Who ranks higher historically? Chris Byrd or Ingemar Johansson

[margaret thatcher]

fitz was a great fighter, but his success at hw wouldnt go far beyond his era, just a wildly different time

keep in mind he won the hw title from a guy who weighed 184 fight day, less than joe smith and sullivan barrera weighed for their light heavy fight. imagine tim tsyzu vs joe smith for a heavyweight title. you dont get matches like this anymore, they probably wouldnt even be allowed, and rightfully neither would get respect at heavyweight for winning

[gilgamesh]

fitz was a great fighter, but his success at hw wouldnt go far beyond his era, just a wildly different time

keep in mind he won the hw title from a guy who weighed 184 fight day, less than joe smith and sullivan barrera weighed for their light heavy fight. imagine tim tsyzu vs joe smith for a heavyweight title. you dont get matches like this anymore, they probably wouldnt even be allowed, and rightfully neither would get respect at heavyweight for winning

Ya know. We hear about the exceptional smaller guys who defeated much larger foes. Such as Sam Langford, Joe "The Barbados Demon" Walcott, and of course Fitz here.

I'm sure it was much more common that the bigger guy beat the smaller guy.

If it weren't I wouldn't think that guys like Langford's achievements would've become so Legendary.

[keithmoonhangover]

bobby fitz weighed like 160s [email protected] pounds on fight day, sometimes lower. he was the size of today's welters and junior welters lol

imagine talking about a fight like fury vs keith thurman or tim tszyu, and then being huffed when people bring up size

almost as silly as rating toney's cruiser career above usyk's

Haye was tiny compared to Valuev, it didn't stop him.

[DrDuke]

bobby fitz weighed like 160s [email protected] pounds on fight day, sometimes lower. he was the size of today's welters and junior welters lol

imagine talking about a fight like fury vs keith thurman or tim tszyu, and then being huffed when people bring up size

almost as silly as rating toney's cruiser career above usyk's

Haye was tiny compared to Valuev, it didn't stop him.

Why to pick the worst possible guy to make conclusions?

Valuev was a sh1thouse. Small good fighter will win a huge bag of sh1t, but more often than not he would lose to a good big guy.

What Haye did against Klitschko?

[margaret thatcher]

haye was not a guy weighing 150-160s on fight night either. size wise it's no different than welters and junior middles fighting at that size against fury , aj, klit, etc...... just look at what fighters in those divisions actually weigh on the day. so who is gonna win tyson fury vs liam smith? no one even bothers raising ridiculous matches like this, they wouldnt even be sanctioned. but take a guy from the early 1900s and magic happens

and besides, as i mentioned before, fitz didn't even slay some big giant to become hw champ, his opponent was about the size of a light heavy or smw today

[keithmoonhangover]

haye was not a guy weighing 150-160s on fight night either. size wise it's no different than welters and junior middles fighting at that size against fury , aj, klit, etc...... just look at what fighters in those divisions actually weigh on the day. so who is gonna win tyson fury vs liam smith? no one even bothers raising ridiculous matches like this, they wouldnt even be sanctioned

and besides, as i mentioned before, fitz didn't even slay some big giant to become hw champ, his opponent was about the size of a light heavy or smw today

But....... humans have evolved, so boxers are bigger now, because humans are bigger. Plus, even if you put Bob into a time machine as a child and dropped him off now, his build and weight would be totally different once he grew up. Modern diet, sports science and PEDs would turn Bob into a different beast. That's the same for Klitschko, if he grew up a hundred years ago. Things would be different.

[Ambling Alp II]

fitz was a great fighter, but his success at hw wouldnt go far beyond his era, just a wildly different time

keep in mind he won the hw title from a guy who weighed 184 fight day, less than joe smith and sullivan barrera weighed for their light heavy fight. imagine tim tsyzu vs joe smith for a heavyweight title. you dont get matches like this anymore, they probably wouldnt even be allowed, and rightfully neither would get respect at heavyweight for winning

Ya know. We hear about the exceptional smaller guys who defeated much larger foes. Such as Sam Langford, Joe "The Barbados Demon" Walcott, and of course Fitz here.

