Wlad is an ATG...um'kay

First topic message reminder :

I've just finished watching the David Haye Vs Wlad Klitschko fight again. And I'm willing to say there isn't a heavyweight in history who could beat today's version of Wlad (except maybe Lewis)

Forget about his losses years ago. He's a different fighter now. What a talent. His concentration is frightening.

When circumstances conspire against dominant greats, so that they are left untested in their era (for instance Marciano), we must either penalize them or rely on simplistic imaginary head-to-head's when rating.

I expect some flack for this, but I genuinely think Wlad is a Top 5 ATG!

I think with a lack of agreed criteria for making ATG lists then it is unfair to penalize Wlad for the lack of a career defining fight, his early losses, or the era he fights in. The guy is a true great. Forget blood and guts; this man is a clean and clinical surgeon. Truly Amazing.

I disagree with much of Coxys list but men like Tunney, Schmeling, Charles, Wills or Bowe wouldn't be a million miles away from Wlad on my list. Would in fact have him behind Wills and Charles for instance while Holyfield Bowe would be an absolute nightmare for him like he would 99% of heavyweights.

Schmeling is an interesting one who doesn't get the credit he deserves, has some very good wins on his record no less than the great Joe Louis.

Rowley, is a guy I hold in high esteem. Can probably find an old thread on the old 606 where I have a similar arguement. Langford, Carpentier - Yes he may have lost more than he chewed on but the 'w' column is still above that of Wlads. More so, he fought them god knows how many times to boot... He probably fought Langford etc more times in a cycle than most pros have career fights.

More so he actually beat them.

Is a strange arguement to hold against JJ (longevity) when he (as above) fought a very, very good calibre of oppo god knows how many times?

I see very little to suggest that Jeannette's win column is even in the same bracket as Wlad's, let alone above it. The likes of Jim Johnson, Jeff Clark and Black Bill were merely the Ibragimovs, Hayes and Peters of their era, and that's being generous. The much smaller Langford, a wonderful fighter in an overall sense but not a great Heavyweight as such, had the wood on Joe more often than not, too.

As Manos alludes to, wins over the likes of Carpentier are talked up when it comes to Jeannette, Dempsey and the like, but the same people eulogising over those wins would be ready to give Wladimir hell if he signed up to fight someone like Dawson or Cleverly tomorrow.

Do find it hard to imagine Jeannette being anywhere near a top 20 let alone above Wlad, he would have to rate as the 5th or 6th best heavyweight of his era behind Johnson, Langford, McVea and Wills. I can see the reasoning behind having Wills or Langford quite high but not Jeannette.

Didnt Warren say they offered Wlad the Cleverly fight?

manos de piedra wrote:Didnt Warren say they offered Wlad the Cleverly fight?

Maybe. Wladimir's probably ducking him.

I think wlad fights a pre-determined style pretty much every fight, it's a cautious but very effective breaking down of opponent.

Lewis picked a strategy for the fight, or sometimes adapted to plan b when plan a didn't work. Too simplistic to suggest he fought scared against big hitters... He opened up from the word go against ruddock, Golota and grant. All of those guys at the time were considered genuine threats... Ruddock had mixed it pretty well with Tyson, Golota had bullied bowe, grant was the next yank big thing. His strategies often surprised me, as he could be cautious against guys you'd think he might have gone for and vice-versa.

Bute looked, powerful, awkward, quick of hand, head and feet, accurate and well conditioned when he'd never fought anyone good.

He looked like he'd been hit by a train when he eventually did.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Bute looked, powerful, awkward, quick of hand, head and feet, accurate and well conditioned when he'd never fought anyone good.

He looked like he'd been hit by a train when he eventually did.

He was very good. Just that he came across someone better.

milkyboy wrote:I think wlad fights a pre-determined style pretty much every fight, it's a cautious but very effective breaking down of opponent.

Lewis picked a strategy for the fight, or sometimes adapted to plan b when plan a didn't work. Too simplistic to suggest he fought scared against big hitters... He opened up from the word go against ruddock, Golota and grant. All of those guys at the time were considered genuine threats... Ruddock had mixed it pretty well with Tyson, Golota had bullied bowe, grant was the next yank big thing. His strategies often surprised me, as he could be cautious against guys you'd think he might have gone for and vice-versa.

I agree with every single word Milky. Perfect.

