Is Wladimir Klitschko a top ten ATG heavyweight?

[Heretic]

To answer this question one would need to know the criteria for making the ranking.

Resume? Skills? Ability? H2H? Greatest wins? How to count the losses? Longevity?

For example the fact is that Lewis is 1 and 1 against both Rahman and MCcall.

For another example head to head there is no one I would put above prime Vitali. Some could be close to 50/50 but I would not give the edge to anyone. The old greats are just too tiny to even compete with guys like him.

Tyson is another example of hard to rank guy. In hes prime he was just great. He still lack notable wins and was not doing so great later on. I am not even sure if he fits to my top 10.

Holyfield is one of the harder ones to rank. He has quite lot of losses but he also has some really great wins. Hes reign is hard to compare to the boxer with more dominant reign but lesser opposition.

All in all Wlad clearly is one of the best HW boxers ever. And there is long list of other greats too. Comparing them feels futile and pointless.

I still voted yes

[verlichte]

1. Ali
2. Louis

3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Tyson
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

K2, particularly Wlad have longevity over a lot of these. But you should judge fighters time for time, and simply there better fighters from the past imo.

Note the top 2 are widely accepted as the best, 3-10 could be a number in a variety of order. No major concerns if people place different this was done fairly quick

Out of curiosity, why do you rate Langford, Johnson and Marciano so highly? Is it because boxing historians "told" you they were great or do you claim to possess a deep knowledge of their background, their opponents, their fighting style, coupled with watching lots of their fights?

A lot of guys that use this forum mention the names of fighters from yesteryear like some sort of badge of honour, since it portrays them as possessing "expert" knowledge of the sport, but when they're scrutinised about the subject matter, they nearly always know very little.

Here's another example of someone using words that they don't really know very much about...

I could casually mention the terms "standard model", "general relativity" and "Euler's" when engaged in a casual discussion about science, to pretend that I'm a know-it-all, but the fact remains that I actually know very little about those mathematical equations.

Personally-speaking, I feel that people should refrain feom expressing an opinion about a subject matter that they know very little about.

I'm relying on what I have read, documentaries and other expert opinions. I don't normally like to talk on boxers pre my time, but if someone asks an all time question...

K2 are both too 10 of my time

You previously mentioned Sam Langford...and clearly included him amongst a list of fighters from previous eras that you confidently believed were "better" than Wladimir Klitschko.

Therefore, here are some questions that should be very easy to answer for anyone that talks about Sam Langford with such confidence:

• What makes you believe that Sam Langford was capable of defeating Wladimir Klitschko?
• How would a fight between Sam Langford and Wladimir Klitschko play out?
• How many Sam Langford fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Sam Langford and what made you do so?
• What are some of your favourite Sam Langford fights?
• What is Sam Langford's fighting style?
• Which opponents did Sam Langford face that impressed you the most?

You said you gathered your knowledge about Langford from documentaries, reading material and other "expert" opinions, but do you realise that the vast majority of the individuals that produced the aforementioned media would have acquired their own knowledge on a second-hand basis (the same way you did), purely by reading someone else's words (since they would have been far too young to witness his fights when he was an active fighter.. or possibly not even alive yet).

In my opinion, anyone that is incapable of answering any of the very simple questions I've listed above, should refrain from making claims about a subject matter they clearly know very little about.

[cold187]

The 1996 Olympic champion was a top 3 heavyweight in 2017 with the best set of boxing skills
21 years a pro

Says it all

[greg]

..top 10? top 15? too subjective to resolve..what counts is that the Olympic champ dominated for 10 years fighting and winning against the best available.. ..let's see who's the next one to come close...

[Ossyrules]

Out of curiosity, why do you rate Langford, Johnson and Marciano so highly? Is it because boxing historians "told" you they were great or do you claim to possess a deep knowledge of their background, their opponents, their fighting style, coupled with watching lots of their fights?

A lot of guys that use this forum mention the names of fighters from yesteryear like some sort of badge of honour, since it portrays them as possessing "expert" knowledge of the sport, but when they're scrutinised about the subject matter, they nearly always know very little.

Here's another example of someone using words that they don't really know very much about...

I could casually mention the terms "standard model", "general relativity" and "Euler's" when engaged in a casual discussion about science, to pretend that I'm a know-it-all, but the fact remains that I actually know very little about those mathematical equations.

Personally-speaking, I feel that people should refrain feom expressing an opinion about a subject matter that they know very little about.