I'm sure it was much more common that the bigger guy beat the smaller guy.

If it weren't I wouldn't think that guys like Langford's achievements would've become so Legendary.

It is how good you are. We should rate guys on what they did not how big they were.

We actually had a topic a few years ago. We took every fight that we could come up with a guy over 220 against a great fighter 200 or less. The smaller guy was something like 27-2.
These were actually fight in real life. Not Fantasy fight.

With Vitaly Klitschko people have to resort to stuff like weight, WBS title defenses etc. And of course, the excuses. If he really was great, they would be pointing out the quality opponents that he actually beat.

Yet people routinely say his top 20. If you are serious fan of boxing history, (and not someone who just comes on here to rip the guys from way back) you can easily come up 20.

Ali, Louis, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Johnson, Holyfield, Lewis, Marciano, Dempsey, Liston, Tyson, Jeffries, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Charles, Walcott, Norton. Thats 20 right there. He isn't remotely close to any of them. They actually had quality wins.

[margaret thatcher]

so how do heavyweight champs over 200 do against 150s-160s pound challengers

[gilgamesh]

fitz was a great fighter, but his success at hw wouldnt go far beyond his era, just a wildly different time

keep in mind he won the hw title from a guy who weighed 184 fight day, less than joe smith and sullivan barrera weighed for their light heavy fight. imagine tim tsyzu vs joe smith for a heavyweight title. you dont get matches like this anymore, they probably wouldnt even be allowed, and rightfully neither would get respect at heavyweight for winning

Ya know. We hear about the exceptional smaller guys who defeated much larger foes. Such as Sam Langford, Joe "The Barbados Demon" Walcott, and of course Fitz here.

I'm sure it was much more common that the bigger guy beat the smaller guy.

If it weren't I wouldn't think that guys like Langford's achievements would've become so Legendary.

It is how good you are. We should rate guys on what they did not how big they were.

We actually had a topic a few years ago. We took every fight that we could come up with a guy over 220 against a great fighter 200 or less. The smaller guy was something like 27-2.
These were actually fight in real life. Not Fantasy fight.

With Vitaly Klitschko people have to resort to stuff like weight, WBS title defenses etc. And of course, the excuses. If he really was great, they would be pointing out the quality opponents that he actually beat.

Yet people routinely say his top 20. If you are serious fan of boxing history, (and not someone who just comes on here to rip the guys from way back) you can easily come up 20.

Ali, Louis, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Johnson, Holyfield, Lewis, Marciano, Dempsey, Liston, Tyson, Jeffries, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Charles, Walcott, Norton. Thats 20 right there. He isn't remotely close to any of them. They actually had quality wins.

Vitali is above Jeffries and Walcott for sure. I'd put him above Jeannette and McVey also.

He's probably neck and neck with Norton. Norton's win over Ali puts him ahead of Vitali though.

[DrDuke]

fitz was a great fighter, but his success at hw wouldnt go far beyond his era, just a wildly different time

keep in mind he won the hw title from a guy who weighed 184 fight day, less than joe smith and sullivan barrera weighed for their light heavy fight. imagine tim tsyzu vs joe smith for a heavyweight title. you dont get matches like this anymore, they probably wouldnt even be allowed, and rightfully neither would get respect at heavyweight for winning

Ya know. We hear about the exceptional smaller guys who defeated much larger foes. Such as Sam Langford, Joe "The Barbados Demon" Walcott, and of course Fitz here.

I'm sure it was much more common that the bigger guy beat the smaller guy.

If it weren't I wouldn't think that guys like Langford's achievements would've become so Legendary.

It is how good you are. We should rate guys on what they did not how big they were.

We actually had a topic a few years ago. We took every fight that we could come up with a guy over 220 against a great fighter 200 or less. The smaller guy was something like 27-2.
These were actually fight in real life. Not Fantasy fight.

With Vitaly Klitschko people have to resort to stuff like weight, WBS title defenses etc. And of course, the excuses. If he really was great, they would be pointing out the quality opponents that he actually beat.

