What Does Wladamir Klitschko Have To Do To Become A ATG?

[1SILVA]

Max Schmeling was a near-great. Buster Douglas was capable of fighting on that level when motivated (as he was in Tokyo).




Losses loom rather large in evaluating any fighter.....you can't just make them go away (as much as Wlad may like them to do).




He's beaten MOST of the best of perhaps the worst Heavyweight division on record. Just as who you lose to and when you lose to them is important; who you beat and when you beat them looms just as large. Fighters have always lost ranking points for weak opposition and will continue to do so.

Poet

Very valid points, poet. Have to agree with you 100 percent

[StarshipTrooper]

But Schmeling was old.

He wasn't THAT old. A bit past-prime sure but hardly washed up. 80% of Schmeling > 100% of Purrity.

And if Douglas was capable of fighting on that level, when motivated, why can't Sanders, Brewster or Purrity be able to?

Because Douglas had ATG level tools when motivated to use them: Sanders, Brewster, and Purrity do not.

I agree with that, but it's not a defining factor.

How you perform against top-level opposition goes a long way to determining just how good you're abilities are.....just as how you didn't perform against fringe-contenders goes a long way to determining how good your abilities are NOT.

Rocky Marciano beat the best of a heavyweight era that was worse, in my opinion. I don't deny his greatness, however, because he did beat the best.

Marciano routinely loses standing because of the weakness of his era. Read any thread on Marciano in this section and you'll see it. That being said, past-prime Walcott, Charles, and Moore are certainly better than any in-prime fighters Wlad has fought.

Poet

[incredibleman]

He wasn't THAT old. A bit past-prime sure but hardly washed up. 80% of Schmeling > 100% of Purrity.

Purrity.. okay. Sanders and Brewster are a different story.

And, for the record, I'm not saying that either Klitschko is greater than Louis. I'm only using them for comparison.

Because Douglas had ATG level tools when motivated to use them: Sanders, Brewster, and Purrity do not.

Brewster can be a very good puncher. Perhaps on a smaller scale, so can Sanders. Those are very essential tools, considering Wladimir doesn't have the best chin.

How you perform against top-level opposition goes a long way to determining just how good you're abilities are.....just as how you didn't perform against fringe-contenders goes a long way to determining how good your abilities are NOT.

Exactly. He fought and beat the top-level opposition in the past few years.

And of course losses are important. I just said they're not the defining factor.

Why are you telling me this? I'm not an idiot.

Marciano routinely loses standing because of the weakness of his era. Read any thread on Marciano in this section and you'll see it.

Then that's because they don't know how to rate the greatness of a fighter. What does other people's inability have to do with the topic at hand? Are you saying that you don't know how to rate the greatness of a fighter?

That being said, past-prime Walcott, Charles, and Moore are certainly better than any in-prime fighters Wlad has fought.

Legacy-wise.. I can agree.

Charles is considered one of the best light heavyweights of all-time. Moore, as well. Walcott has a decent legacy.

But Charles wasn't really a natural heavyweight. Moore, definitely not. If you consider Charles an all-time great heavyweight, I don't know what to tell you. He lost against an old Walcott, who had a decent time in the heavyweight division.

But if you consider them to have been good wins, that's fine. I mean, they were the best, even though they weren't at their best.

[bklynboy]

Originally Posted by Hitman932
If you ask me it's the British fans on this site who do not give Wlad credit and try to disparage his career.

I am American and Wlad is my favorite fighter. Of the posters I know well who are American the majority are also big Wlad fans.

I wondered when I would come across what is categoricaly the WORST post i have EVER seen and here it is lol.

All americans do on this site is go around making posts like Tyson vs Wlad or X american vs Y European, with the intent of tearing the european down and belittling him compared to the american fighters.

For the most part I don't know which poster is an American and which isn't. I 'm an American and I'm a fan of both Ks. When I talk boxing with friends and in bars I never hear anything against European fighters EXCEPT sometimes issues of boxing style. The argument is that it's too close to the Amateur style where contact alone counts. Like that fight about 10 years ago between, if I remember correctly, Tua and Maskaev where Maskaev was tippy-tapping Tua until Tua caught up with him and knocked him out.

The main criticism against the K brothers is that they don't attack their opponents enough. That's a fair criticism. That doesn't mean they're anti-European fighter. Kostya Tszyu had a "typical" European style and he was liked.

Regarding boxingscene posters you now know two posters who say that are K fans and dispute your point that Americans are anti-European.

Going deeper into that statement most fight fans I know trace their heritage to outside the Dominican Republic; Puerto Rico; Mexico; Ireland, England -- the last two are European by the way. :-) It's probably the same with boxingscene posters.