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Bute looked, powerful, awkward, quick of hand, head and feet, accurate and well conditioned when he'd never fought anyone good.

He looked like he'd been hit by a train when he eventually did.

He was very good. Just that he came across someone better.

My point is that Bute - when facing opposition at least as good as Wlad's - looked like a super middle who could (as is so often said of Wlad) give any of his division a tough night. This was proved invalid and his stock plumeted when he faced a future hall of famer of his division. Something Wlad has never had to do.

I'm asking for perspective on the matter. Looking good is much easier the worse your opposition is. Wlad's best wins are over an injured former cruiser with little on his CV at heavy, and a guy who Calzaghe beat in the amateurs.

Even I can shutout a heavy bag.

khan has better names on his resume than wlad and the same amount of losses (less by KO), his record really isnt that good.

morcormek isnt the best fight out there, neither is a thompson rematch. he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

he cant claim to be the best as vitali has been the real man all this time, maybe now he is almost retired he is better, but even now i'd back vitali.

wlad still has work to be done to be consider anything near great, he has been a vicitim of poor opposition for a while but as i stated earlier in the post the opposition out there now is starting to look quite tasty, he has time to prove his flaws have been ironed out, but if he retired now then he doesnt rank that well.

He has the same amount of losses (2 due to inexperience) but he has 32 more victories and god know's how many titles defenses of all his titles. Also he hasn't even fought a genuine journeyman to pad his record since 1999 unlike all the "great's" who regularly defended against complete dross.

Thompson 2 was a mandatory to keep his IBF title, so he had no choice. The likes of Povetkin, Arreola, Price (though don't quote me on that) and pretty much the rest of the top 10 he hasn't faced were offered a chance to fight him but unsurprisingly turned it down until Wach finally had the balls to take on the champ. He has faced modest opposition yes but to compare him to Bute or Khan is complete madness.

eddyfightfan wrote: he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

He avenged against Brewster, Sanders declined to take on his brother for more money and the WBC title and taking on Ross Puritty again would have been pointless, he only had to pace himself to win that fight by a landslide.

People do no tlike Wlad and will use any yardstick to criticise him. They'll go as far as make things up, boost the achievements of lesser fighters who held the title in the past etc etc etc. Wlad is an ATG without doubt. You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his. And to rank Patterson above him is simply laughable.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his.

Heard it all now. Far surpasses? Is that a joke?

Charles. Moore. Walcott. Louis.

Even those listed above who'd seen better days are still more than enough (by a country mile) to rank him above Wlad. Wouldn't make some peoples top 10s, as it's usually an arguementative point, but Wlad doesn't even come close to him.

And you contradict yourself:

You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

Well sorry to p**s on your parade, but Rocky went undefeated and dominated - which kind of renders your point about Wlad > Rocky being merely the ramblings of someone who doesn't think before writing.

Many thanks.

coxy0001 wrote:

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his.

Heard it all now. Far surpasses? Is that a joke?

Charles. Moore. Walcott. Louis.

Even those listed above who'd seen better days are still more than enough (by a country mile) to rank him above Wlad. Wouldn't make some peoples top 10s, as it's usually an arguementative point, but Wlad doesn't even come close to him.

And you contradict yourself:

You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

Well sorry to p**s on your parade, but Rocky went undefeated and dominated - which kind of renders your point about Wlad > Rocky being merely the ramblings of someone who doesn't think before writing.

Many thanks.

Dont forget Cockell. All those he fought were way past and were more shot than JFK. Wlad easily beats Rocky. 5 defences in 4 years against poor and old opponents says it all really. Pity Wlad didn't fight in a black and white era. Many more would have rated him higher, even if out of nostalgia.

Where is the contradiction. Wlad is decent.

I'm inbetween Az and Coxy here - being fair. Wlad is an ATG but his record doesn't stand against Marciano's in the slightest. At least Marciano has the names on his record, Wlads best win was against the 2nd best Cruiser to date. He hasn't had a defining fight and has lost, Rocky had defining fights in an era where people were a similar size and went undefeated, you can't rank Wlad above him yet. If Wlad dominates and destorys Price, Fury, Mitchell, Wilder etc then I'll have him at 12/13 infront of Vitali and around Marciano. You cannot put Wlad outside of a top 20 if you go by record and ability, its foolish to do so.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I'm inbetween Az and Coxy here - being fair. Wlad is an ATG but his record doesn't stand against Marciano's in the slightest. At least Marciano has the names on his record, Wlads best win was against the 2nd best Cruiser to date. He hasn't had a defining fight and has lost, Rocky had defining fights in an era where people were a similar size and went undefeated, you can't rank Wlad above him yet. If Wlad dominates and destorys Price, Fury, Mitchell, Wilder etc then I'll have him at 12/13 infront of Vitali and around Marciano. You cannot put Wlad outside of a top 20 if you go by record and ability, its foolish to do so.