I'm relying on what I have read, documentaries and other expert opinions. I don't normally like to talk on boxers pre my time, but if someone asks an all time question...

K2 are both too 10 of my time

You previously mentioned Sam Langford...and clearly included him amongst a list of fighters from previous eras that you confidently believed were "better" than Wladimir Klitschko.

Therefore, here are some questions that should be very easy to answer for anyone that talks about Sam Langford with such confidence:

• What makes you believe that Sam Langford was capable of defeating Wladimir Klitschko?
• How would a fight between Sam Langford and Wladimir Klitschko play out?
• How many Sam Langford fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Sam Langford and what made you do so?
• What are some of your favourite Sam Langford fights?
• What is Sam Langford's fighting style?
• Which opponents did Sam Langford face that impressed you the most?

You said you gathered your knowledge about Langford from documentaries, reading material and other "expert" opinions, but do you realise that the vast majority of the individuals that produced the aforementioned media would have acquired their own knowledge on a second-hand basis (the same way you did), purely by reading someone else's words (since they would have been far too young to witness his fights when he was an active fighter.. or possibly not even alive yet).

In my opinion, anyone that is incapable of answering any of the very simple questions I've listed above, should refrain from making claims about a subject matter they clearly know very little about.

Rating boxers in atg discussion should not be about a head to head match up, if a could beat b and so on. It should be the relevance and importance of a boxer during there own era, then make judgements time for time, but you need to make allowances for hinderences in each era to be fair.

Trying to make an accurate assumption of how Langford vs Wlad would go is a complete non starter. You're trying to compare a match up from 100 years separating them.

I know you're trying to test my credentials, and if you weren't so incredibly arrogant I'd possibly engage. If you have a genuine wish to learn more anything I know is from researching online and watching various programmes over time. If you don't wish to learn then it's just more pure arrogance from you.

I'm completely reliant on research and other expert opinions. A lot will have Langford around 15. Funnily enough I didn't manage to get tickets to a Langford bout!

[Smokin' Bert]

Wlad fought one of his best and gutsiest fights last Saturday against Joshua. It raised his all time ranking in my eyes. However, it was not enough for him to legitimately crack the top 10

[Smokin' Bert]

Wlad fought one of his best and gutsiest fights last Saturday against Joshua. It raised his all time ranking in my eyes. However, it was not enough for him to legitimately crack the top 10

[northern]

Easily one of the all time great heavy weight boxers, the same can be said about his brother Vitali.

Both of the brothers are without a doubt among some of the most dominating heavyweight champions to ever compete as well as being some of the best skilled.

[man]

no, but funny enough the AJ fight
moved him closer. around ATG15
for me.

[Tomasino]

Larry Holmes lost to a Light Heavyweight at the age of 35. Twice. And then got demolished by Tyson at the age of 38.

Let's concentrate on what they did in their prime, which wasn't get knocked out by C-level fighters

[verlichte]

I'm relying on what I have read, documentaries and other expert opinions. I don't normally like to talk on boxers pre my time, but if someone asks an all time question...

K2 are both too 10 of my time

You previously mentioned Sam Langford...and clearly included him amongst a list of fighters from previous eras that you confidently believed were "better" than Wladimir Klitschko.

Therefore, here are some questions that should be very easy to answer for anyone that talks about Sam Langford with such confidence:

• What makes you believe that Sam Langford was capable of defeating Wladimir Klitschko?
• How would a fight between Sam Langford and Wladimir Klitschko play out?
• How many Sam Langford fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Sam Langford and what made you do so?
• What are some of your favourite Sam Langford fights?
• What is Sam Langford's fighting style?
• Which opponents did Sam Langford face that impressed you the most?

You said you gathered your knowledge about Langford from documentaries, reading material and other "expert" opinions, but do you realise that the vast majority of the individuals that produced the aforementioned media would have acquired their own knowledge on a second-hand basis (the same way you did), purely by reading someone else's words (since they would have been far too young to witness his fights when he was an active fighter.. or possibly not even alive yet).

In my opinion, anyone that is incapable of answering any of the very simple questions I've listed above, should refrain from making claims about a subject matter they clearly know very little about.

Rating boxers in atg discussion should not be about a head to head match up, if a could beat b and so on. It should be the relevance and importance of a boxer during there own era, then make judgements time for time, but you need to make allowances for hinderences in each era to be fair.

