Heavyweight Rankings

[StarshipTrooper]

Vitali and Wlad are the two most dominant fighters of all time. The numbers and stats don't lie.

Both Klitschkos would be dominant HW champs in any era.

Either Klitschko beats any HW from any era.

You've had three accounts banned in the last five days: Give it up ***** :jerk0ff9:

[joseph5620]

Then you must not rate Larry Holmes very high, because his biggest wins came against guys at the very end of their careers or at the very beginning, when they had a dozen fights or so.

Both Klitschkos have been named RING champ, and neither has lost since winning that title.

I love heavyweight history, but some guys apparently quit paying attention to it when the U.S. took a back seat. Which gives fuel to guys ... like Boris over there.

When did Larry Holmes ever lose to a fighter on the level of Brewster, Purrity, or Sanders? He didn't even get knocked out by fighters like that when he was past 40.

[StarshipTrooper]

Then you must not rate Larry Holmes very high, because his biggest wins came against guys at the very end of their careers or at the very beginning, when they had a dozen fights or so.

Both Klitschkos have been named RING champ, and neither has lost since winning that title.

I love heavyweight history, but some guys apparently quit paying attention to it when the U.S. took a back seat. Which gives fuel to guys ... like Boris over there.

Holmes in fact DOES take a ranking hit from people who rank solely on resumes. Nothing new there. So does Dempsey.

Quit paying attention? Sorry, but I've seen just about every Klitschko fight that's been televised and have the majority of both their fights on video. Same thing with Lennox Lewis: I have his career set on video and have watched every one of them. The "no US Heavy = no watch" doesn't wash here.

Poet

[Dubblechin]

Wlad lost by TKO to three fighters that were sub par. That can't be ignored or erased if you're going to throw fighters like Frazier or Foreman in this.

Sanders and Brewster were far from "sub-par." In fact, Brewster put together one of the more entertaining heavyweight reigns in recent years, with his fights against Klitschko, Krasniqi, Golota, Meehan and Liakhovich (which was arguably the best heavyweight fight of the decade).

And I see Jack Dempsey on a lot of lists, but didn't he get starched in one round by Fireman Jim Flynn before he won the title? Didn't he lose to Fat Boy Willie Meehan? Have you seen Meehan. I have a photo take at the Dempsey fight where he lost to Meehan. The guy is a joke.

The only difference is, you can't watch Dempsey getting starched in one round and laid out flat on his back on a loop over and over again before you make your top 10 list. So it's easy for "historians" to slam someone like Wlad -- who has had all his fights recorded -- and Dempsey, where only a fraction of his fights were ever recorded.

If you could watch Dempsey getting wasted in one round, I'm sure he'd drop off plenty of lists. Because he didn't exactly destroy the best competition of his era.

Wlad Klitschko is a fine heavyweight champion. So is Vitali. BOTH are Ring champs. I want them to fight each other to prove who is the best. I hold that against them. But, if they don't fight, you have to judge their careers on their own merits. And if these guys continue to reign for another 10 years ... everyone slamming them now will look like fools. That's why you never say they will NEVER be considered among the best. Their careers aren't over yet.

Foreman is rated so high by so many BECAUSE OF what he accomplished after coming back in his later years. He faced more top fighters in his second career than he did in his first.

If Wlad wracks up 25 or 26 title defenses, and is still kicking butts when he's 45 (which is well within the realm of possibility), anyone saying, "Yeah, but he punched himself out against Purrity when he was a kid so he gets nowhere near the top 20 all-time" is going to sound pretty ridiculous.

[Scott9945]

Vitali and Wlad are the two most dominant fighters of all time. The numbers and stats don't lie.

Both Klitschkos would be dominant HW champs in any era.

Either Klitschko beats any HW from any era.

I'm not real thrilled about the new influx of agenda driven posters here.

[IronDanHamza]

And they were all undisputed champions at some point in their careers. Something the Klitschko's will never be. And while I can understand why they will never fight each other, it doesn't change the fact the they are the two best heavyweights in the division. And they will never face each other.This is what will be held against them when their careers are over with.


I think Wlad has put together a solid career but Vitali doesn't have a leg to stand if you're going to compare him to top 10-12 all time heavyweights. He lost to the two best fighters he ever faced while in his prime and one of those opponents was past his (Lewis).Wlad lost by TKO to three fighters that were sub par. That can't be ignored or erased if you're going to throw fighters like Frazier or Foreman in this.

Does the same apply for Manny Pacquaio in your opinion?

It's a genuine question

[Dubblechin]

I'm not real thrilled about the new influx of agenda driven posters here.

I understand what you're saying. Some fanboys just like to come in and spam boards. But, to me, there's not much difference between someone who says the "Klitschkos are the best ever" and people who say the "Klitschkos are not in the top 30 and will never be considered among the greats."

The truth is they are both very good. Both have better credentials than many guys who currently appear on some all-time lists. And they aren't finished yet.

Wlad won the Olympic Gold Medal. He is the Ring Champ. He's got 1o IBF title defenses under his belt and an 11th defense scheduled. If he's successful, only Louis, Holmes, Ali and Lewis will have more successful title defenses than Wlad. And Vitali has eight WBC defenses, is a Ring Champ as well, and he could easily pass Foreman as the oldest man to successfully defend the title. These guys are going to keep fighting and making millions until someone knocks them off. And I don't see anyone on the horizon.

And I'm not even a fan. I think I've rooted for everyone who has ever faced them. But facts are facts. And, in my mind, the people who ignore the facts are no better than the Klitschko fanatics.

[Scott9945]

I understand what you're saying. Some fanboys just like to come in and spam boards. But, to me, there's not much difference between someone who says the "Klitschkos are the best ever" and people who say the "Klitschkos are not in the top 30 and will never be considered among the greats."

The truth is they are both very good. Both have better credentials than many guys who currently appear on some all-time lists. And they aren't finished yet.

Wlad won the Olympic Gold Medal. He is the Ring Champ. He's got 1o IBF title defenses under his belt and an 11th defense scheduled. If he's successful, only Louis, Holmes, Ali and Lewis will have more successful title defenses than Wlad. And Vitali has eight WBC defenses, is a Ring Champ as well, and he could easily pass Foreman as the oldest man to successfully defend the title. These guys are going to keep fighting and making millions until someone knocks them off. And I don't see anyone on the horizon.

And I'm not even a fan. I think I've rooted for everyone who has ever faced them. But facts are facts. And, in my mind, the people who ignore the facts are no better than the Klitschko fanatics.

For the record, you weren't one of the newbies I was referring to. And I like the K bros more than most of the other regulars here, so I mostly buy into everything you said here. So stick around, it's always good to have more objective and informed fans here.

[joseph5620]

Does the same apply for Manny Pacquaio in your opinion?

It's a genuine question

Good question and it should apply to Pacquiao when people start putting him ahead of fighters like Duran or Whitaker.

[Dubblechin]

Good question. It does in my opinion when he's discussed with the all time greats.

Interesting. So, considering Henry Armstrong lost three of his first four fights, I guess any chance of being on a pound-for-pound list is out of the question?

I thought you guys only considered wins and losses in their primes?

That's why I never get in these discussions.

You base a fighters' career on his entire career. Ups, downs, wins, losses, quality of opponents, titles won, titles lost, all of it.

Any losses Pacquiao had as a "child" have been obliterated by the success he's had against the biggest names in the sport. And if Manny keeps fighting until he's old, and he racks up 10 or 12 losses in the next decade, then all that counts, too.

When his career is over, you base his all-time ranking on the whole career. A career includes ALL of it ... not just a few years that nobody can agree on.