Who is The #1 Heavyweight of All Time?

[cfang]

Yes, that's right.

Odd how confused he is. In mythical fights I'd pick Vitali over a bunch of guys with better resumes. If you're compiling a list a h2h opinion should only come into play if you can't separate the resumes. I'd pick Vitali over Quarry confidently, but he never beat anyone near that good.

Let's say Wlad retired last year. Could you imagine the ridicule on here someone would get predicting Tyson Fury to outbox him? We're all wrong all the time.

[Kalan]

I'd pick Vitali over Quarry confidently, but he never beat anyone near that good

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard... Not only would Vitali crush the diminutive Quarry...but a lot of Klitschko's vanquished opponents would beat him easily too.. Quarry was very easy to hit with his short arms, big head, and narrow shoulders.. Quarry got murdered with jabs.. You forget that Quarry was outboxed by little Jimmy Ellis who'd fought most of his career fights as the Middleweight.. and bigger Heavyweights such as Frazier, Chuvalo, and Norton beat little Jerry up and took his lunch money.. Guys like Larry Donald.. Kirk Johnson.. Corrie Sanders.. Kevin Johnson.. Sam Peter, and Juan Carlos Gomez were either too big, strong, and tough ... or too skilled for little Jerry.

[man]

going over Byrd's resume you wouldn't cite that as some great victory.

no, indeed you wouldn't cite him
being hopelessly behind on all
cards and winning by injury "as
some great victory".

guys, thnx for the conversation.
i am out, since from here onwards
it will turn into name calling.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

going over Byrd's resume you wouldn't cite that as some great victory.

no, indeed you wouldn't cite him
being hopelessly behind on all
cards and winning by injury "as
some great victory".

guys, thnx for the conversation.
i am out, since from here onwards
it will turn into name calling.

You're done again? Cool.

[hhaehre]

Guys like Larry Donald.. Kirk Johnson.. Corrie Sanders.. Kevin Johnson.. Sam Peter, and Juan Carlos Gomez were either too big, strong, and tough ... or too skilled for little Jerry.

Quarry never had problems with size, he'd kick Sam Peters ass in a big way. Slow big plodders like Peter was made for Quarry, or do you think Peter was better than Lyle?
For the record, I think Vitali would beat Quarry but Jerry fought much better opposition than Vitali.

[Counter-puncher]

Lmao that Kevin Johnson could beat Quarry

[hhaehre]

Lmao that Kevin Johnson could beat Quarry

Yeah, he'd throw 5 punches a round and lose a wide decision. I don't think Kirk Johnson would beat him either, lots of potential but largely unfulfilled.

[gp.]

Lmao that Kevin Johnson could beat Quarry

It's Kalan's world. All fighters from the past are terrible, except those who never lost because they never fought anybody good (eg Too Tall Jones) or never fought at all (Wilt).

The best fighter ever is Anthony Joshua, and after that it's people who have only lost to Joshua, like Dillian Whyte, or Charles Martin. After that comes anybody who has never lost, regardless of opposition, then everyone who has never fought, then anyone who could swim (which rules out Joe Frazier) , then "clowns" like George Foreman, "chinny dudes" like George Chuvalo and at the bottom is Ali.

Martin Luther King agrees with him as well.

[Tomasino]

Lmao that Kevin Johnson could beat Quarry

It's Kalan's world. All fighters from the past are terrible, except those who never lost because they never fought anybody good (eg Too Tall Jones) or never fought at all (Wilt).

The best fighter ever is Anthony Joshua, and after that it's people who have only lost to Joshua, like Dillian Whyte, or Charles Martin. After that comes anybody who has never lost, regardless of opposition, then everyone who has never fought, then anyone who could swim (which rules out Joe Frazier) , then "clowns" like George Foreman, "chinny dudes" like George Chuvalo and at the bottom is Ali.

Martin Luther King agrees with him as well.

If only all of that wasn't true

[Syntax Error]

Lmao that Kevin Johnson could beat Quarry

It's Kalan's world. All fighters from the past are terrible, except those who never lost because they never fought anybody good (eg Too Tall Jones) or never fought at all (Wilt).