And what about the fact that Rock's opposition were shot to pieces former greats and a great lightheavy? Plus Cockell.

"shot to pieces former greats" beats "one good cruiserweight but an average heavyweight"

The names on Marcianos CV stand up much better combined with the fact he didn't lose - as much as it may stick in your throat to admit.

I'd wager that Joe Louis, no matter how "shot to bits" would be a much scarier prospect in the ring than a "shot to bits" Mormeck.

I'm not saying Rocky would win, I'm saying his record is better.

Whilst I was not one of them and am not saying anyone in this particular debate is one of them I would have to say with regard to the people saying if Wlad beats Wilder, Price Fury (delete as appropriate) he will have proven something and will deserve respect or rating there were several people saying the same with the name of Haye in the place of those above. However when Wlad did beat Haye at pretty much a canter the respect was not particularly forthcoming.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:"shot to pieces former greats" beats "one good cruiserweight but an average heavyweight"

The names on Marcianos CV stand up much better combined with the fact he didn't lose - as much as it may stick in your throat to admit.

I'd wager that Joe Louis, no matter how "shot to bits" would be a much scarier prospect in the ring than a "shot to bits" Mormeck.

I'm not saying Rocky would win, I'm saying his record is better.

It does? How would you rank Berbick on the back of beating Ali? Should we also rank Holmes as the GOAT for beating Ali?

Yes the names on Rocky's record stands up with anyone's. But does it stand up to scrutiny?

Interesting that you pick Rocky's best win against Wlad worst win.

monty junior wrote:He has the same amount of losses (2 due to inexperience) but he has 32 more victories and god know's how many titles defenses of all his titles. Also he hasn't even fought a genuine journeyman to pad his record since 1999 unlike all the "great's" who regularly defended against complete dross.

Thompson 2 was a mandatory to keep his IBF title, so he had no choice. The likes of Povetkin, Arreola, Price (though don't quote me on that) and pretty much the rest of the top 10 he hasn't faced were offered a chance to fight him but unsurprisingly turned it down until Wach finally had the balls to take on the champ. He has faced modest opposition yes but to compare him to Bute or Khan is complete madness.

Garcia, juiced Peterson, Judah, Malignaggi and Maidana are all faar better than anything on Wlad's record. All of them athletes and skilled boxers who came to win. Even a shot Barrera's better than most.

The similarity between Bute and Wlad is how good they looked when fighting dross.

monty junior wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote: he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

He avenged against Brewster, Sanders declined to take on his brother for more money and the WBC title and taking on Ross Puritty again would have been pointless, he only had to pace himself to win that fight by a landslide.

Pretty sure he did not avenge Sanders. Wlad 0-1 Sanders.

azania wrote:People do no tlike Wlad and will use any yardstick to criticise him. They'll go as far as make things up, boost the achievements of lesser fighters who held the title in the past etc etc etc. Wlad is an ATG without doubt. You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his. And to rank Patterson above him is simply laughable.

I don't criticise Wlad out of dislike. I criticise him because I feel the level of respect he gets is disproportionate to his achievements.

Rocky fought better opposition than Wlad and had the audacity to not get knocked out three times. He also rematched those who gave him his toughest nights.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

monty junior wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote: he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

He avenged against Brewster, Sanders declined to take on his brother for more money and the WBC title and taking on Ross Puritty again would have been pointless, he only had to pace himself to win that fight by a landslide.

Pretty sure he did not avenge Sanders. Wlad 0-1 Sanders.

He didn't rematch Sanders.

Makes it worse he was knocked out by a one handed fighter. Not sure Sanders ever knocked out someone with a right hand? Did he?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

monty junior wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote: he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

He avenged against Brewster, Sanders declined to take on his brother for more money and the WBC title and taking on Ross Puritty again would have been pointless, he only had to pace himself to win that fight by a landslide.

