Heavyweight Rankings

[StarshipTrooper]

My point is you don't see Duran rated #1 P-4-P anymore because you judge his whole career. And his whole career doesn't warrant the top spot. Same with Holyfield. People in this thread couldn't understand why Evander was rated #3. It's because they rated him when he arguably scored his biggest win and they didn't wait to see how his career finished up.

Jesus. Do you just come on here to argue minute points?

Fighters are rated based on their primes. Or do you drop Ali a few notches for losing to Berbeck when he was washed up? Duran's prime was at Lightweight where he's generally considered the best fighter in the history of the division.

Poet

[Dubblechin]

They'll never warrent that sort of ranking.
Poet

That's an odd comment to make for someone who supposedly has watched boxing for 30 years. Wlad has made, what, 10 defenses of the IBF belt? Vitali has eight successful WBC title defenses. There are guys on some of these top 10 list that don't have anywhere near that many defenses (Foreman, Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, etc.). Frazier only had 10 (if you count the defenses he made after beating Mathis).

And the Klitschkos could reign for years. Never say never.

[StarshipTrooper]

That's an odd comment to make for someone who supposedly has watched boxing for 30 years. Wlad has made, what, 10 defenses of the IBF belt? Vitali has eight successful WBC title defenses. There are guys on some of these top 10 list that don't have anywhere near that many defenses (Foreman, Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, etc.). Frazier only had 10 (if you count the defenses he made after beating Mathis).

And the Klitschkos could reign for years. Never say never.

The number of defenses a fighter makes of an Alphacrap Belt is meaningless. The bottom line is who you fought and how good they were at the career stage you fought them at. Whether there was some worthless strap at stake for any of them is immaterial.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

Case in point: Charley Burley never won a title but he beat Grade-A competition and gets ranked as a result over quite a few guys that had successful runs as Middleweight champ.

Poet

[Dubblechin]

Fighters are rated based on their primes. Or do you drop Ali a few notches for losing to Berbeck when he was washed up? Duran's prime was at Lightweight where he's generally considered the best fighter in the history of the division.

Poet

Fighters ARE NOT rated based solely on their primes, because nitwits end up arguing over when "their prime" actually was.

Ali's "prime" was in the 1960s. Are you telling me you don't consider his wins in the 70s, after he lost to Norton, when rating him? His wins over Frazier and Foreman, etc., don't count? Because I can tell you NOBODY considered him in his prime when he lost to Norton. He certainly wasn't considered to be "in his prime" when he fought Foreman.

And I can pull that issue of Ring, and I am pretty sure that Duran's wins over Carlos Palomino (the recent Welterweight champ) and Sugar Ray Leonard (the reigning Welterweight champ) -- in addition to his Lightweight run -- had a lot to do with his rating.

So I have to call Bull**** on that "only rated based on their primes" comment.

Some fighters score their bigges wins well after their primes.

[MASTERFUL]

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.

[Dubblechin]

History section is a joke.

The American HW champs from the past weren't even real world champs, they were all frauds because they never competed against the superior Soviets/Eastern Europeans in the pros.

.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... take it up with the Kremlin, Boris.

It's not Ali's fault the Eastern Bloc wasn't allowed to turn pro.

[Dubblechin]

The number of defenses a fighter makes of an Alphacrap Belt is meaningless. The bottom line is who you fought and how good they were at the career stage you fought them at. Whether there was some worthless strap at stake for any of them is immaterial.

Poet

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.

[StarshipTrooper]

Fighters ARE NOT rated based solely on their primes, because nitwits end up arguing over when "their prime" actually was.

Ali's "prime" was in the 1960s. Are you telling me you don't consider his wins in the 70s, after he lost to Norton, when rating him? His wins over Frazier and Foreman, etc., don't count? Because I can tell you NOBODY considered him in his prime when he lost to Norton. He certainly wasn't considered to be "in his prime" when he fought Foreman.

And I can pull that issue of Ring, and I am pretty sure that Duran's wins over Carlos Palomino (the recent Welterweight champ) and Sugar Ray Leonard (the reigning Welterweight champ) -- in addition to his Lightweight run -- had a lot to do with his rating.

So I have to call Bull**** on that "only rated based on their primes" comment.

Some fighters score their bigges wins well after their primes.

Completely missing the point. When you lose to a top opponent after you're past-prime that's the expected result. Most objective aren't going to hold that against a fighter. When you beat a top opponent after you're past your prime objective observers are going to give that fighter credit for doing something they weren't expected to do.

And btw, boxing historians argue over when a fighter's prime was ALL THE TIME. Why? Because if you don't take that sort of thing into consideration it's academic dishonesty.

Poet

[joseph5620]

That's an odd comment to make for someone who supposedly has watched boxing for 30 years. Wlad has made, what, 10 defenses of the IBF belt? Vitali has eight successful WBC title defenses. There are guys on some of these top 10 list that don't have anywhere near that many defenses (Foreman, Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, etc.). Frazier only had 10 (if you count the defenses he made after beating Mathis).

And the Klitschkos could reign for years. Never say never.

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.