The best fighter ever is Anthony Joshua, and after that it's people who have only lost to Joshua, like Dillian Whyte, or Charles Martin. After that comes anybody who has never lost, regardless of opposition, then everyone who has never fought, then anyone who could swim (which rules out Joe Frazier) , then "clowns" like George Foreman, "chinny dudes" like George Chuvalo and at the bottom is Ali.

Martin Luther King agrees with him as well.

[Kalan]

You 2 guys are idiots who can't get a damned thing straight ... Salvador Sanchez is one of the greatest Featherweights EVER and he's from the past... Gene Tunney is from the past... Willie Pep is from the past... Larry Holmes is from the past... Even Floyd Mayweather is from the past... All were great boxers.

The thing that separates a great boxer from somebody who wasn't a particularly great boxer is all-around skills -- not the era he fought in.

[gilgamesh]

Guys like Larry Donald.. Kirk Johnson.. Corrie Sanders.. Kevin Johnson.. Sam Peter, and Juan Carlos Gomez were either too big, strong, and tough ... or too skilled for little Jerry.

Quarry never had problems with size, he'd kick Sam Peters ass in a big way. Slow big plodders like Peter was made for Quarry, or do you think Peter was better than Lyle?
For the record, I think Vitali would beat Quarry but Jerry fought much better opposition than Vitali.

I don't see Quarry losing to any of the guys Kalan mentioned. Corrie Sanders maybe, but I doubt it. J.C. Gomez would've been a difficult fight for him at his best. Donald, Peter and the 2 Johnson's would lose clearly to Jerry Quarry.

[Kalan]

Not only could Joe Frazier not swim ... he also could no avoid many uppercuts and 45's that George Foreman threw. He was getting a lot of practice.

[Kalan]

Quarry didn't have the size or strength to belabor Frazier with a lot of those.

[Kalan]

Remember... Quarry fought Frazier again AFTER Frazier got smashed in 2 by the much bigger and stronger Foreman... Quarry did nothing but eat punches.

[BoxBuzz]

Hello Kalan,


I'm starting to get your "grand unification theory". and though I don't agree with it within specific arguments, I am starting to understand the method to your madness.

You give lip service respect to the pugilists "Spirit" but no where near enough in my estimation. And this is what separates our opinions for the most part.

I think you're on record as stating that within equally capable pugilists, a fighter (swarmer) has an advantage over the boxer, boxer over the puncher, puncher over the swarmer.....in round robin fashion.

You really give a lot of credence to size advantage.....so the size of the dog in the fight trumps the size of the fight in the dog.....another thing that though I agree it's often true, we find ourselves parting ways on many specifics. Especially around the remarkably gifted pugilists.

I think you have a couple of pebbles in your eyes. 1. You are a trainer....and yet you seem to underestimate the time it takes to capture the subtleties of the sport. Saying that An outstanding Big Tall Guy tough guy could beat one of the best champions of all time with six months to train. Maybe that's a boulder in your eye, In my estimation you would be putting a green puncher against a great boxer.

2. for all the credit you give to Muhammad (and you do give him much credit granted) You seem to categorize him as "none of the above". He's not a puncher, he's not a swarmer, and he's not a very good boxer.....(you've made a lot of effort to express the weakness of his game) I think he was a very good boxer, who was so athletically gifted (early on) that he did not have to follow the fundamentals to be successful. I know you and I disagree on that.



I came on board here many years ago, saying I believed that the new guys were getting better and better...something you seem to be making a case for. I have been impressed with Joshua, as you said I might be. Which is why I often listen to you without prejudice even when you assert some of your most challenging opinions. Like the weakness of Tommy Hearns, the clumsiness of Ali, the narrow skillset of Foreman, the remarkable qualities of the K bros, and your expressed opinions of the limitations of Lennox, the Brown Bomber...and Bowe. I like your odd takes even when I think you're all wet. You at least put some foundation as to why.

