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.

azania wrote:

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

And they would all beat Cockell.

Nonsense, do you know anything about Cockell ?

You seem to use the term shot far too often for it to have any credibility, just because a fighter is past their best doesn't mean they are shot. Louis, Moore, Walcott and Charles were in no way shot when they faced Marciano, in comparison Ali was shot by the time he faced Berbick and Holmes. Who are these people who give Tyson no credit for ripping Holmes to shreds?

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:

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

And they would all beat Cockell.

Nonsense, do you know anything about Cockell ?

Yes

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to use the term shot far too often for it to have any credibility, just because a fighter is past their best doesn't mean they are shot. Louis, Moore, Walcott and Charles were in no way shot when they faced Marciano, in comparison Ali was shot by the time he faced Berbick and Holmes. Who are these people who give Tyson no credit for ripping Holmes to shreds?

They were shot. No other way of looking at it. Holmes was shot when Tyson beat him.

The Holmes win always comes with an asterix.

What the hell constitutes shot if Moore was shot when he faced Marciano, you know so little of the era it makes me wonder why you insist on commenting, oh yeah Marciano was white and white america loves him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What the hell constitutes shot if Moore was shot when he faced Marciano, you know so little of the era it makes me wonder why you insist on commenting, oh yeah Marciano was white and white america loves him.

He was a light heavy.

So that means he was shot? Also enlighten me of his record against ranked fighters at heavyweight?

Ghostly... az... Marciano... ground...hog... day.

I think you two should get a room, the sexual tension with this foreplay is unbearable.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So that means he was shot? Also enlighten me of his record against ranked fighters at heavyweight?

I didn't say he was shot or rather I wasn't referring to him. Yes I know, he was a beast of a LHW. But he got beat by a WW, by a middle and everytime he stepped up in class, he got exposed.

What do you want to know about his HW adventure?

milkyboy wrote:Ghostly... az... Marciano... ground...hog... day.

I think you two should get a room, the sexual tension with this foreplay is unbearable.

Az am not getting involved in yet another of your Marciano debates but comments like every time Moore stepped up he got exposed are just silly, he holds wins against Bivins, Marshall, Chase and Johnson amongst others, those are some bloody fine fighters. He fought in a terrific era, perhaps the strongest the light heavyweight division has ever seen. There was not a fighter around who did not pick up a few losses

rowley wrote:Az am not getting involved in yet another of your Marciano debates but comments like every time Moore stepped up he got exposed are just silly, he holds wins against Bivins, Marshall, Chase and Johnson amongst others, those are some bloody fine fighters. He fought in a terrific era, perhaps the strongest the light heavyweight division has ever seen. There was not a fighter around who did not pick up a few losses

Moore was a great fighter. He beat a few decent HW (decent in that era which is poor for any era). When he went above decent he was out of his depth. I'd say that this era is slightly stronger that that era regarding the HWs and we all agree that this era is very weak.

So could you elaborate on his record against the ranked heavyweights of his day?

I saw az's marciano comment and thought theres no way im biteing to his usual nonsense, dont rise to it. He loves a wind up

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So could you elaborate on his record against the ranked heavyweights of his day?

Pretty average for that era. But if a LHW id what he did in this era it would be amazing. Bear in mind that often the difference between a LHW and a HW in that time was often a laxative.

azania wrote:

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.

I'm not saying Rocky's opposition was great. I'm saying his best is better than Wlad's best. I'm saying he never lost. I'm saying he was undisputed.

Saying his opposition was better than Wlad's is by no means saying it was great.

I wish I could be liike a bird in the sky ...how sweeet it would beee if I found I could flyyyy...well I'd soar to the sun and look down at the sea and I'd sing cuz I'd knowww how it feeels to be freeeeeee

I'm saying his opposition was not great and that Wlad's opposition is superior. You can't beat up on walking corpses and claim to be great just because you are undefeated.

azania wrote:walking corpses

Oh I am so very annoyed that a 36 year old Joe Louis is described in this way. What an utter joke you are Azania. You should be banned for this obvious WUM. Insane. I am going to put you on the foe list for 3 weeks for this STUPID STUPID comment.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

azania wrote:walking corpses

Oh I am so very annoyed that a 36 year old Joe Louis is described in this way. What an utter joke you are Azania. You should be banned for this obvious WUM. Insane. I am going to put you on the foe list for 3 weeks for this STUPID STUPID comment.

Haha. No wumming here. Louis was shot. How can you give credit and exhaulted ranking for a guy who beat a shot to pieces Louis? Its ridiculous. You may as well give credit to all those guys who have splattered Roy Jones.