[StarshipTrooper]

Purrity.. okay. Sanders and Brewster are a different story.

Neither Sanders nor Brewster are anything special. They may be a bit better than Journeyman/Fringe Contender Purrity but not by that much.

Brewster can be a very good puncher. Perhaps on a smaller scale, so can Sanders. Those are very essential tools, considering Wladimir doesn't have the best chin.

Punching power is only one major component (and probably the least important) in the traits of a good fighter.

Exactly. He fought and beat the top-level opposition in the past few years.

Not being a relativist I differentiate between being a "top-level" fighter in a weak era and a "top-level" fighter in a solid era. A "top-level" fighter today would have been a "fringe-contender" in the 1990s. I don't grade on a curve.

And of course losses are important. I just said they're not the defining factor.

If wins and losses aren't "THE" defining factor than what is?

Why are you telling me this? I'm not an idiot.

Because of your previous statements.

Then that's because they don't know how to rate the greatness of a fighter.....Are you saying that you don't know how to rate the greatness of a fighter?

I think you'll find that MOST of the regular posters in the Boxing History section are able to rate greatness in a fighter as well as anybody. On the otherhand, your assertions of Wlad's greatness seriously call into question your own ability judge.

What does other people's inability have to do with the topic at hand?

Because you asserted that Marciano doesn't lose standing because of the weakness of his era and I pointed out that he, in fact, does.

Charles is considered one of the best light heavyweights of all-time. Moore, as well. Walcott has a decent legacy.

But Charles wasn't really a natural heavyweight. Moore, definitely not. If you consider Charles an all-time great heavyweight, I don't know what to tell you. He lost against an old Walcott, who had a decent time in the heavyweight division.

But if you consider them to have been good wins, that's fine. I mean, they were the best, even though they weren't at their best.

That doesn't change the fact that in spite of whatever deficiencies they had at the time Marciano fought them they were still better opponents than any in-prime fighter Wlad has fought.

Poet

[them_apples]

Wlad hasn't been beat in 5 years. Out of 56 fights he only has 3 losses. He has made 8 defences of his Heavyweight Title and is The Ring Champion. He would be the unifed champion, if Vitali was reitered also.

And don't say Wlad will never be a ATG, due to getting beat by the likes of Sanders etc. Lots of ATG's have had bad defeats including Archie Moore, Joe Brown, Harry Greb, Jack Dempsey Jake Lamotta, Kid Gavalin, and I could go on. All these fighters had early defeats and setbacks numerous times and come back, and thats what counts how you combeack.

Wlad is as dominant as ever, and at the moment is just destroying the best out there and making former world class amatures look like novices.

In my book with a couple of more defences and dominance he will be a ATG. But I dout the USA will accept this due to him not being from the USA,a due to him not being exciting. But Boxing is all about Hitting and Not Being Hit.

This is not a troll, but I just feel Wlad deserves more credit and I really feel is on the verge of being a ATG.

Discuss...................People

perhaps if he goes to 70 - 3 nobody in the division is good. Haye has some skill and pop but he's got no chin.

[EatKnuckle]

Keep fighting for a couple of years and beat some serious contenders without losing.

It's not rocket science.

[incredibleman]

Neither Sanders nor Brewster are anything special. They may be a bit better than Journeyman/Fringe Contender Purrity but not by that much.

They certainly were some of the top fighters, in their time of fighting. They were champions (even though they held ABC titles).

Punching power is only one major component (and probably the least important) in the traits of a good fighter.

First of all, that's a ****** statement. Without punching power, George Foreman would be nowhere because he couldn't box. The same with Rocky Marciano.

Second, Douglas put on a great performance. And these "tools" that you speak of is nonsense. He had a good fight and did everything he needed to do. Stop acting like he became the greatest of all-time for one night only.

Not being a relativist I differentiate between being a "top-level" fighter in a weak era and a "top-level" fighter in a solid era. A "top-level" fighter today would have been a "fringe-contender" in the 1990s. I don't grade on a curve.

Do you think Marciano would've been a top level contender in the 1990s? Didn't think so. Thus, it's ****** to only rate the greatness of a fighter based on how he would do in a fantasy match-up. It would be interesting, of course, but it doesn't determine legacy.

If wins and losses aren't "THE" defining factor than what is?

Where did I mention wins? I only stated losses. Just like you did in your first post.

Because of your previous statements.

My previous statements? Where I said losses aren't the only defining factor in rating a fighter? Where you suddenly brang up something to prove nothing?

I think you'll find that MOST of the regular posters in the Boxing History section are able to rate greatness in a fighter as well as anybody.

