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

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

And I would point out that Vitaly is a much better fighter than Wlad: Better chin, better stamina, much tougher, and a much higher offensive work-rate. Vitaly lets his hands go while Wlad is frightend of doing so.

Poet

[incredibleman]

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

I don't know what you grade on..

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.

Thanks for showing me one example. Also, I see where you're coming from. Foreman has great defense, great punching accuracy, great counter-punching ability, great stamina.

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.

I know about Douglas. I was happy for him when he beat Tyson. I was impressed in his other fights.

Just because he a good night doesn't meant he could've been an all-time great heavyweight.

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.

You said you differentiate between a "top-level" fighter in a weak era and a "top-level" fighter in a solid era. Marciano's era is considered weak.

Who brought up fantasy matchups?

You did. You said: A "top-level" fighter today would have been a "fringe-contender" in the 1990s.

You're comparing how they would do in a different era against different fighters. That's a fantasy match-up.

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

Yet again, you bring up something that proves nothing.

I said losses aren't the only determining factor in rating a fighter's greatness. Of course they're a factor, but so are many other things.

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 you genitalia.

Drawing unfair conclusions and ridiculing is the sign of worry and desperation in a debate.

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

It depends who you call wise.

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

By the way you were sounding, it seems like you have a bias against him.

And it does play a big part in how people rate fighters. If you don't like someone, you're not gonna praise him.

You're smarter than me.

Thanks.

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.

You don't provide arguments for it. You just state things. If someone shows me the light in something I see as dark, I'll see the light.

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?

On the contrary. Wladimir tends to bore me with his performances. I still don't deny his dominance, however.

[incredibleman]

Now let us put an end to this debate. If my predictions are correct, you're not going to agree with me because it doesn't seem to be the way you do things. I'm not going to agree with you because you don't make sense.

So, how about we finish off here?

[StarshipTrooper]

Now let us put an end to this debate. If my predictions are correct, you're not going to agree with me because it doesn't seem to be the way you do things. I'm not going to agree with you because you don't make sense.

So, how about we finish off here?

Translation: You're running up a white flag because you're an 18 post fan-boi in way over his head.

Poet

[incredibleman]

Translation: You're running up a white flag because you're an 18 post fan-boi in way over his head.

Poet

On the contrary, yet again. I'm beginning to feel bad for you. But if you wanna continue, let's go.

I also find it amusing how you made another ridiculous statement without reading the last part of my last post. Just incase you're too lazy to read it, I said that I'm not fond of his style because it tends to bore me. How can I be a "fan-boi" of someone that bores me?

[StarshipTrooper]

Now let us put an end to this debate. If my predictions are correct, you're not going to agree with me because it doesn't seem to be the way you do things. I'm not going to agree with you because you don't make sense.

So, how about we finish off here?

Sounds an aweful lot like an attempted tap-out to me.

On the contrary, yet again. I'm beginning to feel bad for you. But if you wanna continue, let's go.

I also find it amusing how you made another ridiculous statement without reading the last part of my last post. Just incase you're too lazy to read it, I said that I'm not fond of his style because it tends to bore me. How can I be a "fan-boi" of someone that bores me?

I find it rather amusing that, in fact, it was YOU who decided to get insulting: Peruse the tone of you previous posts as a reference. Now I COULD have flamed you quite a while ago but I'm showing remarkable restraint. I chose to play this straight on the off-hand chance I was addressing an adult of at least moderate intellect. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions!

Now, while you may not like my assessments (or that of others here in Boxing History), that is your personal issue: I'm hardly going to lose sleep because someone disagrees with me. There are plenty of posters in this section who's views I respect whether they agree with me or not. The one thing they all have in common is a long track record of making intelligent posts with well thought out points. You, on the other hand, have no such track record (18 posts anyone?). Now it's certainly possible that you are someone trolling under an alt: Not an uncommon occurance around here. Either way, whether you're a "newbie" or an alt, it's pretty clear from your posts you're trying to advance an agenda and have taken it as a personal affront that someone disagrees with that agenda.

Rather than feeling bad for me you should pity yourself because you've done your own cause no favors.

Poet

[TheFairPole]

Sorry to interupt guys but a couple things Wladdy could do is be more exciting and take more risks and go for the ko earlier like Lennox did towards the end of his career. The other thing he has to do is just keep on winning. If starts blowing fighters out like he did earlier in his career he will get more fan praise as well...