I give Tarver credit, only months before many were hailing Jones Jnr for being superman beating Ruiz.

Cheers Rodders

Yeah, I can just about stretch to Tarver (their second fight), too. No further. I appreciate that Tarver stopped Roy only twelve month after he'd won his Heavyweight belt, which had taken his career to a whole new level, but to me it was plainly obvious that Jones wasn't himself once he'd tried to get himself back down to 175 lb. He looked as though he'd aged ten years overnight for his first fight with Tarver (As Jones put it, he "felt like a lumbering Heavyweight who could only punch like a Middleweight") and probably deserves a little more credit than he sometimes gets for winning that one, because he struggled badly in the mid stages.

Not a Roy anywhere near his best that Tarver beat, for sure, but it still has to count as a good win for him, and a disappointing loss for Jones. To toally dismiss such a win, regardless of circumstances, when Roy was still only a year removed from one of his greatest moments strikes me as having your cake and eating it, personally.

John Bloody Wayne 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.

Wlad does not have a great chin and i never implied he did i was just saying Khan can't take a punch at all. Garcia is a decent puncher but outside a few classy left hooks he is nothing special, Limond is feather fisted and had Khan down and all over the place, i don't know how many times he's been down to non punchers but it's a helluva lot more than Wlad who has had over double as many fights and for the last 12 years against highly ranked opposition in nigh on every fight. He gassed against Purritty and Brewster who despite landing cleanly on his chin still couldn't put him down, 2 of Peter's 3 knockdowns were all illegal punches, the only guy who blew him away was Sanders who is as dangerous as they come in the first few rounds. Wlad has only been hurt by big punchers in the heavyweight division which is hardly a crime. Wlad has an iron chin in comparison to Khan who's chin is glass and he has no hope of any long reign as champion because of it.

The names you mentioned, Peterson who is a decent contender and no more , Malignaggi was well past his best when he lost to Khan and frankly had looked poor for some time, likewise Judah it's like giving Wlad credit for being the only guy to stop Mercer, it's a good name but they are far from their peak. Frankly as i said it's tough to compare little men to big men as they will always look more flashy as they can throw more and move quicker but imo all four are no better comparatively than the contenders in the HW division, they are some decent names but that's about it.

88Chris05 wrote:Yeah, I can just about stretch to Tarver (their second fight), too. No further. I appreciate that Tarver stopped Roy only twelve month after he'd won his Heavyweight belt, which had taken his career to a whole new level, but to me it was plainly obvious that Jones wasn't himself once he'd tried to get himself back down to 175 lb. He looked as though he'd aged ten years overnight for his first fight with Tarver (As Jones put it, he "felt like a lumbering Heavyweight who could only punch like a Middleweight") and probably deserves a little more credit than he sometimes gets for winning that one, because he struggled badly in the mid stages.

Not a Roy anywhere near his best that Tarver beat, for sure, but it still has to count as a good win for him, and a disappointing loss for Jones. To toally dismiss such a win, regardless of circumstances, when Roy was still only a year removed from one of his greatest moments strikes me as having your cake and eating it, personally.

Would RJJ near his best beat Tarver? I believe he would have. But it could also be a case of Tarver having his number. Forrest had Mosely's number and arguably Norton had Ali's number. With the exception of Forrest/Mosely, I reckon a 1960s Ali would have beaten Norton and RJJ 12 months prior to Ruiz would have beaten Tarver.

monty junior wrote:

John Bloody Wayne 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.

Wlad does not have a great chin and i never implied he did i was just saying Khan can't take a punch at all. Garcia is a decent puncher but outside a few classy left hooks he is nothing special, Limond is feather fisted and had Khan down and all over the place, i don't know how many times he's been down to non punchers but it's a helluva lot more than Wlad who has had over double as many fights and for the last 12 years against highly ranked opposition in nigh on every fight. He gassed against Purritty and Brewster who despite landing cleanly on his chin still couldn't put him down, 2 of Peter's 3 knockdowns were all illegal punches, the only guy who blew him away was Sanders who is as dangerous as they come in the first few rounds. Wlad has only been hurt by big punchers in the heavyweight division which is hardly a crime. Wlad has an iron chin in comparison to Khan who's chin is glass and he has no hope of any long reign as champion because of it.

The names you mentioned, Peterson who is a decent contender and no more , Malignaggi was well past his best when he lost to Khan and frankly had looked poor for some time, likewise Judah it's like giving Wlad credit for being the only guy to stop Mercer, it's a good name but they are far from their peak. Frankly as i said it's tough to compare little men to big men as they will always look more flashy as they can throw more and move quicker but imo all four are no better comparatively than the contenders in the HW division, they are some decent names but that's about it.

