such a case? Because no argument was being made for Conn's Heavyweight victories being better than Byrd's; just that Conn had beaten other Heavyweights before challenging Louis.

As it happens, however, you failed to recognise that both Pastor and Savold were top-ten Heavyweights, at the time Conn fought them, which more than establishes his credentials at Heavyweight, prior to him meeting Louis. What's more is that Conn is generally regarded as a Top-Ten ATG Light Heavyweight having campaigned there during what is, in the main, considered a fairly talent-rich era. He was The LHW Ring Champion for two years prior to being ranked as the number 1 contender to Louis, at Heavyweight.



In contrast, you have Byrd who's 'W' against Vitali is blown up out of all proportion, as being some kind of monumental victory; forgetting that Byrd was having his backside handed to him up until Vitali changed tack and instead, quite literally, decided to hand Byrd the WBO Title.

So here's a guy who, after losing that gift-wrapped title immediately to Wlad, needed Don King to buy him another shot (the IBF Title), because King knew the rightful holder Lewis would end Byrd's serious Heavyweight career ambitions and leave King without a stake in the Heavyweight division. King then matches Byrd with an aged Holyfield for the vacant IBF strap to ensure he keeps his piece of the Heavyweight Title. And, anyone who watched that fight saw a shot to oblivion Holyfield.

That leaves the Tua bout, which is probably Byrd's best outing at Heavyweight. The Tua win, was a good one and the fight, in itself, not bad but nothing particularly special. Byrd defended and countered reasonably well, in the face of a Tua, who really had run out of ideas from the opening bell. Much as I like Tua, it has to be said that he never won a world title and his one shot against Lewis saw him utterly outclassed. He would never get another shot and the loss to Byrd highlights the reasons why.

McCline is another example of a guy who was briefly talked about near the turn of the century but who, again, made no real headway in the Heavyweight division, at all - even less than Tua. Against Byrd, he was more or less spent within the first half of the bout but still lumbered his way to making it a close call. Byrd barely made it past him.

So the question is, why do Wlad fanatics feel the need to big up the likes of Byrd, whose impact on Heavyweight Boxing was felt by no one that mattered, and who will barely be remembered in 70+ years time? I suppose that if a strong enough case can be made for Byrd being some sort of memorable, top-tier Heavyweight (which he clearly wasn't) then it helps Wlad look better. But it is a sham tactic to even try and make this case, especially when it invariably ends up in attempts to diminish the careers of Boxers, who actually are still talked about in the context of Greatness, 70+ years on and to this day.

 

Conn fought for the world heavyweight championship 2 times and lost each time. That's it. You can take words out of context (like you seem to always do) all you want, but you can't change the facts.

You have mixed it up. I didn't recognize Pastor and Savold as heavyweights comparable to Vitali, Holyfield, Tua and McCline. That's completely different to what you're accusing me for.

Conn being "Top-Ten ATG Light Heavyweight" is irrelevant when comparing him to the heavyweights. As a heavyweight, Conn wasn't even a champion. Also, your superlatives such as "fairly talent-rich era" don't help proving the point.

Maybe you believe that Conn would have done better?

Where are those statement and accusations coming from? Don King bought Byrd a title shot? You know that for a fact? "King knew the rightful holder Lewis would end Byrd's serious Heavyweight career ambitions", again, do you know that for a fact or just throwing baseless accusations around to make your claims seem to have some base?

Playing the historical significance card doesn't really prove your point, but I guess that's what you do when you don't have anything else to base your argument on.

Here are some facts for you:

Conn's HW titles: none
Conn's HW title defenses: none
Conn's HW title fight victories: none (2 fights, 2 defeats, 2 by KO)

Byrd's HW titles: 2 time champion (WBO, IBF)
Byrd's HW title defenses: 4
Byrd's HW title fight victories: 5

 

^^^ Stallion lookin' like a hater up in here...

 

As I mentioned at the outset, you appear to have an incurable addiction to [purposefully] avoiding valid points made by other posters. This latest reply of yours to me is no exception, which will become clear...

OK - so the above translates as: you are now trying to place your own brash and utterly inaccurate statement into a different context, in order to save face..."Conn was a light heavyweight champion who never defeated anybody at heavyweight". What other way is there to interpret this, pray tell?

OK - let's broaden the 'context' of your statement: "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" (By the way, who else was Conn supposed to face for a Heavyweight Title? This was the pre-alphabet-strap-era. Joe Louis was the dominant, Universal Champion. You couldn't just go and find yourself another Titlist or Vacant Title to aim at, in those days).

So how is my reasserting that Conn had indeed established himself as a Heavyweight, which included wins over two top-ten HW contenders, before fighting Louis, taking your words out of context? And, as far as Conn only facing Louis for the Championship on two occasions is concerned, I mentioned nothing to the contrary - so what facts am I trying to change exactly?


Typical, desperate nonsense from you and, quite frankly, the rest of your post collapses under this fundamental failure of yours to admit that you are wrong - That is: you didn't initially realise that Conn had faced and beaten any Heavyweights, prior to Louis.