Pretty sure he did not avenge Sanders. Wlad 0-1 Sanders.

Read what i said, i said he avenged Brewster but Sanders wanted to take on Vitali for more money and the WBC belt rather than rematch Wlad straight away. The rematch was not possible.

Union Cane wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

monty junior wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote: he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

He avenged against Brewster, Sanders declined to take on his brother for more money and the WBC title and taking on Ross Puritty again would have been pointless, he only had to pace himself to win that fight by a landslide.

Pretty sure he did not avenge Sanders. Wlad 0-1 Sanders.

He didn't rematch Sanders.

No s**t sherlock..

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

monty junior wrote:He has the same amount of losses (2 due to inexperience) but he has 32 more victories and god know's how many titles defenses of all his titles. Also he hasn't even fought a genuine journeyman to pad his record since 1999 unlike all the "great's" who regularly defended against complete dross.

Thompson 2 was a mandatory to keep his IBF title, so he had no choice. The likes of Povetkin, Arreola, Price (though don't quote me on that) and pretty much the rest of the top 10 he hasn't faced were offered a chance to fight him but unsurprisingly turned it down until Wach finally had the balls to take on the champ. He has faced modest opposition yes but to compare him to Bute or Khan is complete madness.

Garcia, juiced Peterson, Judah, Malignaggi and Maidana are all faar better than anything on Wlad's record. All of them athletes and skilled boxers who came to win. Even a shot Barrera's better than most.

The similarity between Bute and Wlad is how good they looked when fighting dross.

Average little men will always look better than average big men but none of those guys are anything special, Malignaggi is quite skilled but there's more power in a 90 yeard old's handbag than his shots, Judah is a glass jawed bum with 7 losses, Maidana can punch and that's it and Peterson is a decent inside fighter but lacks the power to be anything remotely special. Malignaggi can be the Byrd of Wlad's record (thats being incredibly generous to Malignaggi) Maidana, the Sam Peter. Peterson the Eddie Chambers and Judah maybe the Haye? ok i'm struggling to find decent comparison's but these guys are certainly not better than anything of Wlad's record. Please stop trying to compare Khan who can't take shot's from Willy Limond and has lost his last two fights to one of the best super heavy's ever.

Wlad would certainly be an ATG if it weren't for the existence of his brother.

Whilst you cannot penalise him for his parents' procreation activities before he, himself was conceived it has to be taken into account nonetheless.

Is Wlad the man of his era? No, because he hasn't proven he is the best because his brother is still regarded by some as better and unless they fight each other (they won't) then he can't be proven the best until his brother is either beaten by someone else or retires.

I've always seen the Klitschkos as a legend. However they are a legend as a unit not as individuals. In other words Wlad is 1/2 a legend and Vitali forms the other half of the legend.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:People do no tlike Wlad and will use any yardstick to criticise him. They'll go as far as make things up, boost the achievements of lesser fighters who held the title in the past etc etc etc. Wlad is an ATG without doubt. You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his. And to rank Patterson above him is simply laughable.

I don't criticise Wlad out of dislike. I criticise him because I feel the level of respect he gets is disproportionate to his achievements.

Rocky fought better opposition than Wlad and had the audacity to not get knocked out three times. He also rematched those who gave him his toughest nights.

Better opposition? Who? Would you credit Wlad if he took on and beat Hopkins? Beating shot fighters is not an achievement. It means you beat a shot fighter and nothing more.

monty junior wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

monty junior wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote: he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

He avenged against Brewster, Sanders declined to take on his brother for more money and the WBC title and taking on Ross Puritty again would have been pointless, he only had to pace himself to win that fight by a landslide.

Pretty sure he did not avenge Sanders. Wlad 0-1 Sanders.

Read what i said, i said he avenged Brewster but Sanders wanted to take on Vitali for more money and the WBC belt rather than rematch Wlad straight away. The rematch was not possible.

My mistake, I mistook what you wrote.

monty junior wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

monty junior wrote:He has the same amount of losses (2 due to inexperience) but he has 32 more victories and god know's how many titles defenses of all his titles. Also he hasn't even fought a genuine journeyman to pad his record since 1999 unlike all the "great's" who regularly defended against complete dross.

