W.Klitschko's legacy

First topic message reminder :

In 20 years time how would he looked back on????


And besides his technical style, is it just me that gives him a chance against great heavyweights from previous eras????

Waingro wrote:he did he said lewis ducked ruiz, its in the thread. I said fair enough if he thought that but that lewis was quality imo an didnt duck no one.

No, he didn't say that. I don't know if you've chosen to lie about this, or if you're being wilfully ignorant, but what you're saying simply isn't true.

This is what he said

by rowley on Thu 25 Aug 2011, 5:18 pm


Didn't fight any hispanic fighters and as one was his number one contender I am interpreting that as Lewis avoiding hispanic heavyweights, therefore he is like Dempsey, not a real champion.

imo Lewis did not avoid hispanish fighters and i think he would have destroyed ruiz he wasnt that good a boxer. Haye beat ruiz and imo Lewis would dominate haye quite easily.

If you're going to quote only selective, incomplete and out-of-context parts of a conversation then I haven't the patience to continue this discussion.

I made the Lewis Ruiz comment on a thread discussing Jack Dempsey and his failure to fight Wills. I was simply stating that Ruiz was Lewis' number one contender as was Wills for Dempsey, both failed to fight them. All this thus far is correct. I was trying to illustrate the point that to slaughter Dempsey for not fighting Wills without considering, understanding or knowing the reasons it did not happen is as ridiculous as me slaughtering Lewis for not fighting Ruiz, with a similar lack of regard for context and reasons.

And as you were then going on to use Dempsey's failure to fight Wills as being indicitive of an unwillingness to fight black fighters I was simply applying the same logic to the Lewis situation and arguing, tortuous though it may be that you could similarly argue Lewis was unwilling to fight hispanic fighters.

If only Waingro had his big net...

But, as much as I want it to be, he is not on the wind up

rowley wrote:I made the Lewis Ruiz comment on a thread discussing Jack Dempsey and his failure to fight Wills. I was simply stating that Ruiz was Lewis' number one contender as was Wills for Dempsey, both failed to fight them. All this thus far is correct. I was trying to illustrate the point that to slaughter Dempsey for not fighting Wills without considering, understanding or knowing the reasons it did not happen is as ridiculous as me slaughtering Lewis for not fighting Ruiz, with a similar lack of regard for context and reasons.

And as you were then going on to use Dempsey's failure to fight Wills as being indicitive of an unwillingness to fight black fighters I was simply applying the same logic to the Lewis situation and arguing, tortuous though it may be that you could similarly argue Lewis was unwilling to fight hispanic fighters.

A valiant attempt to make a credible point which anyone with an IQ over 50 would comprehend, however you forgot the golden rule of debate: "Never argue with an idiot, you'll only be brought down to their level and then beaten by experience!".

Cheers top hat, balti and trott. Glad some people managed to understand what I felt was a reasonable and fairly simple argument.

rowley wrote:Ghosty am always loath to get sucked into threads like this because I tend to get painted as either more negative than I actually am about a fighter like Lewis or more positive than I perhaps am about Wlad, which appears to have again been the case here.

The point I am trying to make is not that Wlad compares with Lewis as I don't believe this but more whenever the subject of Wlad comes up the default position of many is to wade straight in with the negative, such as Sanders Brewster, weak era etc which is ok if you are then willing to balance this with the positive such as his dominance, seven year reign and distinct lack of rounds lost during that period, which would of course give a more balanced view of things.

The reason I have mentioned Lewis is if a similar thread come on here and myself or anyone else waded in with mention of McCall and Rahman and little else they would get absolutely mullered, and rightly so, just want the same standard to be applied across the board.

I understand where you're coming from Rowley and what you're getting at but I don't think you're reasoning is entirely flawless as some of the links/parallels you've drawn are slightly weak.

Firstly, when most boxing afficionados get down the the nitty gritty of Top 10 heaveyweight lists and whether Lewis should feature, it is generally his losses to McCall and Rahman that count against him and get him generally bumped to the 10-12 bracket. Therefore these losses to weaker fighters he shouldn't have lost to are not totally glossed over.

Secondly, the reason he gets away with less derision for those losses than Wlad's to Sanders and Brewster is that 1) They were 1 punch ko's not pummellings; 2) They were avenged in spectacular fashion which Wlad's weren't at all (whatever the excuse); and 3) He proved himself time and again against significantly better fighters further suggesting they were 'fluke' losses, something Wlad hasn't really done.

Thirdly, I don't think you can dismiss weak era with one hand whilst favouring dominance/7 year reign with the other as they are not mutually exclusive but inherently interdepedent. If, for example, Lewis had be born 10 years later and therefore active during the K-bros era would Wlad still have exerted such dominance over such a long period? I would severly doubt it. He'd be a contender, with plenty of wins to his name, but never top dog. He's competent, he's proficient and he's technically sound but he's not great and was only dominant (which even then can be argued as other posters have alluded to) due to the weakness of the era he fought in.