By the way....Armstrong stuck his head in to crowd his opponents and nullify their power. You think he was just a sitting duck. Another difference in out viewpoints. Along with Valero's riding a lucky boxing streak until his lack of luck in life ran the hourglass out on him. He was far more limited than his record would indicate. As was the case with Ottke and Vitali.....and cmon Wlad? Best of the best? Didn't the Fury fight settle that? if he was a guy that was on your hit/shame list....all we would ever hear from you is his list of losses, and why that makes him a bum.


And resist calling me a name just because we disagree...if you don't mind.

[Kalan]

Re: your many lies and BS BuzzBox

1.., I only give great advantage to height, size, length, and strength if it’s backed by brains, talent, outstanding athleticism, toughness, and skills... I’ve said this many times but you continue to say I’m all about size and height which is BS.

2.., This sport is not “FIGHTING” it’s BOXING. Dempsey had a tremendous fighting spirit -- on the other hand Tunney could box.

3.., Ali had over 100 amateur fights and 61 pro fights in 23 active years. He still got hit in the head by a lot by sharp punchers... He still never developed a body attack... His footwork was still more flashy than functional... He still ate jabs and left hooks and pulled straight back from punches... He still let head first targets like Norton and Frazier crowd him... That’s because learning how to box inside and outside ISN'T a result of how much time you have to learn it. Ali had 23 years to master it - and didn’t get it all down. Wilt Chamberlain was probably the world’s best and most dominant athlete in the 1960’s ... He could indeed learn to box well enough to fight somebody of Ali’s limited skills in 6 months... That’s what he INTENDED to do – the fight wasn’t Ali’s idea… Chamberlain knew learning how to box is NOT Rocket Science... If Chamberlain were in training camp 6 months and did nothing else but prepare and master boxing skills 24/7 he could KO Ali. Ali knew this and that’s why he would NOT sign to fight Wilt ... even though Ali promised to fight Chamberlain during their promotional and TV appearances.

4.., I never said the K Bros were the best ever. I’ve been highly critical of Wladimir’s grabbing, holding, and wrestling.. Were Lewis, Louis, and Bowe also limited fighters??? Yes they were very flawed...especially the hittable Bowe... However I consider Louis and Lewis ATG’s.

5.., Edwin Valero wasn’t lucky... He went 27-0 with 27 KO’s and was a 2-Division World Champion... It takes more than luck to accomplish that... He was very UNLUCKY!!... He was damned near KILLED in a horrendous motorcycle smashup that resulted in extensive brain injury and brain surgery... That accident changed Valero’s destiny... Maybe that’s why he was so difficult to hit and developed his offensive and defensive skills to such a high degree... Valero couldn’t afford to get hit a lot on his brain damaged head... His friends said the motorcycle crash changed Valero for the worse emotionally ... and they're certain it let do his death. Yet he never lost a fight.

6.., Armstrong fought tons of tomato cans and LOST MANY fights to people you NEVER HEARD OF.. Leading with his head didn’t help HA with Robinson.. HA didn’t do any fighting in that “fight” and gave up every round in a horrendous stink-bomb fight.. SRR was the only outstandingly dangerous puncher Armstrong ever fought. Just like Foreman was the only outstandingly dangerous puncher Frazier ever fought.. Pushing and butting with your head doesn’t work versus truly dangerous punchers.. It wouldn’t work with Valero who had a 100% KO ratio and 5 X the boxing skills Armstrong had.

[BoxBuzz]

Re: your many lies and BS BuzzBox

1.., I only give great advantage to height, size, length, and strength if it’s backed by brains, talent, outstanding athleticism, toughness, and skills... I’ve said this many times but you continue to say I’m all about size and height which is BS.

Good for you!

2.., This sport is not “FIGHTING” it’s BOXING. Dempsey had a tremendous fighting spirit -- on the other hand Tunney could box.

Yesiree Bob!

