BoxRec

Yes it is ridiculous to say he is close. The number of title defenses not is why people thought Louis, Holmes Ali etc, were great.

People point out the boxing ability of Louis, his power, his fundamentals etc.
People point out Holmes jab, chin etc.
Ali's hand-speed, reflexes, combination, chin etc.
None had a serious weakness that even mediocre fighters could take advantage of.

Ali could have (probably should have 0retired right after the 3rd Frazier fight. He would have had 6 less title defenses. And it wouldn't have meant anything. At all. He would still be the best without them.

Many other guys would have made those successful title defense that Klitschko did. Many.
Klitschko never would have been champion during many eras.
He simply wouldn't have been able to make that many successful title defenses in even an average era. Most of his opponents would not have been contenders in most eras. He would not have been the champion in most eras.

If you are a truly great fighter, people will talk about great fights, great wins, great performances. Not the number of your frikkin title defense against mediocre opponents.

It's the same as when Kronk was pimping Chauncy Welliver saying he had the greatest chin ever in the division based on the number of rounds he'd gone without seeing the canvas. Would anyone believe he had a better chin than Chuvalo or McCall? No. Why? Because of the opponents they faced. Same goes with Wlad and his number of defenses.

It's not about a number of defences with Wlad, it's about defeating all the best available opponents, except Vitali. That's Vitali, who is overrated because of number alone, but not Wlad.

Talking about the likes of Louis and Holmes, they also were in the comparably weak eras. Louis' best defences were in brawler Baer, mediocre Sharkey and Schmeling, who had losses to those and to some nonames, while he kayoed Louis himself. Then Louis had a row of even lesser defences. Holmes is better, since he defeated Norton, but then the era declined.

A lot of long-time champions made it because their eras allowed. Yet since you are able to be better than everybody in your time, than it's something.

DrDuke wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 04:17 It's not about a number of defences with Wlad, it's about defeating all the best available opponents, except Vitali. That's Vitali, who is overrated because of number alone, but not Wlad.

Talking about the likes of Louis and Holmes, they also were in the comparably weak eras. Louis' best defences were in brawler Baer, mediocre Sharkey and Schmeling, who had losses to those and to some nonames, while he kayoed Louis himself. Then Louis had a row of even lesser defences. Holmes is better, since he defeated Norton, but then the era declined.

A lot of long-time champions made it because their eras allowed. Yet since you are able to be better than everybody in your time, than it's something.

That's the thing because those men were not a part of his title defenses. Carnera, Baer, Schmeling 1, and Sharkey were prior to him winning the title. Only the rematch with Schmeling counts as apart of his title run. So really the bulk of his wins against Hall of Famers came before he was champion. For all intents and purposes light heavyweight champion Billy Conn was the only solid and credible and great fighter that he defended the title against.

Of course we can have that debate and discussion as to whether Jersey Joe Walcott is one of the all-time greats, as he certainly was better than Baer and Carnera and Schmeling and Sharkey, but context is everything as Walcott was kind of seen at the time as yet another stepping stone. After all he was a full-time garbage man and part-time fighter who nobody wanted to really fight and when he did fight it was often on short notice and he would lose matches he wasn't supposed to lose.

Louis' title defences were pretty weak, mid WW2 though

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 12:37

DrDuke wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 04:17 It's not about a number of defences with Wlad, it's about defeating all the best available opponents, except Vitali. That's Vitali, who is overrated because of number alone, but not Wlad.

Talking about the likes of Louis and Holmes, they also were in the comparably weak eras. Louis' best defences were in brawler Baer, mediocre Sharkey and Schmeling, who had losses to those and to some nonames, while he kayoed Louis himself. Then Louis had a row of even lesser defences. Holmes is better, since he defeated Norton, but then the era declined.

A lot of long-time champions made it because their eras allowed. Yet since you are able to be better than everybody in your time, than it's something.

That's the thing because those men were not a part of his title defenses. Carnera, Baer, Schmeling 1, and Sharkey were prior to him winning the title. Only the rematch with Schmeling counts as apart of his title run. So really the bulk of his wins against Hall of Famers came before he was champion. For all intents and purposes light heavyweight champion Billy Conn was the only solid and credible and great fighter that he defended the title against.