Which hispanic was his number one contender?

Scottrf wrote:Which hispanic was his number one contender?

you mean Hispanish?

Totally agree Top hat and in my rankings I have Lewis at the lower reaches of the top ten whilst Wlad is at the lower reaches of the 20 so give or take the odd place there are roughly 10 places between them suggesting I am more than aware of the difference in quality and nature of losses between the two. Do feel though that the general point that people immediately focus on the negative with Wlad holds up.

Still feel he doesn't get the credit for his career post those defeats though, heavyweight history is littered with weak eras and what tends to typify those eras is the belts changing hands almost every time they are contested, the post Holmes pre Tyson era would be typical of this. That Wlad has been able, allowing for governing body nonsense to reign pretty much through out this speaks well of his focus, discipline and commitment if nothing else.

This thread was just on 111 replies, 1111 views, feel bad spoiling it.

Michaels, Sean wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Which hispanic was his number one contender?

you mean Hispanish?

Scottrf wrote:This thread was just on 111 replies, 1111 views, feel bad spoiling it.

But you did it anyway Scott, difficult decision do you not do it and run the risk of nobody else noticing or do it and spoil it, tricky one.

Just noticed that you can view post stats etc. I've just crept in to the top 100 by the looks of things. I'd be a nailed on top 50-er if I hadn't been the victim of such injustice.

rowley wrote:

Scottrf wrote:This thread was just on 111 replies, 1111 views, feel bad spoiling it.

But you did it anyway Scott, difficult decision do you not do it and run the risk of nobody else noticing or do it and spoil it, tricky one.

Sometimes you have to make the hard decisions. I thought it better to regret what you do that live wondering what might have been.

If ' quoting and gloating ' is your game, Waingro, how about this latest gem of yours ?

Waingro wrote:This thread is good idea. There are too many people in the Hall of Fame lol I havent even heard of most of them. It should be for only the most famous boxers.

Napoles - no
Nelson - no
Norris - no
Norton - no
Olivares - no

I guess that if the HOF must comprise ' famous ' boxers whom you've heard of it would sport approximately eleven members.

The slightly worrying thing Windy is I am guessing he and everyone on here will have heard of Audley Harrison. Even Canastota would balk at having Audley in over Napoles.

HumanWindmill wrote:If ' quoting and gloating ' is your game, Waingro, how about this latest gem of yours ?

Waingro wrote:This thread is good idea. There are too many people in the Hall of Fame lol I havent even heard of most of them. It should be for only the most famous boxers.

Napoles - no
Nelson - no
Norris - no
Norton - no
Olivares - no

I guess that if the HOF must comprise ' famous ' boxers whom you've heard of it would sport approximately eleven members.

I dont think the Wlad losses are any worse than the Lewis ones. Brewster was not a pummelling by any means. Klitschko had won virtually every round and had hurt Brewster a couple of times. He inexplicably, and quite visibly burns out at the half way stage at which point Brewster only has to mount an offence and the fight is effectively over with Wlad exhausted to the point of defenceless. Whether this was down to poor conditioning and punching himself out or some kind of illness as he claims is speculative. Its a similar case with Purritty where again he is winning comfortably and Purritty has had to soak up a huge amount of punishment before Wlad punches himself out and effectively collapses from exhaustion.

Sanders is different and is a case of being caught cold from a big punch in which he didnt recover. I dont see it as being any differnt from Rahman v Lewis I other than the ref let it go on seing as Wlad survived the round. But he had never recovered from the effect of the shot fully and Sanders just got him out with continued pressure.

I'd personally agree that whilst not in the top 10-15 he should certainly occupy anywhere between 15-20.

I completely agree with Rowley whe he says their are too many instances where people use one standard to judge one boxer yet that same standard is not applied to all.

rowley wrote:I made the Lewis Ruiz comment on a thread discussing Jack Dempsey and his failure to fight Wills. I was simply stating that Ruiz was Lewis' number one contender as was Wills for Dempsey, both failed to fight them. All this thus far is correct. I was trying to illustrate the point that to slaughter Dempsey for not fighting Wills without considering, understanding or knowing the reasons it did not happen is as ridiculous as me slaughtering Lewis for not fighting Ruiz, with a similar lack of regard for context and reasons.

And as you were then going on to use Dempsey's failure to fight Wills as being indicitive of an unwillingness to fight black fighters I was simply applying the same logic to the Lewis situation and arguing, tortuous though it may be that you could similarly argue Lewis was unwilling to fight hispanic fighters.