Well then most of them have a problem. What do I care? I'm not basing my judgment on others people's inabilities of rating a fighter.

On the otherhand, your assertions of Wlad's greatness seriously call into question your own ability judge.

It's all in opinion where you rate him, but certainly the wise ones would understand how good he's been in his era. Certainly, dominating an era of heavyweights gives you some form of greatness.

Plus, it's not my problem you don't like him.

Because you asserted that Marciano doesn't lose standing because of the weakness of his era and I pointed out that he, in fact, does.

Like I said before, I don't care. If they don't know how to rate a fighter, they don't know how to rate a fighter. Just because they say someone's not an all-time great doesn't make it a fact.

That doesn't change the fact that in spite of whatever deficiencies they had at the time Marciano fought them they were still better opponents than any in-prime fighter Wlad has fought.

****** statement. I'm beginning to feel like you're biased, after all.

[StarshipTrooper]

They certainly were some of the top fighters, in their time of fighting. They were champions (even though they held ABC titles).

The best of a crap era is still crap. As stated before I don't grade on a curve.

First of all, that's a ****** statement. Without punching power, George Foreman would be nowhere because he couldn't box. The same with Rocky Marciano.

Chin (especially chin), punching accuracy, defense, stamina, ability to take it to the body, counter-punching ability, ect. ect. ect. are all factors I would rate as more important than punching power. Ask Earnie Shavers (the hardest punching Heavyweight ever) how many titles his power won him.

Second, Douglas put on a great performance. And these "tools" that you speak of is nonsense. He had a good fight and did everything he needed to do. Stop acting like he became the greatest of all-time for one night only.

Apparently you know very little about Douglas: He had the physical talent and skill set to be great. He lacked the desire and dedication to be great. In Tokyo he had that desire and dedication.

Do you think Marciano would've been a top level contender in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

Not so fast: Who said I don't think Marciano would be a top-level contender in the 1990s? The only concern I would have for Marciano is his propensity to cut: Something that fighters are given much less slack for in recent decades.

Thus, it's ****** to only rate the greatness of a fighter based on how he would do in a fantasy match-up. It would be interesting, of course, but it doesn't determine legacy.

Who brought up fantasy matchups? I base the greatness of a fighter based on ability tempered by his level of oppostition. It's easy to look great when you're fighting tomato cans: Ability or lack thereof can only be judged against quality opponents. On the otherhand, demonstrating a LACK of ability against tomato can speaks volumes.

Where did I mention wins? I only stated losses. Just like you did in your first post.

The two go hand in hand: You can't look at wins and ignore the losses. That's intellectually dishonest.

My previous statements? Where I said losses aren't the only defining factor in rating a fighter? Where you suddenly brang up something to prove nothing?

See above.

Well then most of them have a problem. What do I care? I'm not basing my judgment on others people's inabilities of rating a fighter.

Apparently it's YOU that have the problem. Not only with those posters here who are your intellectual superiors but also with you lack of ability to rate fighters with your head rather than your genitalia.

It's all in opinion where you rate him, but certainly the wise ones would understand how good he's been in his era. Certainly, dominating an era of heavyweights gives you some form of greatness.

The wise ones understand the difference between a division's good eras and it's poor ones and judges accordingly.

Plus, it's not my problem you don't like him.

Who I like and dislike isn't the issue. In fact, I haven't mentioned my personal prefferences at all in this discussion.

Like I said before, I don't care. If I don't know how to rate a fighter, I don't know how to rate a fighter. Just because I say Wlad's an all-time great doesn't make it a fact.

Fixed it for you.

****** statement. I'm beginning to feel like you're biased, after all.

And what's ****** about it? You're like the little boy who thinks the whole world is dumb because reality doesn't conform to his conceptions of the way it OUGHT to be.

It sounds to me like YOU'RE the one with the bias. What's the matter? Does the fact that someone doesn't think your hero is all that and a bag of chips leave you all butt-hurt and sad?

Poet

[bklynboy]

Originally Posted by poet682006
That doesn't change the fact that in spite of whatever deficiencies they had at the time Marciano fought them they were still better opponents than any in-prime fighter Wlad has fought.

****** statement. I'm beginning to feel like you're biased, after all.

Wlad, as much as I like him, hasn't fought any great fighters. Samuel Peter, Chris Byrd, Rahman, Ibragimov, Chagaev don't compare to Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore. Granted they past their prime but they were quality fighters none the less. (Marciano also beat a way past his prime Louis but we're not counting that.)

As a tangent, at 38, his brother Vitaly is in far better shape than either Louis or Ali were at the same age. Much of it has to do with him not being in as many wars. Not being in wars affects his legacy but it certainly is healthier.