Yet people routinely say his top 20. If you are serious fan of boxing history, (and not someone who just comes on here to rip the guys from way back) you can easily come up 20.

Ali, Louis, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Johnson, Holyfield, Lewis, Marciano, Dempsey, Liston, Tyson, Jeffries, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Charles, Walcott, Norton. Thats 20 right there. He isn't remotely close to any of them. They actually had quality wins.

You owe the Bobby-Klitty tale-of-the-tape, yet you're back with your old copy-pastes!

[Ambling Alp II]

huh? not sure what that is even supposed to mean.
I just named 20 guys who are obviously better than Vitaly. There are many more. Feel free to think of some.

[gilgamesh]

huh? not sure what that is even supposed to mean.
I just named 20 guys who are obviously better than Vitaly. There are many more. Feel free to think of some.

You didn't though. At least 4 of those guys aren't better than Vitali, and you could argue for more.

You simply name an old time fighter, and therefore He's better because...I don't know...you're old, and you like to think that?

If you really wanna take a shot at Vitali, you could point out that he's barely Top 5 since the 21st century.

Lennox, Fury, Wlad all definitely rank over him. You could make a case for Wilder I'd say, though personally I'd probably have Vitali at 4.

If Usyk beats Fury or even Wilder I'd say that puts him ahead of Vitali.

But see, the problem with you is. You wouldn't wanna acknowledge any of these guys as being better than Vitali because you don't even wanna acknowledge these guys existence. Like Current day fighters don't even register for ya.

[margaret thatcher]

obligatory toney cruiser career > usyk cruiser career mention

[Ambling Alp II]

huh? not sure what that is even supposed to mean.
I just named 20 guys who are obviously better than Vitaly. There are many more. Feel free to think of some.

You didn't though. At least 4 of those guys aren't better than Vitali, and you could argue for more.

You simply name an old time fighter, and therefore He's better because...I don't know...you're old, and you like to think that?

If you really wanna take a shot at Vitali, you could point out that he's barely Top 5 since the 21st century.

Lennox, Fury, Wlad all definitely rank over him. You could make a case for Wilder I'd say, though personally I'd probably have Vitali at 4.

If Usyk beats Fury or even Wilder I'd say that puts him ahead of Vitali.

But see, the problem with you is. You wouldn't wanna acknowledge any of these guys as being better than Vitali because you don't even wanna acknowledge these guys existence. Like Current day fighters don't even register for ya.

Vitali was better than four of these guys? Really? all of these guys were great fighters. No serious fans questions any of them. They all beat quality competition. Which 4 could you possibly argue wasn't as good as Vitaly?

Yes, I acknowledge the existence of more recent fighters. The heavyweight division has been weak for a long time. Almost everyone acknowledges that.
Being 5 in the last 20 years isn't as impressive as you might think even if we pretend that the last 20 years or so has been average. Do the math. If you are only number #5 in a 20-25 year of time in an average era, you aren't going to be in the Top 20 in a period of over 100 years.

[gilgamesh]

huh? not sure what that is even supposed to mean.
I just named 20 guys who are obviously better than Vitaly. There are many more. Feel free to think of some.

You didn't though. At least 4 of those guys aren't better than Vitali, and you could argue for more.

You simply name an old time fighter, and therefore He's better because...I don't know...you're old, and you like to think that?

If you really wanna take a shot at Vitali, you could point out that he's barely Top 5 since the 21st century.

Lennox, Fury, Wlad all definitely rank over him. You could make a case for Wilder I'd say, though personally I'd probably have Vitali at 4.

If Usyk beats Fury or even Wilder I'd say that puts him ahead of Vitali.

But see, the problem with you is. You wouldn't wanna acknowledge any of these guys as being better than Vitali because you don't even wanna acknowledge these guys existence. Like Current day fighters don't even register for ya.

Vitali was better than four of these guys? Really? all of these guys were great fighters. No serious fans questions any of them. They all beat quality competition. Which 4 could you possibly argue wasn't as good as Vitaly?