Of course we can have that debate and discussion as to whether Jersey Joe Walcott is one of the all-time greats, as he certainly was better than Baer and Carnera and Schmeling and Sharkey, but context is everything as Walcott was kind of seen at the time as yet another stepping stone. After all he was a full-time garbage man and part-time fighter who nobody wanted to really fight and when he did fight it was often on short notice and he would lose matches he wasn't supposed to lose.

Sonny Liston's record is kinda the same. Cus Damato avoided him fighting Floyd Patterson as long as he could so Liston basically had cleaned out the division of most noteworthy contenders by the time he even got his title shot.

Wanted to make a nuanced point.

What if you are the champion and the challengers aren't very good?
Obviously not your fault
You beat the best of what is available in your title defenses.
Does that make you great?

The answer is maybe.
Did you look good in most of the fights and great in at least a few?
Pre title, did you have any embarrassing performances?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then you are great.
If not, no.

This is why Klitschko was not a great fighter.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 15:13 Wanted to make a nuanced point.

What if you are the champion and the challengers aren't very good?
Obviously not your fault
You beat the best of what is available in your title defenses.
Does that make you great?

The answer is maybe.
Did you look good in most of the fights and great in at least a few?
Pre title, did you have any embarrassing performances?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then you are great.
If not, no.

This is why Klitschko was not a great fighter.

I will always maintain looking good or looking great is a matter of opinion. Like I've said time and again I can't remember that many people if anyone at all that was able to win a single round against Vladimir Klitschko when he was the champion until he fought Tyson Fury. And he basically knocked out every single person you would expect him to knock out anyways. If that's not good or great I don't know what is.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 15:13 Wanted to make a nuanced point.

What if you are the champion and the challengers aren't very good?
Obviously not your fault
You beat the best of what is available in your title defenses.
Does that make you great?

The answer is maybe.
Did you look good in most of the fights and great in at least a few?
Pre title, did you have any embarrassing performances?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then you are great.
If not, no.

This is why Klitschko was not a great fighter.

Pre Title a lot of guys had embarrassing losses. That doesn't erase your achievements afterward. That shows you recognized or somehow improved upon your flaws, and learned to win in spite of them. That shows improvement.

Hell back in the day MOST fighters had quite a few losses prior to winning a World Title.

Emile Griffith got knocked out in 1 round by Ruben Carter. Does ANYONE think that Carter is actually better than Griffith? No. It's a shocking victory for Carter over a guy who had a career that far eclipses his.

Yes, Wladimir failed sometimes. But he succeeded far, far, far more often. And he succeeded more consistently than all but 2 Heavyweights in history. Ali and Larry Holmes.

The poll here speaks for itself. Wlad is unquestionably better than Floyd Patterson.

Hey Alp

Marco Antonio Barrera was in his prime, and 40 or so fights deep into his career when he lost twice to Junior Jones. he hadn't yet achieved most of his biggest achievements at Featherweight and Jr. Lightweight.

40 fights in, he has no excuse. He was experienced.

So clearly this shows that Barrera was just a glorified bum right, and not one of the best Mexican Boxers of his generation and indeed all time. I mean....those 2 things can't possibly be true at the same time can they? That a guy lost a fight, scratch that 2 fights against a guy that's really only known for beating HIM, and yet somehow proved he's great? How can it be? It's almost like....people can redeem themselves.

The problem is Klitschko doesn't have achievements after the embarrassing losses. He beat a ton weak-average fighters in title defenses over a period of 9 years. Do you really think he is the champion for 9 years from say 1966-1975? Of course not.
Could he have fought the guys that Larry Holmes fought and did what Holmes did? Of course not.

Comparing Klitschko to Barrera is absurd.

Yes the losses to Jones should count. However, at least they weren't blowout losses. While Jones was up and down, he clearly was a much better fighter than the Purritty, Sanders-Brewster trio.
They obviously should count against Barrera. But Barrera beat great opponents to weigh it against. How about say Erik Morales? Light years better than Povetkin or whoever else you want to dig up. Hamed was better.