Thompson 2 was a mandatory to keep his IBF title, so he had no choice. The likes of Povetkin, Arreola, Price (though don't quote me on that) and pretty much the rest of the top 10 he hasn't faced were offered a chance to fight him but unsurprisingly turned it down until Wach finally had the balls to take on the champ. He has faced modest opposition yes but to compare him to Bute or Khan is complete madness.

Garcia, juiced Peterson, Judah, Malignaggi and Maidana are all faar better than anything on Wlad's record. All of them athletes and skilled boxers who came to win. Even a shot Barrera's better than most.

The similarity between Bute and Wlad is how good they looked when fighting dross.

Average little men will always look better than average big men but none of those guys are anything special, Malignaggi is quite skilled but there's more power in a 90 yeard old's handbag than his shots, Judah is a glass jawed bum with 7 losses, Maidana can punch and that's it and Peterson is a decent inside fighter but lacks the power to be anything remotely special. Malignaggi can be the Byrd of Wlad's record (thats being incredibly generous to Malignaggi) Maidana, the Sam Peter. Peterson the Eddie Chambers and Judah maybe the Haye? ok i'm struggling to find decent comparison's but these guys are certainly not better than anything of Wlad's record. Please stop trying to compare Khan who can't take shot's from Willy Limond and has lost his last two fights to one of the best super heavy's ever.

They don't need to be special to be better than Wlad's opposition.

Judah's a bum!? He outsped Mayweather for for the first section of their fight and he's a bum?

Malignaggi could only be the Byrd of Khan's resume if he'd started at featherweight. He's also more talented by my reckoning.
Maidana's a harder hitter P4P, much better at closing the ring down and doesn't gas anywhere near as quickly. Crazy comparison.
Chambers is only a heavyweight because its more lucrative. He has no punch and isn't worthy of his "fast" moniker. Juiced Peterson has genuine ability and strength at the weight.
Judah as Haye is the only fair comparison there.

Sorry, did you just say Khan can't be compared to Wlad because he has a glass chin?? Because Wlad's so solid? You can criticise Khan for many things, but taking on the best available isn't one of them. Far better competition than Wlad. Not Wlad's fault, but still true.

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:People do no tlike Wlad and will use any yardstick to criticise him. They'll go as far as make things up, boost the achievements of lesser fighters who held the title in the past etc etc etc. Wlad is an ATG without doubt. You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his. And to rank Patterson above him is simply laughable.

I don't criticise Wlad out of dislike. I criticise him because I feel the level of respect he gets is disproportionate to his achievements.

Rocky fought better opposition than Wlad and had the audacity to not get knocked out three times. He also rematched those who gave him his toughest nights.

Better opposition? Who? Would you credit Wlad if he took on and beat Hopkins? Beating shot fighters is not an achievement. It means you beat a shot fighter and nothing more.

I'd rank a shot Louis and an on form Walcott as better than any of Wlad's opposition. Also, Haye, Byrd and Chamber's aren't natural heavies. Vitali took on former light heavyweight Adamek. That was fine though.

monty junior wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

monty junior wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote: he also hasnt avegened his defeats like other greats.

He avenged against Brewster, Sanders declined to take on his brother for more money and the WBC title and taking on Ross Puritty again would have been pointless, he only had to pace himself to win that fight by a landslide.

Pretty sure he did not avenge Sanders. Wlad 0-1 Sanders.

He didn't rematch Sanders.

No s**t sherlock..

That one is stuck on the wall somewhere behind you. Sherlock.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:People do no tlike Wlad and will use any yardstick to criticise him. They'll go as far as make things up, boost the achievements of lesser fighters who held the title in the past etc etc etc. Wlad is an ATG without doubt. You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his. And to rank Patterson above him is simply laughable.

I don't criticise Wlad out of dislike. I criticise him because I feel the level of respect he gets is disproportionate to his achievements.

Rocky fought better opposition than Wlad and had the audacity to not get knocked out three times. He also rematched those who gave him his toughest nights.

Better opposition? Who? Would you credit Wlad if he took on and beat Hopkins? Beating shot fighters is not an achievement. It means you beat a shot fighter and nothing more.

I'd rank a shot Louis and an on form Walcott as better than any of Wlad's opposition. Also, Haye, Byrd and Chamber's aren't natural heavies. Vitali took on former light heavyweight Adamek. That was fine though.