But - what the hell...

I think you should just be honest and admit that you didn't know Pastor and Savold existed (until they were mentioned by Nonito Smoak and after you'd Boxrec'd Billy Conn); this causing you to make your blatant attempt to recover from the initial mistake.

The best you could do is list these names and numbers from Boxrec, denoting their relevant wins/losses, when Conn faced them. You had suddenly gone from stating Conn had no Heavyweight victories to him having three Heavyweight victories, which you then more or less mocked in contrast to Byrd's significant wins.

Perhaps you felt that adding the numbers would somehow place emphasis on the contrast you wanted to introduce into the debate; between Conn's wins over them and Byrd's wins over Vitali, Holyfield, Tua and McCline. In any event, this was a rather feeble distraction from your previous howler and couldn't disguise the fact that, in shifting the goalposts, you'd had no idea whatsoever that both Pastor and Savold had been prominent Heavies of the times.

And, just as a reminder - On the matter of this comparison you set up, you also seem to have purposely omitted a quite relevant section from my previous post, which counters the very point you have just reiterated here. My exact words were:

So, sorry but - no - I have not "mixed it up" at all and, for someone who has just wrongly accused me of taking their words out of context, your omission here is an absolutely priceless attempt to take the frame of reference out of my entire previous post - and this continues...

I don't think you are actually aware of the points I have been making, as your responses demonstrate. Why don't you, instead of trying to ignorantly comment on the relative accomplishments of Boxer's you know nothing about, do some proper research and try and understand the context of their careers, the individual fights, the wins, the losses. Perhaps then you'll better relate to discussions about All-Time Greats of the past and be less inclined to consider the words used to describe them as "superlatives".

Another useless question to help you avoid facing the fact that Vitali quit and gave the title to Byrd, who had, at best, won two out of nine rounds.

They are coming from my ability to read sources, other than Boxrec. Do your own research. The information is out there. For a start, you might want to read the Lennox Lewis biography by Gavin Evans.

It also helps to have been blessed with sentience and the ability of reasoning. Alas, I have no pointers for you on developing these attributes.

Given that you have neither, at any time, really grasped the arguments nor properly interpreted/addressed the points presented to you, including corrections of your own sweeping statements, you're in no position to advise me on what does or does not support them.

Regardless of your dismissal of historical significance, I have provided sufficient facts to rebut your initially sweeping statement: "Conn... ...never defeated anybody at heavyweight, let alone proven himself in the division."

I have corrected your blunder, which you won't admit, but have rather tried to cover up your lack of understanding and the resulting erroneous statement you made. So be it - but it's as clear as day.

I have also rationalised Byrd's victories over Vitali, Tua, Holyfield and McCline. I have described these fights reasonably. Vitali did give a five-to-six point lead away to hand Byrd the title (fact); Tua was a fair scalp but not anywhere near an elite trophy; Holyfield was aged and considered way past his best when Byrd faced him (fact); McCline was ponderous, having burned himself out early.

Those are the facts that really matter in this particular debate. What you have presented in the quotation above only emphasises the point Nonito Smoak made about comparing eras. Had there been the remotest possibility of you realising this observation, you might have addressed the whole topic and this post very differently. But that would be too much to ask because, as a Klitschko fanatic, you are unable to fairly examine the periods of history and the fights in question, without bias; hellbent on inflating the standard of Wlad's opposition.

Even in your list of 'facts', above, I cannot help but notice you have conveniently omitted Byrd's "HW title" losses - a sure sign of implicit favoritism.

I do happen to like Byrd and respect Wlad but not in such a way and to the extent that I would be prepared to misrepresent data by picking and choosing pertinent facts to suit; or not considering new information, as well as reasonable perspectives on surrounding circumstances - just to make them look better than they really are. You do. And, you do so in a plainly unsubtle manner.

 

Nah, Wlads longevity is not even impressive now. The boxing world generally doesn't care what he does next and thats backed up by the fact he has been taken off all US networks and reduced to Eurosport in Europe and the UK.

There was never and will never be an awe inspiring quality to Wlads run over the worst HW division that ever existed.

Ottke had a similar run that was helped by crooked refs- although no where near the level Wlad has taken it to, I don't think anybody looks back on his career with 'awe' .

 

That's why you hang on his every move and ***** about it....

 

Dino, im surprised to see you on a Wlad thread seeing you have a ban bet you may have to honour. Are you going to honour your bet if you lose?

 

Did you know Dino has entered into a ban bet with regards to Wlad?

 

Mongoose reneged on that arrangement and has been in hiding since Wlad done a pull-job. Not thats its any of your business anyway.

 

Doesn't matter, Duckvelvet is a known liar and has ducked previous ban bets in the past. Guy doesn't know what integrity is....among other things...

 

Of course everyone knows that is BS. I never backed out of the bet. I can pull up the quote where Dino said he was out of the bet. He found a post where I referenced him and said I blew it and he was done.

Just a second.