Khan took a fearsome punch from Maidana and didn't go down. It all depends on where you get hit. He seems to have a weak temple, neck and forehead, but a strong(ish) chin!

I think Tarver just caught Jones as he was starting his long, slow decline Az, to be honest. I don't for a single second think he had Jones' number; Jones, though having an off night, won the first bout legitimately and wouldn't have been bad value for a draw in the third one, despite suffering brutal knockout defeats twice in between. Tarver just caught a slower, less mobile version of Jones with one hell of a punch in their second bout, and that was all she wrote.

After the Ruiz fight, it's painfully obvious that Jones, all of a sudden, just wasn't the same fighter who'd nigh-on embarrassed everyone in his way from Middleweight up to Light-Heavyweight from 1993 to 2003. The only person who'd claim otherwise, and that Tarver would always have beaten Jones, is Coxy.

88Chris05 wrote:I think Tarver just caught Jones as he was starting his long, slow decline Az, to be honest. I don't for a single second think he had Jones' number; Jones, though having an off night, won the first bout legitimately and wouldn't have been bad value for a draw in the third one, despite suffering brutal knockout defeats twice in between. Tarver just caught a slower, less mobile version of Jones with one hell of a punch in their second bout, and that was all she wrote.

After the Ruiz fight, it's painfully obvious that Jones, all of a sudden, just wasn't the same fighter who'd nigh-on embarrassed everyone in his way from Middleweight up to Light-Heavyweight from 1993 to 2003. The only person who'd claim otherwise, and that Tarver would always have beaten Jones, is Coxy.

Jones' decline was anything but slow. The way he looked in Tarver 1 was shocking. No movement, flat footed and very wild. His timing was off.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I think Tarver just caught Jones as he was starting his long, slow decline Az, to be honest. I don't for a single second think he had Jones' number; Jones, though having an off night, won the first bout legitimately and wouldn't have been bad value for a draw in the third one, despite suffering brutal knockout defeats twice in between. Tarver just caught a slower, less mobile version of Jones with one hell of a punch in their second bout, and that was all she wrote.

After the Ruiz fight, it's painfully obvious that Jones, all of a sudden, just wasn't the same fighter who'd nigh-on embarrassed everyone in his way from Middleweight up to Light-Heavyweight from 1993 to 2003. The only person who'd claim otherwise, and that Tarver would always have beaten Jones, is Coxy.

Jones' decline was anything but slow. The way he looked in Tarver 1 was shocking. No movement, flat footed and very wild. His timing was off.

As a massive Jones fan I have to say I felt he got a lucky decision in the 1st Tarver fight. And as az said his decline after Ruiz was quick. The moment he was in the ring I felt he wasn't right, it was a lot of weight to lose, & when the fight began he didn't look right. The rest of your points I agree with chris, I don't believe Tarver had his number & apart from the Jones fights and a couple of others Tarver for me has looked fairly ordinary, a little lazy even, he's feasted out a lot on the Jones trilogy.

I can't believe you're all letting Az get away with calling Louis a "walking corpse" at 37!

This is Joe Louis people.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I can't believe you're all letting Az get away with calling Louis a "walking corpse" at 37!

This is Joe Louis people.

He's dropped his hook into the pond, and we're all swimming around it mate.

I thought that was the only sensible thing he said to be honest (apart from RJJ being shot after Ruiz). Like the Tyson that fought Lennox. Probably beat alot of duff or a couple of contenders on the virtue of his (diminished) punch alone. A decentish win but eff all to add to the legacy to Lennox - Likewise Louis had lost the venom behind his punches and was left with little more than a jab. Its not a crap win or a great one - but it really was a matter of course win.

Sorry Az and sohotnot, let me clarify. As I said, Jones' decline was sudden, I agree. He looked wonderful against Ruiz, average against Tarver (I) and then was flattened by Tarver (II) all in succession.

My 'slow' point was referring more to how this decline slowly got worse, worse and worse still as time went on. With almost every passing fight, the Lacy one aside, Roy seemed to leave another piece of himself in the ring.

Interesting that you think Jones was lucky against Tarver first time out though, mate. For me, Tarver just didn't commit enough late on. He only really looked to attack when Jones was on the ropes. When he allowed Jones the time in the centre of the ring, it was all Roy. Only a couple of points in it, for me, but I don't think lady luck really played a part in that decision for Jones.

88Chris05 wrote:Sorry Az and sohotnot, let me clarify. As I said, Jones' decline was sudden, I agree. He looked wonderful against Ruiz, average against Tarver (I) and then was flattened by Tarver (II) all in succession.