That former LHW is still campaigning at HW and thus a fully fledged HW. Can you tell me how Moore fared when he moved up? How many fights did Charles win after Rocky. In his last 5 fights prior to facing Rocky how many did Walcott (not Theo) win? If Wlad had that resume and people praised him for it, they would be run off the board or banned.

How many defences did Rocky have in comparison to Wlad?

Im a big Wlad fan but it would be merely unreasonable to find a place for him to be rated higher than Rocky. Unfortunately Wlad has never been the man in his era and that isn't his fault but we have to count that against him, unfortunately Vitalis presence has meant we'll never know who was the man of the current crop, a comparison of records shows Marciano trumps Wlad IMO


Marciano (49-0, KO 43)'s top 10 wins
Walcott I
Walcott II
Charles I
Charles II
Moore
LaStarza II
Louis
Layne
Cockell
Matthews


Wladimir Klitschko
Byrd I
Byrd II
Brewster II
Chagaev
Haye
Ibragimov
Chambers
Brock
Peter I
Peter

I ask the question all the time Az but do you have any clue how many ranked fighters Moore beat at Heavyweight?

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:People do no tlike Wlad and will use any yardstick to criticise him. They'll go as far as make things up, boost the achievements of lesser fighters who held the title in the past etc etc etc. Wlad is an ATG without doubt. You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his. And to rank Patterson above him is simply laughable.

I don't criticise Wlad out of dislike. I criticise him because I feel the level of respect he gets is disproportionate to his achievements.

Rocky fought better opposition than Wlad and had the audacity to not get knocked out three times. He also rematched those who gave him his toughest nights.

Better opposition? Who? Would you credit Wlad if he took on and beat Hopkins? Beating shot fighters is not an achievement. It means you beat a shot fighter and nothing more.

I'd rank a shot Louis and an on form Walcott as better than any of Wlad's opposition. Also, Haye, Byrd and Chamber's aren't natural heavies. Vitali took on former light heavyweight Adamek. That was fine though.

That former LHW is still campaigning at HW and thus a fully fledged HW. Can you tell me how Moore fared when he moved up? How many fights did Charles win after Rocky. In his last 5 fights prior to facing Rocky how many did Walcott (not Theo) win? If Wlad had that resume and people praised him for it, they would be run off the board or banned.

How many defences did Rocky have in comparison to Wlad?

Are you asking me to go on boxrec for you? I didn't mention Charles or Moore. Infact I'd pick prime Charles to possibly beat Rocky. I said I think Walcott and shot Louis are better than anything on Wlad's win collumn and that he never got beat. Wlad has also never been the undisputed champ in his division. Rating Rocky ahead of Wlad really isn't that controversial opinion. Saying Rocky should be rated lower than Wlad because his opposition's no good is a peculiar double standard though.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I ask the question all the time Az but do you have any clue how many ranked fighters Moore beat at Heavyweight?

Yes.

Rodney wrote:Im a big Wlad fan but it would be merely unreasonable to find a place for him to be rated higher than Rocky. Unfortunately Wlad has never been the man in his era and that isn't his fault but we have to count that against him, unfortunately Vitalis presence has meant we'll never know who was the man of the current crop, a comparison of records shows Marciano trumps Wlad IMO


Marciano (49-0, KO 43)'s top 10 wins
Walcott I
Walcott II
Charles I
Charles II
Moore
LaStarza II
Louis
Layne
Cockell
Matthews


Wladimir Klitschko
Byrd I
Byrd II
Brewster II
Chagaev
Haye
Ibragimov
Chambers
Brock
Peter I
Peter

And I'd pick Peters to beat every single fighter on the list at the time rock fought them. Byrd also. Haye would annihilate all of them.The were so far shot its ridiculous.

How many then Az?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

azania wrote:People do no tlike Wlad and will use any yardstick to criticise him. They'll go as far as make things up, boost the achievements of lesser fighters who held the title in the past etc etc etc. Wlad is an ATG without doubt. You do not hold the belt and dominate for as long without being decent.

The famous Rocky fought dross in his defences yet people boost his opponents to make his achievements appear better. Wlad's record far surpasses his. And to rank Patterson above him is simply laughable.

I don't criticise Wlad out of dislike. I criticise him because I feel the level of respect he gets is disproportionate to his achievements.

Rocky fought better opposition than Wlad and had the audacity to not get knocked out three times. He also rematched those who gave him his toughest nights.