With Barrera you can watch his fight against Hamed. He looked great. Beat somebody good.
How about those three Morales fights?

You can't do that with Klitschko. Nobody says, just watch Wladimir in this fight, he looks awesome. Nobody does it because he never did.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 17:12 The problem is Klitschko doesn't have achievements after the embarrassing losses. He beat a ton weak-average fighters in title defenses over a period of 9 years. Do you really think he is the champion for 9 years from say 1966-1975? Of course not.
Could he have fought the guys that Larry Holmes fought and did what Holmes did? Of course not.

Lol, Klit defeated better fighters than the ones he lost to. Actually, a one loss got avenged. And how on earth Corrie Sanders and Ross Puritty were better or even close to Povetkin, Haye, Byrd, Ibragmov, Chagaev, Pulev?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 17:12 The problem is Klitschko doesn't have achievements after the embarrassing losses. He beat a ton weak-average fighters in title defenses over a period of 9 years. Do you really think he is the champion for 9 years from say 1966-1975? Of course not.
Could he have fought the guys that Larry Holmes fought and did what Holmes did? Of course not.

Comparing Klitschko to Barrera is absurd.

Yes the losses to Jones should count. However, at least they weren't blowout losses. While Jones was up and down, he clearly was a much better fighter than the Purritty, Sanders-Brewster trio.
They obviously should count against Barrera. But Barrera beat great opponents to weigh it against. How about say Erik Morales? Light years better than Povetkin or whoever else you want to dig up. Hamed was better.

With Barrera you can watch his fight against Hamed. He looked great. Beat somebody good.
How about those three Morales fights?

You can't do that with Klitschko. Nobody says, just watch Wladimir in this fight, he looks awesome. Nobody does it because he never did.

Wladimir I thought looked pretty damn sharp against Pulev. Wladimir beat Ray Austin with one hand...yeah, yeah I know it's Ray Austin, but still

More often than not his approach was not exciting, it was just effective.

Barrera was damn sure more exciting, and a more skilled operator P4P than Klitschko, no doubt about it. Junior Jones is in fact NOT more accomplished than Lamon Brewster, or at least if he is you'd have to be basing it purely on the Barrera wins.

I think the loss is quite comparable actually to Wladimir's. Wladimir is clearly better historically than all 3 of the guys he lost to. Nobody can argue that, not even you.

Barrera is CLEARLY better than Junior Jones historically. Nobody can argue that.

But Barrera losing to Jones, and Wlad losing to Brewster is basically them losing to the same level of fighter. Except for, Barrera I'm sure enjoys a loftier status in your eyes right?

My point is. You can forgive a loss of a similar level to a guy you like, but can't excuse a loss to a guy you don't.

This is a clear example of moving the goalpost.

Say what you want about me, but my criteria doesn't change based on whether or not I was a fan of the guy.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 02:33 More often than not his approach was not exciting, it was just effective.

Hey, Klits were so exciting, that they produce hot topics even years after their retirements.

And actually it's obvious that a number of boxing fans are still butthurting from the fact, that the boring champion was reigning so long and nobody was able to do anything with this.

You guys are right. He's the best. Ray Austin with one hand. Amazing.

Amazing, isn't it? If that doesn't prove that he awesome, what would? The one and only Amazing Ray Austin.

Lets not forget that Lamon Brewster was somehow as good as Junior Jones as the loss to Brewster is not that bad!
And maybe Klitschko was as good as Marco Antonio Barrera! They had such similar careers.

Jaywheel wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 11:44 You guys are right. He's the best. Ray Austin with one hand. Amazing.

Again...who says he's the best?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 12:13 Amazing, isn't it? If that doesn't prove that he awesome, what would? The one and only Amazing Ray Austin.

Lets not forget that Lamon Brewster was somehow as good as Junior Jones as the loss to Brewster is not that bad!
And maybe Klitschko was as good as Marco Antonio Barrera! They had such similar careers.