I dont really know what you are saying mate, first you said that Lewis was not a real champ and that he would not fight hispanish fighters and then you were saying it applies to Dempsey?

Imo Dempsey did not fight black fighters but Lewis did fight black and white fighters not sure about Ruiz mate but he is white and Lewis fought plenty of white fighters too that is the difference imo.

Lewis was quality and beter than Klitschko and Dempsey so my point is why you not rate him?

Oh dear god this is hard work. Have explained it countless times, others have amply grasped the point I am trying to make. Not really sure what benefit other than driving me to drink attempting to explain it again would really serve. If others wish to try they can feel free.

Re: 606v2 Heavyweight Rankings
by rowley on Thu Aug 11 2011, 15:49

.1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Dempsey
4 Jeffries
5 Johnson
6 Marciano
7 Holmes
8 Foreman
9 Lewis
10 Frazier
11 Liston
12 Tunney
13 Tyson
14 Holyfield
15 Charles

Waingro wrote:

rowley wrote:I made the Lewis Ruiz comment on a thread discussing Jack Dempsey and his failure to fight Wills. I was simply stating that Ruiz was Lewis' number one contender as was Wills for Dempsey, both failed to fight them. All this thus far is correct. I was trying to illustrate the point that to slaughter Dempsey for not fighting Wills without considering, understanding or knowing the reasons it did not happen is as ridiculous as me slaughtering Lewis for not fighting Ruiz, with a similar lack of regard for context and reasons.

And as you were then going on to use Dempsey's failure to fight Wills as being indicitive of an unwillingness to fight black fighters I was simply applying the same logic to the Lewis situation and arguing, tortuous though it may be that you could similarly argue Lewis was unwilling to fight hispanic fighters.

I dont really know what you are saying mate, first you said that Lewis was not a real champ and that he would not fight hispanish fighters and then you were saying it applies to Dempsey?

Imo Dempsey did not fight black fighters but Lewis did fight black and white fighters not sure about Ruiz mate but he is white and Lewis fought plenty of white fighters too that is the difference imo.

Lewis was quality and beter than Klitschko and Dempsey so my point is why you not rate him?

It's a simple analogy.

clicky

I feel for you Rowley, if you just ignore it, it may go away...

Just glad I have already arranged to go out for a drink tonight. do fear though that my Guinness intake will make Ricky Hatton look like a member of the temperance movement on the back of this.

lol that is way too low for lewis and shows that you dont rate him. He should be number 2 behind Ali maybe Marciano could say he should be number 2 coz he never lost but I reckon Lewis would have destroyed him if he was around none of the others should be ahead of him anyway imo.

Looks like you may need a couple of whisky chasers to go with those pints of Guiness

trottb wrote:Looks like you may need a couple of whisky chasers to go with those pints of Guiness

Was trying to find an appropriate smiley for heroin but just couldn't find one that suited.

Waingro wrote:lol that is way too low for lewis and shows that you dont rate him. He should be number 2 behind Ali maybe Marciano could say he should be number 2 coz he never lost but I reckon Lewis would have destroyed him if he was around none of the others should be ahead of him anyway imo.

99% of historians would disagree with your ratings. Not to put too fine a point on it, do you think it might be that you haven't a clue what you are talking about ?

For example, no Carlos Monzon in your middleweight list ? ( Not to mention Greb or one or two others. )

Waingro wrote:1. Roy Jones - was absolutely awesome at his best
2. Marvin Hagler - complete beast a proper badass
3. Sugar Ray Leonard - had amazing skills
4. Tommy Hearns - got destroyed by Hagler but whupped Duran big time
5. Joe Calzaghe - was unbeaten, nuff said
6. Hopkins - lost to Calzaghe but still a legend
7. Oscar de la Hoya - top fighter
8. Sugar Ray robinson - quality old school boxer, respect
9. Chris Eubank - One of Britains finest
10. Nigel Benn - preffered him to Eubank but he lost to him. He deserved to win da rematch though!

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but not everybody can be trusted with one.

I was going to mention that Hattons drug problems may soon pale in comparison to yours but thought No Rowleys better than that.

Cheers Windy getting my heavyweight list criticised by a guy who has De La Hoya in his middleweight list does hurt a bit given Oscar had two fights at the weight, a KO loss to Hopkins and a fortunate win over Canastota lock in Felix Sturm.

Ah, the mighty Sturm, jeff. There's a name to have Monzon quaking in his boots and reaching for a ciggie to calm the nerves.

Least we know Sturm exists...

BALTIMORA wrote:Least we know Sturm exists...

Of course we do, BALTI. It's the HD and colour which gives it away.

HumanWindmill wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Least we know Sturm exists...