Yes, I acknowledge the existence of more recent fighters. The heavyweight division has been weak for a long time. Almost everyone acknowledges that.
Being 5 in the last 20 years isn't as impressive as you might think even if we pretend that the last 20 years or so has been average. Do the math. If you are only number #5 in a 20-25 year of time in an average era, you aren't going to be in the Top 20 in a period of over 100 years.

I already told ya.

What's your hangup with the Klitschko's anyway? You don't rate 'em highly. Ok.

So why do you talk about 'em more than anyone else on the forum?

[margaret thatcher]

ffs man, he was using the # 5 thing as a way to arguably knock vitali, even then it wasnt enough for you, why so triggered

[gilgamesh]

ffs man, he was using the top 5 thing as a way to arguably knock vitali, even then it wasnt enough for you

Yeah apparently he won't be happy unless we all come on here and say these guys are absolute bums, and other than the guys they DID beat, they COULDN'T beat anyone else that ever lived!

[margaret thatcher]

does this get your pants a bit tight alp, the two guys you're most obsessed with

[DrDuke]

huh? not sure what that is even supposed to mean.
I just named 20 guys who are obviously better than Vitaly. There are many more. Feel free to think of some.

Nice self-discharge.

[HomicideHenry]

Alp rates Joe Louis highly, but I don't think there's anyone who would ever say that particular era in heavyweight history was really any good. So there seems to be a contradiction with his logic because if you can't rate the Klitschko brothers highly because they were dominant in a subpar era then you can't rank Joe Louis highly because even in his own time his title defenses were referred to as the bum of the month club.

[p4p1]

fitz was a great fighter, but his success at hw wouldnt go far beyond his era, just a wildly different time

keep in mind he won the hw title from a guy who weighed 184 fight day, less than joe smith and sullivan barrera weighed for their light heavy fight. imagine tim tsyzu vs joe smith for a heavyweight title. you dont get matches like this anymore, they probably wouldnt even be allowed, and rightfully neither would get respect at heavyweight for winning

Ya know. We hear about the exceptional smaller guys who defeated much larger foes. Such as Sam Langford, Joe "The Barbados Demon" Walcott, and of course Fitz here.

I'm sure it was much more common that the bigger guy beat the smaller guy.

If it weren't I wouldn't think that guys like Langford's achievements would've become so Legendary.

It is how good you are. We should rate guys on what they did not how big they were.

We actually had a topic a few years ago. We took every fight that we could come up with a guy over 220 against a great fighter 200 or less. The smaller guy was something like 27-2.
These were actually fight in real life. Not Fantasy fight.

With Vitaly Klitschko people have to resort to stuff like weight, WBS title defenses etc. And of course, the excuses. If he really was great, they would be pointing out the quality opponents that he actually beat.

Yet people routinely say his top 20. If you are serious fan of boxing history, (and not someone who just comes on here to rip the guys from way back) you can easily come up 20.

Ali, Louis, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Johnson, Holyfield, Lewis, Marciano, Dempsey, Liston, Tyson, Jeffries, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Charles, Walcott, Norton. Thats 20 right there. He isn't remotely close to any of them. They actually had quality wins.

You're still comparing a great smaller guy with any guy that is 220 or over. How did all of those great small guys go against the 200lb+ Jim Jeffries who was just as great as them but bigger?
Carnera probably over achieved on his skill set due to his size.

[oogiebe]

ffs man, he was using the top 5 thing as a way to arguably knock vitali, even then it wasnt enough for you

Yeah apparently he won't be happy unless we all come on here and say these guys are absolute bums, and other than the guys they DID beat, they COULDN'T beat anyone else that ever lived!

I can't read alp anymore, regardless of topic. He clearly doesn't pay attention to what he posts.

[margaret thatcher]

some more eye candy for alp, this time a bit more artistic

[oogiebe]

some more eye candy for alp, this time a bit more artistic

Dear Lord, I'm scarred for life!!!!

[gilgamesh]

some more eye candy for alp, this time a bit more artistic

2 questions there. Why is Vitali shorter than Wlad in that picture, and...where the f*ck did you even find something like that?