Damn bro, you can't read.

Beating Quarry and Young are decent wins but not really outstanding. Young lost to Ossie Ocasio. Nortons defeats are also really bad with him getting blown out 3x within 2 rounds. He seemed totally unable to deal with big punchers including those who were far from being great fighters.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 12:51

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 12:13 Amazing, isn't it? If that doesn't prove that he awesome, what would? The one and only Amazing Ray Austin.

Lets not forget that Lamon Brewster was somehow as good as Junior Jones as the loss to Brewster is not that bad!
And maybe Klitschko was as good as Marco Antonio Barrera! They had such similar careers.

Damn bro, you can't read.

You stated as FACT that Jones is no better than Brewtser.

Jaywheel wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 15:10

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 12:51

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 12:13 Amazing, isn't it? If that doesn't prove that he awesome, what would? The one and only Amazing Ray Austin.

Lets not forget that Lamon Brewster was somehow as good as Junior Jones as the loss to Brewster is not that bad!
And maybe Klitschko was as good as Marco Antonio Barrera! They had such similar careers.

Damn bro, you can't read.

You stated as FACT that Jones is no better than Brewtser.

Yeah that's right.

I stand by that statement.

My point though is NOT that Klitschko is as good as Barrera. My point is Barrera is forgiven for a similar loss, while Wlad is forever shamed according to you guys.

Barrera redeemed himself through good efforts and triumphs after his losses. Wladimir didn't.

Why is that?

No. It counts against Barrera.
It should also count against Klitschko.
A legitimate loss should count against anyone.
The weaker the opponent, the more it should be counted against him.
The more lopsided the loss, the more it should count against him.
The more times this happens, the more it should count against him.

And wins over weak opponents shouldn't count either.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

There also seems to be a lot of moving the goal posts when it comes to eras.

From 1994 to 2001 Moorer old Foreman and Rahman all became lineal champs yet as far as I can see are no better and even worse than some of the guys Wladimir defended against. I don't see how Wladimir can be accused of having a poor era when guys like Moorer and Rahman were lineal champs in a supposedly good era. Either his era is better than some think or the supposedly good eras are maybe not as good as some want to believe.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 18:11 There also seems to be a lot of moving the goal posts when it comes to eras.

From 1994 to 2001 Moorer old Foreman and Rahman all became lineal champs yet as far as I can see are no better and even worse than some of the guys Wladimir defended against. I don't see how Wladimir can be accused of having a poor era when guys like Moorer and Rahman were lineal champs in a supposedly good era. Either his era is better than some think or the supposedly good eras are maybe not as good as some want to believe.

It's the latter.

Take the 1990s for example. I can see Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson and Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis being able to compete with Muhammad Ali and George Foreman and Joe Frazier and Ken Norton. But once you got passed the top four, or five, I think you begin to notice there is a disparity between the quality of contenders in the 1990s versus the 1970s.

For example I can't see Tommy Morrison really duking it out with Jerry Quarry. I can't really see Bruce Seldon being able to do anything with Buster Mathis. I can't see Ray Mercer being able to do anything really with Jimmy Ellis. I'm not so sure Frank Bruno would have been able to do much with the prime Joe Bugner. Etc.

Not to say that everybody floating around the top 10 or 15 throughout the 1970s was just great because after all Chuck wepner was number eight in the world at one point and I can see most people in the 1990s winning either decisions or stoppages due to cuts over on him. But I think you get the picture.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 16:56 No. It counts against Barrera.
It should also count against Klitschko.
A legitimate loss should count against anyone.
The weaker the opponent, the more it should be counted against him.
The more lopsided the loss, the more it should count against him.
The more times this happens, the more it should count against him.

And wins over weak opponents shouldn't count either.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

All these guys you're writing off as "Weak opponents" could whip your ass with 1 hand tied behind their back

Mine too.

Obviously there are levels in Boxing, but the fact that you write so many fairly meaningful fights off as completely meaningless only when it applies to a guy you're making a case against speaks volumes.

You'd make a sh*tty lawyer Alp.