Trying to make an accurate assumption of how Langford vs Wlad would go is a complete non starter. You're trying to compare a match up from 100 years separating them.

I know you're trying to test my credentials, and if you weren't so incredibly arrogant I'd possibly engage. If you have a genuine wish to learn more anything I know is from researching online and watching various programmes over time. If you don't wish to learn then it's just more pure arrogance from you.

I'm completely reliant on research and other expert opinions. A lot will have Langford around 15. Funnily enough I didn't manage to get tickets to a Langford bout!

You’re right; I am trying to test your credentials, because I believe that it’s wrong for you to personally rate Sam Langford above Wladimir Klitschko when you clearly know very little about a fighter that made his pro debut 115 years ago! That’s right; he competed in his very first professional bout in 1902.

Pretentious people like you often cite acronyms, terminology and highly-respected names in social situations, without actually knowing very much about the vocabulary they’re using, in order to make themselves look smarter.

And I was hoping that you weren’t going to be one of them, but unfortunately, your inability to answer several stupendously simple questions about Sam Langford has proven that your personal ratings is more about falsely portraying yourself to the forum as a “knowledgeable” fan, rather than contributing anything of substance.

You accuse me of being “incredibly arrogant”, but all I essentially did was to ask you to explain the reason why you sincerely believed that Sam Langford could beat Wladimir Klitschko and also how the fight would play out, yet you’re offended by my very innocent and simple questions.

If you’d answered these questions, then I would have applauded your superior boxing knowledge, but since you’ve taken umbrage, then I will laugh at your pretentious and dishonest posts.

[Freedom2013]

The 1996 Olympic champion was a top 3 heavyweight in 2017 with the best set of boxing skills
21 years a pro

Says it all

[Ossyrules]

You previously mentioned Sam Langford...and clearly included him amongst a list of fighters from previous eras that you confidently believed were "better" than Wladimir Klitschko.

Therefore, here are some questions that should be very easy to answer for anyone that talks about Sam Langford with such confidence:

• What makes you believe that Sam Langford was capable of defeating Wladimir Klitschko?
• How would a fight between Sam Langford and Wladimir Klitschko play out?
• How many Sam Langford fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Sam Langford and what made you do so?
• What are some of your favourite Sam Langford fights?
• What is Sam Langford's fighting style?
• Which opponents did Sam Langford face that impressed you the most?

You said you gathered your knowledge about Langford from documentaries, reading material and other "expert" opinions, but do you realise that the vast majority of the individuals that produced the aforementioned media would have acquired their own knowledge on a second-hand basis (the same way you did), purely by reading someone else's words (since they would have been far too young to witness his fights when he was an active fighter.. or possibly not even alive yet).

In my opinion, anyone that is incapable of answering any of the very simple questions I've listed above, should refrain from making claims about a subject matter they clearly know very little about.

Rating boxers in atg discussion should not be about a head to head match up, if a could beat b and so on. It should be the relevance and importance of a boxer during there own era, then make judgements time for time, but you need to make allowances for hinderences in each era to be fair.

Trying to make an accurate assumption of how Langford vs Wlad would go is a complete non starter. You're trying to compare a match up from 100 years separating them.

I know you're trying to test my credentials, and if you weren't so incredibly arrogant I'd possibly engage. If you have a genuine wish to learn more anything I know is from researching online and watching various programmes over time. If you don't wish to learn then it's just more pure arrogance from you.

I'm completely reliant on research and other expert opinions. A lot will have Langford around 15. Funnily enough I didn't manage to get tickets to a Langford bout!

You’re right; I am trying to test your credentials, because I believe that it’s wrong for you to personally rate Sam Langford above Wladimir Klitschko when you clearly know very little about a fighter that made his pro debut 115 years ago! That’s right; he competed in his very first professional bout in 1902.

Pretentious people like you often cite acronyms, terminology and highly-respected names in social situations, without actually knowing very much about the vocabulary they’re using, in order to make themselves look smarter.

And I was hoping that you weren’t going to be one of them, but unfortunately, your inability to answer several stupendously simple questions about Sam Langford has proven that your personal ratings is more about falsely portraying yourself to the forum as a “knowledgeable” fan, rather than contributing anything of substance.

You accuse me of being “incredibly arrogant”, but all I essentially did was to ask you to explain the reason why you sincerely believed that Sam Langford could beat Wladimir Klitschko and also how the fight would play out, yet you’re offended by my very innocent and simple questions.