Of course we do, BALTI. It's the HD and colour which gives it away.

And don't you forget it! Reminds me of this, for some reason: Life in 1990

BALTIMORA wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Least we know Sturm exists...

Of course we do, BALTI. It's the HD and colour which gives it away.

And don't you forget it! Reminds me of this, for some reason: Life in 1990

Quite so.

Whether in a pond or elsewhere.

wow, this one is still going.

say wald it top 20 heavy, is there any other fighters in the top 20 who have no definign fights and no legacy other than the longevity of their reign?

Well sean legacy is very much a subjective term so it will very much depend how one chooses to define that term as to whether Wlad or indeed anyone has or does not have one. Again what is a defining fight, for me is a slightly misleading and overused term, careers are defined by their whole at the end rather than by one fight, if a career could be defined by one fight Laing would be an all time great and Buster Douglas would be a top ten heavy because you could not hope for a more defining fight than smacking out Tyson.

As it goes though who would you say are Wills or Walcott's defining fights which put them head and shoulders above Wlad.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:lol that is way too low for lewis and shows that you dont rate him. He should be number 2 behind Ali maybe Marciano could say he should be number 2 coz he never lost but I reckon Lewis would have destroyed him if he was around none of the others should be ahead of him anyway imo.

99% of historians would disagree with your ratings. Not to put too fine a point on it, do you think it might be that you haven't a clue what you are talking about ?

For example, no Carlos Monzon in your middleweight list ? ( Not to mention Greb or one or two others. )

Waingro wrote:1. Roy Jones - was absolutely awesome at his best
2. Marvin Hagler - complete beast a proper badass
3. Sugar Ray Leonard - had amazing skills
4. Tommy Hearns - got destroyed by Hagler but whupped Duran big time
5. Joe Calzaghe - was unbeaten, nuff said
6. Hopkins - lost to Calzaghe but still a legend
7. Oscar de la Hoya - top fighter
8. Sugar Ray robinson - quality old school boxer, respect
9. Chris Eubank - One of Britains finest
10. Nigel Benn - preffered him to Eubank but he lost to him. He deserved to win da rematch though!

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but not everybody can be trusted with one.

Opinions are like @rseholes, everyone's got one and Waingro's clearly stinks!

TopHat24/7 wrote:Opinions are like @rseholes, everyone's got one and Waingro's clearly stinks!

I dont have one. Im a clostomy bag man myself

rowley wrote:Well sean legacy is very much a subjective term so it will very much depend how one chooses to define that term as to whether Wlad or indeed anyone has or does not have one. Again what is a defining fight, for me is a slightly misleading and overused term, careers are defined by their whole at the end rather than by one fight, if a career could be defined by one fight Laing would be an all time great and Buster Douglas would be a top ten heavy because you could not hope for a more defining fight than smacking out Tyson.

As it goes though who would you say are Wills or Walcott's defining fights which put them head and shoulders above Wlad.

According to you rowley, everything is subjective, i am not allowed to say wlad has no legacy although in terms of opposition it is incredibly obvious he doesnt, im not allowed to say how i think he would measure up with other generations because that is just plain guessing. Ok i will pose no theoretical questions that can't be answered with cold hard facts, would that make you feel better?

Unreal

Touchy

Sorry Sean but what I meant to say is it does depend very much how you define legacy, in terms of level of opposition I would agree he falls short, hence why I only have him at the absolute lower reaches of the top 20 but am not sure of the facts but I believe in terms of defences there are but two or three heavyweights in the 100+ years of the sport in front of him and on the back of an unbeaten 7 year reign he is behind only a couple of people in the history of the sport. Could easily be argued that these provide him with some sort of legacy, whether these alone are enough to cancel out the poor opposition or enough to force him up the top 20 is the subjective element but to say he no legacy is clearly not the case.

What you actually said was he had no legacy beyond longevity, which given he has countless defences, and I think I am right in saying he even beat or equalled Burns record for number of consecutive defences by KO this is clearly not the case.

depends who you are knocking out IMO, anyway, i feel bad for Wlad and i like him. If he had just one great rival he would be looked at very differently (providing he won of course)

Agree Sean, as I said earlier I do feel a little uncomfortable on threads like this because I often find myself coming across as protector of all things Wlad when my views on him would better be represented as crushing ambivalence, but do feel I have to defend him a little because as I have said on countless times think there is a genuine tendency to only see the negative with him, something you can do with pretty much any heavyweight.

Also do think to see people get completely bent out of shape with the suggestion that Wlad could be a top 20 heavyweight or heaven forbid top 15 is ridiculous because whether you think he is worthy of this the idea is not at all out of left field, whether you think he warrants such a ranking or otherwise.

Is all subjective after all mate.

Subjective haha true rowley, very true mate