My 'slow' point was referring more to how this decline slowly got worse, worse and worse still as time went on. With almost every passing fight, the Lacy one aside, Roy seemed to leave another piece of himself in the ring.

I understand you now & agree with you, a long slow painful death!

Interesting that you think Jones was lucky against Tarver first time out though, mate. For me, Tarver just didn't commit enough late on. He only really looked to attack when Jones was on the ropes. When he allowed Jones the time in the centre of the ring, it was all Roy. Only a couple of points in it, for me, but I don't think lady luck really played a part in that decision for Jones.

I think the fact I was such a big fan of Jones & didn't see the magic, coupled with the fact he spent more time on the ropes than in any of his previous fights, probably made Tarver look better/Jones worse influenced me quite a lot. I watched with my brother whose not a hardcore fan & we both felt he lost. It was one of those fights a couple of points either way. Seemed a bad decision at the time but I'm sure if I watched it again & really analysed it I could maybe make a better case for Jones.

ShahenshahG wrote:I thought that was the only sensible thing he said to be honest (apart from RJJ being shot after Ruiz). Like the Tyson that fought Lennox. Probably beat alot of duff or a couple of contenders on the virtue of his (diminished) punch alone. A decentish win but eff all to add to the legacy to Lennox - Likewise Louis had lost the venom behind his punches and was left with little more than a jab. Its not a crap win or a great one - but it really was a matter of course win.

Walking corpse is probably the most ridiculous comment I've read on these boards though - I understand your point, but I have never even heard Joe Louis referred to in that way.....its like calling Ali in his twilight the same - its Muhammad Ali, you just don't call a former great that!

Tyson was a former great and Steward admonished Lewis by saying theres a dead man walking in there. The point was sound. Ignore the language and half the time theres a good point in there. The rest of the time he's menstruating.

Like I said its the language he chose that wound me up. "Shot" although overused can be acceptable, "past it" but walking corpse....

[quote="JabMachineMK2"]Like I said its the language he chose that wound me up. "Shot" although overused can be acceptable, "past it" but walking corpse....[/quote]

That was probably 50% of the reason he used it. Remember he doesn't like the black & white era of boxing, lack of advanced training methods & poor nutritional knowledge. As somebody pointed out he's dropped his hook & he's waiting for a bite!

I bit, I shan't be biting again. Its a shame he's made my foe list, but I have a great deal of respect for Joe Louis, he's one of my favorites and I dislike the fact people like Az tarnish Marciano for beating who I see as the second best heavyweight of all time and a top 20 ATG.

sohotnot wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Like I said its the language he chose that wound me up. "Shot" although overused can be acceptable, "past it" but walking corpse....

That was probably 50% of the reason he used it. Remember he doesn't like the black & white era of boxing, lack of advanced training methods & poor nutritional knowledge. As somebody pointed out he's dropped his hook & he's waiting for a bite!

Speaking of hooks and aquatic marine life I think you know what you can do with your tadpoles now JM!

Haha well I assume my pond life studies were well known, but for the few who don't, I can certainly point them to some informative sites.

I thought "walking corpse" was actually pretty mild and run of the mill by Az's standards, to be honest!

Yor pond seems to be covered in thin ice JM, I suggest you stop skating and re-read rowley's article...

Ah at least there's still a little ice. I'll put away my blades and let it get a bit thicker.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I can't believe you're all letting Az get away with calling Louis a "walking corpse" at 37!

This is Joe Louis people.

Joe Louis was waaay past his best. A walking corpse is a valid description. Ditto the Ali who fought Spinks, Holmes and Berbick. The great men were on a hiding to nothing and were defacto cadavas.

With you Mackem.. Wlad's criminally underrated. Would do better in some fantasy fights than some think.

if anyones underrated its vitali, hes the real man, better cv and no poor loses. his chin is one of if not the best in the game ever, and he is more entertaining to watch, not to mention the fact that he avenged wlads losses for him.

Vitali does have an outstanding chin but it is relatively unproven and think claims of it being the best ever are a bit presumptuous, McCall on the other hand had a chin that was proven beyond any doubt.

I reckon that uppercut more than tested Vitali's chin. Has he been decked ever?

It's been tested but not proven beyond doubt, McCall on the other hand took fully blooded punches from the likes of Bruno, Lewis and Douglas without so much as a blink.

Why are you comparing his chin to McCall's? The question was if Vit had one of the strongest chin ever. The answer is yes because he has never been decked and he has been hit very hard by one of the era's heaviest punchers. You're just making excuses because you don't like him. His chin is not unproven. It has been proven to be extremely good. That cannot be denied.