[incredibleman]

I find it rather amusing that, in fact, it was YOU who decided to get insulting: Peruse the tone of you previous posts as a reference. Now I COULD have flamed you quite a while ago but I'm showing remarkable restraint. I chose to play this straight on the off-hand chance I was addressing an adult of at least moderate intellect. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions!

So in other words.. I hurt your feelings and I made you snap?

Grow up, man. It's the internet.

Now, while you may not like my assesments (or that of others here in Boxing History), that is your personal issue: I'm hardly going to lose sleep because someone disagrees with me. There are plenty of posters in this section who's views I respect whether they agree with me or not. The one thing they all have in common is a long track record of making intelligent posts with well thought out points. You, on the other hand, have no such track record (18 posts anyone?). Now it's certainly possible that you are someone trolling under an alt: Not an uncommon occurance around here. Either way, whether you're a "newbie" or an alt, it's pretty clear from your posts you're trying to advance an agenda and have taken it as a personal affront that someone disagrees with that agenda.

I don't know any other posters on here. As you can see, I only have like 20 posts. My first post was in this thread. I've only come to know you here. You're the one who says other people don't judge well. Not me.

I'm not making an effort to appear intellectual. I was the one that actually started this debate with hopes of a good discussion. You were the one that started to make it drift into other areas. I played along with it and now I'm left with nothing but wasted time.

And what does my post count have to do with my reasoning ability and boxing knowledge? Newbie? What are you? 10-years-old?

Rather than feeling bad for me you should pity yourself because you've done your own cause no favors.

I'll agree with that. I spent more than 4 hours trying to debate but wound up with someone making wild accusations.

Honestly. Do you wanna go back to actually debating, continuing the verbal and personal assaults, or just leave it here? Like I said before, I'm willing to continue debating with you. Just keep it on a professional level without making accusations that I'm an "alt" or I don't know what I'm talking about because of my low post count.

[StarshipTrooper]

So in other words.. I hurt your feelings and I made you snap?

Grow up, man. It's the internet.

I don't know any other posters on here. As you can see, I only have like 20 posts. My first post was in this thread. I've only come to know you here. You're the one who says other people don't judge well. Not me.

I'm not making an effort to appear intellectual. I was the one that actually started this debate with hopes of a good discussion. You were the one that started to make it drift into other areas. I played along with it and now I'm left with nothing but wasted time.

And what does my post count have to do with my reasoning ability and boxing knowledge? Newbie? What are you? 10-years-old?

I'll agree with that. I spent more than 4 hours trying to debate but wound up with someone making wild accusations.

Honestly. Do you wanna go back to actually debating, continuing the verbal and personal assaults, or just leave it here? Like I said before, I'm willing to continue debating with you. Just keep it on a professional level without making accusations that I'm an "alt" or I don't know what I'm talking about because of my low post count.

I think anyone perusing this thread will know who is coming across as the adult and who has been making baseless assertions (hint: It won't be looking good for you). Now I'm reasonably certain you'll find some emotional Wlad fans who'll agree with you simply because they nuthug Wlad: That goes with the territory around here. You'll find that those same people aren't taken seriously around here by knowledgable posters

Poet

[DeepSleep]

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.

I think a fighter's chin and stamina are the most important characteristics of a fighter(In the Pros); very few ATG's have poor chins or poor stamina. The rest of the characteristics are all equally important, for example if you are a great counter-puncher with great defensive skill then having great punching power isn’t necessary , if you're a mauler who breaks fighter's down your counter-punching ability isn't of the up-most importance. As long as a boxer excels in a good majority of the main characteristics he can become a great fighter, a small few can get away with being good at only a few and being super-human in others to compensate but it is rare.

We can’t tell exactly how good Wlad is until he gets a chance to fight another great fighter. Clearly he is good as evidenced by how easily he destroys his competition but I can’t help but think what lesser fighters from other era’s could do given his resume. He does blow his opponents out but I’m not sure we can ever really compare him when he hasn’t been tested and forced to fight another heavyweight we could all agree on as being a great fighter. Also I have trouble putting a lot of faith into a fighter whose chin is rather brittle. I think if we are to be discussing a current HW fighter as a possible ATG than we should be talking about Vitali and not Wlad, at minimum Vitali has shown he has a rock solid chin and gave Lennox Lewis(Old Lennox but still far better than anything on Wlad’s resume) all he could handle. Still I can’t help but believe that Wlad would be able to matchup favorably with some of the greats of other era’s it’s just that he hasn’t fought anyone that confirms my thoughts.