3.., Ali had over 100 amateur fights and 61 pro fights in 23 active years. He still got hit in the head by a lot by sharp punchers... He still never developed a body attack... His footwork was still more flashy than functional... He still ate jabs and left hooks and pulled straight back from punches... He still let head first targets like Norton and Frazier crowd him... That’s because learning how to box inside and outside ISN'T a result of how much time you have to learn it. Ali had 23 years to master it - and didn’t get it all down. Wilt Chamberlain was probably the world’s best and most dominant athlete in the 1960’s ... He could indeed learn to box well enough to fight somebody of Ali’s limited skills in 6 months... That’s what he INTENDED to do – the fight wasn’t Ali’s idea… Chamberlain knew learning how to box is NOT Rocket Science... If Chamberlain were in training camp 6 months and did nothing else but prepare and master boxing skills 24/7 he could KO Ali. Ali knew this and that’s why he would NOT sign to fight Wilt ... even though Ali promised to fight Chamberlain during their promotional and TV appearances.


Lot of Baloney peddling going on right there......I mean a lot.....Like an Oscar Meyer Bolognathon is going on in that paragraph. Hormel would be envious.

4.., I never said the K Bros were the best ever. I’ve been highly critical of Wladimir’s grabbing, holding, and wrestling.. Were Lewis, Louis, and Bowe also limited fighters??? Yes they were very flawed...especially the hittable Bowe... However I consider Louis and Lewis ATG’s.

You give the K bros High marks....stop running away from your own words......there just opinions.....everybody's got 'em. I think Bowe would beat Lennox...you think differently. Not a problem.
And of course all fighters have their flaws. But few had less than Louis, Ali....and I'd say Holmes is in that group as well. But Holmes beat Ali.....so he must be better.

5.., Edwin Valero wasn’t lucky... He went 27-0 with 27 KO’s and was a 2-Division World Champion... It takes more than luck to accomplish that... He was very UNLUCKY!!... He was damned near KILLED in a horrendous motorcycle smashup that resulted in extensive brain injury and brain surgery... That accident changed Valero’s destiny... Maybe that’s why he was so difficult to hit and developed his offensive and defensive skills to such a high degree... Valero couldn’t afford to get hit a lot on his brain damaged head... His friends said the motorcycle crash changed Valero for the worse emotionally ... and they're certain it let do his death. Yet he never lost a fight.

His career was ended too soon.....we both agree on that. And Like Marciano, his undefeated record will never change.

6.., Armstrong fought tons of tomato cans and LOST MANY fights to people you NEVER HEARD OF.. Leading with his head didn’t help HA with Robinson.. HA didn’t do any fighting in that “fight” and gave up every round in a horrendous stink-bomb fight.. SRR was the only outstandingly dangerous puncher Armstrong ever fought. Just like Foreman was the only outstandingly dangerous puncher Frazier ever fought.. Pushing and butting with your head doesn’t work versus truly dangerous punchers.. It wouldn’t work with Valero who had a 100% KO ratio and 5 X the boxing skills Armstrong had.

A bad day at the office with SRR and you want to write him off. You just need thicker glasses is all. Get yourself a pair and you'll be as right as rain!


I like your opinions.....just wouldn't want for myself is all.

[Kalan]

A bad day at the office???? ... That's a joke. That was a disaster and a half... Armstrong was a popular fighter usually. Because he usually fought such light hitters and had such a good chin he walked in and let them fly like Marciano and Frazier.. That got him beat up a lot though.. He never did face his "Foreman" ... but when he did fight somebody who could hit, I.e. Robinson, he pulled his horns in and stunk the place out big time.

Now Basilio, Lavine, Bell, and other Welterweights didn't stink it up when they fought Robinson... Lavine and Bell damned near had SRR knocked out.

[gilgamesh]

A bad day at the office???? ... That's a joke. That was a disaster and a half... Armstrong was a popular fighter usually. Because he usually fought such light hitters and had such a good chin he walked in and let them fly like Marciano and Frazier.. That got him beat up a lot though.. He never did face his "Foreman" ... but when he did fight somebody who could hit, I.e. Robinson, he pulled his horns in and stunk the place out big time.