If you’d answered these questions, then I would have applauded your superior boxing knowledge, but since you’ve taken umbrage, then I will laugh at your pretentious and dishonest posts.

I'm not playing your games EO, but thanks for the diagnosis

[Loki]

Klitschko is certainly a top 10 ATG. No question. I really pleased (even though defeated) he is finally getting the accolades he has deservered.

It's just a shame he was head and shoulders above the rest in his prime. He made it look too easy and only when he has slipped, the casual boxing fans give him kudos.

[Ilya Muromets]

I wouldn't even lend dignity to this idiot thread by participating in its stupid poll. Wlad was the most dominant heavyweight in history at a time that heavyweight boxing was at its biggest and strongest and most international in scope that it has ever been, despite all the nonsense in the american press that is repeated on these stupid boxing forums.

[punchoutsb]

At the very worst he is top 15. I do believe Wlad to be a top 10 ATG HW. I don't believe a legitimate argument can be made to the contrary without consistently moving goal posts.

[verlichte]

Rating boxers in atg discussion should not be about a head to head match up, if a could beat b and so on. It should be the relevance and importance of a boxer during there own era, then make judgements time for time, but you need to make allowances for hinderences in each era to be fair.

Trying to make an accurate assumption of how Langford vs Wlad would go is a complete non starter. You're trying to compare a match up from 100 years separating them.

I know you're trying to test my credentials, and if you weren't so incredibly arrogant I'd possibly engage. If you have a genuine wish to learn more anything I know is from researching online and watching various programmes over time. If you don't wish to learn then it's just more pure arrogance from you.

I'm completely reliant on research and other expert opinions. A lot will have Langford around 15. Funnily enough I didn't manage to get tickets to a Langford bout!

You’re right; I am trying to test your credentials, because I believe that it’s wrong for you to personally rate Sam Langford above Wladimir Klitschko when you clearly know very little about a fighter that made his pro debut 115 years ago! That’s right; he competed in his very first professional bout in 1902.

Pretentious people like you often cite acronyms, terminology and highly-respected names in social situations, without actually knowing very much about the vocabulary they’re using, in order to make themselves look smarter.

And I was hoping that you weren’t going to be one of them, but unfortunately, your inability to answer several stupendously simple questions about Sam Langford has proven that your personal ratings is more about falsely portraying yourself to the forum as a “knowledgeable” fan, rather than contributing anything of substance.

You accuse me of being “incredibly arrogant”, but all I essentially did was to ask you to explain the reason why you sincerely believed that Sam Langford could beat Wladimir Klitschko and also how the fight would play out, yet you’re offended by my very innocent and simple questions.

If you’d answered these questions, then I would have applauded your superior boxing knowledge, but since you’ve taken umbrage, then I will laugh at your pretentious and dishonest posts.

I'm not playing your games EO, but thanks for the diagnosis

Good for you kid! I've learned a lot about your knowledge levels and your personality during our little discussion.

[Ossyrules]

You’re right; I am trying to test your credentials, because I believe that it’s wrong for you to personally rate Sam Langford above Wladimir Klitschko when you clearly know very little about a fighter that made his pro debut 115 years ago! That’s right; he competed in his very first professional bout in 1902.

Pretentious people like you often cite acronyms, terminology and highly-respected names in social situations, without actually knowing very much about the vocabulary they’re using, in order to make themselves look smarter.

And I was hoping that you weren’t going to be one of them, but unfortunately, your inability to answer several stupendously simple questions about Sam Langford has proven that your personal ratings is more about falsely portraying yourself to the forum as a “knowledgeable” fan, rather than contributing anything of substance.

You accuse me of being “incredibly arrogant”, but all I essentially did was to ask you to explain the reason why you sincerely believed that Sam Langford could beat Wladimir Klitschko and also how the fight would play out, yet you’re offended by my very innocent and simple questions.

If you’d answered these questions, then I would have applauded your superior boxing knowledge, but since you’ve taken umbrage, then I will laugh at your pretentious and dishonest posts.

I'm not playing your games EO, but thanks for the diagnosis

Good for you kid! I've learned a lot about your knowledge levels and your personality during our little discussion.

You've learnt nothing. Which is your main problem

[Freedom2013]

https://twitter.com/Michael_Buffer/stat ... 9651213312

[verlichte]

I'm not playing your games EO, but thanks for the diagnosis

Good for you kid! I've learned a lot about your knowledge levels and your personality during our little discussion.