Better opposition? Who? Would you credit Wlad if he took on and beat Hopkins? Beating shot fighters is not an achievement. It means you beat a shot fighter and nothing more.

I'd rank a shot Louis and an on form Walcott as better than any of Wlad's opposition. Also, Haye, Byrd and Chamber's aren't natural heavies. Vitali took on former light heavyweight Adamek. That was fine though.

That former LHW is still campaigning at HW and thus a fully fledged HW. Can you tell me how Moore fared when he moved up? How many fights did Charles win after Rocky. In his last 5 fights prior to facing Rocky how many did Walcott (not Theo) win? If Wlad had that resume and people praised him for it, they would be run off the board or banned.

How many defences did Rocky have in comparison to Wlad?

Are you asking me to go on boxrec for you? I didn't mention Charles or Moore. Infact I'd pick prime Charles to possibly beat Rocky. I said I think Walcott and shot Louis are better than anything on Wlad's win collumn and that he never got beat. Wlad has also never been the undisputed champ in his division. Rating Rocky ahead of Wlad really isn't that controversial opinion. Saying Rocky should be rated lower than Wlad because his opposition's no good is a peculiar double standard though.

5 defences against useless opposition doesn't make you a great. Fighting a guy who cam eout of retirement to pay off taxes is nothing to write home about. Yes they were names, but Berbick has the best name of all. Ditto Holmes. Why don't they get the credit for that win? Holmes gets ridiculed for claiming he beat a great Ali.

Slight difference beating a past his best Joe Louis and an Ali who was showing visible signs of the onset of Parkinsons don't you think?

azania wrote:

Rodney wrote:Im a big Wlad fan but it would be merely unreasonable to find a place for him to be rated higher than Rocky. Unfortunately Wlad has never been the man in his era and that isn't his fault but we have to count that against him, unfortunately Vitalis presence has meant we'll never know who was the man of the current crop, a comparison of records shows Marciano trumps Wlad IMO


Marciano (49-0, KO 43)'s top 10 wins
Walcott I
Walcott II
Charles I
Charles II
Moore
LaStarza II
Louis
Layne
Cockell
Matthews


Wladimir Klitschko
Byrd I
Byrd II
Brewster II
Chagaev
Haye
Ibragimov
Chambers
Brock
Peter I
Peter

And I'd pick Peters to beat every single fighter on the list at the time rock fought them. Byrd also. Haye would annihilate all of them.The were so far shot its ridiculous.

Walctt would serve Peter his head on his plate. Haye has the most tedious record of any HW champion to date. , so no evidence he'd annihilate anyone. Cheers Rodders

Don't forget he's knocked out greats such as Chisora, Mormeck and Enzon Mac.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Slight difference beating a past his best Joe Louis and an Ali who was showing visible signs of the onset of Parkinsons don't you think?

Yes I do. Another example is the little credit Tyson gets for beating Holmes. If that was Rocky he would be given all the credit in the world for it. To me, Tyson beat up an old, shot former great. Look at Louis himself. He fought a bum of the month. Yet rated 1 or 2 as a HW. Personally I believe it is justified because of longevity and his skillset. Same opinion I have re Wlad.

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:

Rodney wrote:Im a big Wlad fan but it would be merely unreasonable to find a place for him to be rated higher than Rocky. Unfortunately Wlad has never been the man in his era and that isn't his fault but we have to count that against him, unfortunately Vitalis presence has meant we'll never know who was the man of the current crop, a comparison of records shows Marciano trumps Wlad IMO


Marciano (49-0, KO 43)'s top 10 wins
Walcott I
Walcott II
Charles I
Charles II
Moore
LaStarza II
Louis
Layne
Cockell
Matthews


Wladimir Klitschko
Byrd I
Byrd II
Brewster II
Chagaev
Haye
Ibragimov
Chambers
Brock
Peter I
Peter

And I'd pick Peters to beat every single fighter on the list at the time rock fought them. Byrd also. Haye would annihilate all of them.The were so far shot its ridiculous.

Walctt would serve Peter his head on his plate. Haye has the most tedious record of any HW champion to date. , so no evidence he'd annihilate anyone. Cheers Rodders

Those guys were walking corpses.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't forget he's knocked out greats such as Chisora, Mormeck and Enzon Mac.

And they would all beat Cockell.