Now Basilio, Lavine, Bell, and other Welterweights didn't stink it up when they fought Robinson... Lavine and Bell damned near had SRR knocked out.

Once again you show that you're completely oblivious to the fact that fighters age and aren't in their primes forever. Armstrong was well past his best when he fought Robinson.

[Kalan]

A bad day at the office???? ... That's a joke. That was a disaster and a half... Armstrong was a popular fighter usually. Because he usually fought such light hitters and had such a good chin he walked in and let them fly like Marciano and Frazier.. That got him beat up a lot though.. He never did face his "Foreman" ... but when he did fight somebody who could hit, I.e. Robinson, he pulled his horns in and stunk the place out big time.

Now Basilio, Lavine, Bell, and other Welterweights didn't stink it up when they fought Robinson... Lavine and Bell damned near had SRR knocked out.

Once again you show that you're completely oblivious to the fact that fighters age and aren't in their primes forever. Armstrong was well past his best when he fought Robinson.

I'm more aware of fighters aging than you are gilgamesh... You're the guy who picked 40-year-old Wladimir to beat Fury in their rematch... What was Henry Armstrong's excuse for losing back-to-back fights to Fritzie Zivic when he was 30 and 31??? Armstrong got beaten by Zivic on points -- then he got stopped.. Zivic fought 3 fights in between while Armstrong rested up.. and what was the excuse for Armstrong losing back-to-back fights to Joe Conde and Alton Black 4 years before that, when he was in his mid 20's???

[Kalan]

Or rather he lost back to back fights to Joe Conde and Richie Fontaine in his mid 20's... 2 guys you never heard of.

[gilgamesh]

A bad day at the office???? ... That's a joke. That was a disaster and a half... Armstrong was a popular fighter usually. Because he usually fought such light hitters and had such a good chin he walked in and let them fly like Marciano and Frazier.. That got him beat up a lot though.. He never did face his "Foreman" ... but when he did fight somebody who could hit, I.e. Robinson, he pulled his horns in and stunk the place out big time.

Now Basilio, Lavine, Bell, and other Welterweights didn't stink it up when they fought Robinson... Lavine and Bell damned near had SRR knocked out.

Once again you show that you're completely oblivious to the fact that fighters age and aren't in their primes forever. Armstrong was well past his best when he fought Robinson.

I'm more aware of fighters aging than you are gilgamesh... You're the guy who picked 40-year-old Wladimir to beat Fury in their rematch... What was Henry Armstrong's excuse for losing back-to-back fights to Fritzie Zivic when he was 30 and 31??? Armstrong got beaten by Zivic on points -- then he got stopped.. Zivic fought 3 fights in between while Armstrong rested up.. and what was the excuse for Armstrong losing back-to-back fights to Joe Conde and Alton Black 4 years before that, when he was in his mid 20's???

How about you wait and see what happens in the Fury vs Wlad rematch before you keep mentioning it as if I'm wrong.

[Kalan]

You made the age excuse for Armstrong when he was only 33... Wladimir is 40 and already lost to Fury... Is that an indication he's lost a step to age???

[gilgamesh]

You made the age excuse for Armstrong when he was only 33... Wladimir is 40 and already lost to Fury... Is that an indication he's lost a step to age???

Guys faded a lot faster back in Armstrong's days because they fought 3 times as often. Wladimir's definitely lost a step which went a long way in why he lost to Fury, but he mainly lost to Fury because he just didn't fight. He came in the ring and just basically stood there for 12 rounds doing f*ck all. If he does that again he won't beat Fury, and he'll never beat anybody ever again because you can't win a fight if you don't fight.

I'll assume that maybe the ankle injury he had that night played a part in his god awful performance and maybe he wasn't in the best emotional state either due to his wife's situation at the time, but if he fights Tyson Fury the same way in the 2nd fight I'd lose a ton of respect for Wlad...even more than I lost after that 1st fight.

I've seen fighters quit on their stool and still lose with more dignity than Wlad lost with that night. He just didn't even fight. It was a joke.