You've learnt nothing. Which is your main problem

You’re absolutely correct!

I made a mistake in trying to “learn” from an individual that boldly proclaimed that Sam Langford could beat Wladimir Klitschko. However, the aforementioned person was simply telling lies and being pretentious, because he was unable to answer two simple questions, which simply exposed his lack of knowledge about the sport.

You must have had a reason for believing that Sam Langford was "better" than Wladimir Klitschko, but it seems you were unable to provide one... and it clearly upset you that you couldn't.

Perhaps you’re lonely and you chose to use Sam Langford’s name in order to give the illusion that you should be deemed as an infinite fountain of knowledge about the history of the sport of boxing.

Who knows? Maybe you thought you’d receive a proverbial pat on the back from other forum members, simply because you mentioned Sam Langford’s name?

If you knew your stuff, you wouldn’t have been offended by my simple and innocuous questions.

[pound per pound]

From a fan's point of view who likes action, and exciting back and forth type of fights maybe not.

But history shows he had the 3rd most title defenses, and was on top for a decade. Let's be honest was too big and skills for pretty much anyone pre 1960, minus maybe 1 or 2 exceptions.

So yes, he's in the top ten.

[crusader]

Not sure if top 10, but he's not way off, and it's highly impressive that at 41, after 21 years pro and long inactivity, the old guy put a young monster through hell and nearly won.

[Ossyrules]

Good for you kid! I've learned a lot about your knowledge levels and your personality during our little discussion.

You've learnt nothing. Which is your main problem

You’re absolutely correct!

I made a mistake in trying to “learn” from an individual that boldly proclaimed that Sam Langford could beat Wladimir Klitschko. However, the aforementioned person was simply telling lies and being pretentious, because he was unable to answer two simple questions, which simply exposed his lack of knowledge about the sport.

You must have had a reason for believing that Sam Langford was "better" than Wladimir Klitschko, but it seems you were unable to provide one... and it clearly upset you that you couldn't.

Perhaps you’re lonely and you chose to use Sam Langford’s name in order to give the illusion that you should be deemed as an infinite fountain of knowledge about the history of the sport of boxing.

Who knows? Maybe you thought you’d receive a proverbial pat on the back from other forum members, simply because you mentioned Sam Langford’s name?

If you knew your stuff, you wouldn’t have been offended by my simple and innocuous questions.

I'm not offended by what you put don't give yourself that much credit, I just know that you are a time waster, so aren't going to play your game.

If I had a genuine sniff you were interested, I'd have a conversation, but you're really not, and you're not clever enough to even subtly suck me in to talk on this topic, it's quite blatant game playing time wasting

[verlichte]

You've learnt nothing. Which is your main problem

You’re absolutely correct!

I made a mistake in trying to “learn” from an individual that boldly proclaimed that Sam Langford could beat Wladimir Klitschko. However, the aforementioned person was simply telling lies and being pretentious, because he was unable to answer two simple questions, which simply exposed his lack of knowledge about the sport.

You must have had a reason for believing that Sam Langford was "better" than Wladimir Klitschko, but it seems you were unable to provide one... and it clearly upset you that you couldn't.

Perhaps you’re lonely and you chose to use Sam Langford’s name in order to give the illusion that you should be deemed as an infinite fountain of knowledge about the history of the sport of boxing.

Who knows? Maybe you thought you’d receive a proverbial pat on the back from other forum members, simply because you mentioned Sam Langford’s name?

If you knew your stuff, you wouldn’t have been offended by my simple and innocuous questions.

I'm not offended by what you put don't give yourself that much credit, I just know that you are a time waster, so aren't going to play your game.

If I had a genuine sniff you were interested, I'd have a conversation, but you're really not, and you're not clever enough to even subtly suck me in to talk on this topic, it's quite blatant game playing time wasting

I wasn’t trolling you and the first few replies that I sent to you were very respectful in nature. Things only turned sour when you decided to accuse me of being “incredibly arrogant”, which was a sign of your frustration at being unable to answer a few simple questions about a fighter that you rate so highly.

You can ignore my posts from now on if that’s what you choose to do, but before you do that, please read through the initial responses I sent to your posts – you’ll find that I didn’t really do anything offensive – and if you feel I did, then you should report me to a forum moderator.

[Bard of Boxrec]

blah blah blah

Can I ask you why you came back under a different screen name yet again?