top 10 british heavyweights of all time

[oogiebe]

Not fine with me.
Are Ross Purrity, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster in Klitschko's stratosphere?

Coetzee has just turned 31 when he fought Bruno. He had won his last fight just six months previously.
Klitschko was 41 and had fought in 17 months and not won in two years.

Boy I use the Klitschko example a bunch in current scene. I get bashed for saying he was past it when he faced Joshua.
People actually argue that was Wlad at his prime

See above in this thread! It's happening again!

[Cojimar 1946]

You don't get to gloss over Wladimir's successes because he had a few bad losses anymore than you can gloss over Lewis's accomplishments because of the McCall and Rahman fights. Following the Brewster loss Wladimir Klitschko was not stopped over a period of over 11+ years despite facing many fighters who were better than Brewster such as Povetkin and Pulev.

As far as age goes, people age differently. Mike Tyson was losing to Kevin McBride and Danny Williams at age 38 while Vitali Klitschko was the number 2 heavyweight in the division at that age.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as respect goes...if a fighter being the best heavyweight in the world over 9 years, making 18 title defenses, cleaning out the division except for his brother isn't deserving of respect than what the hell is? Wladimir was the longest reigning champion at heavyweight after Joe Louis.

[oogiebe]

You don't get to gloss over Wladimir's successes because he had a few bad losses anymore than you can gloss over Lewis's accomplishments because of the McCall and Rahman fights. Following the Brewster loss Wladimir Klitschko was not stopped over a period of over 11+ years despite facing many fighters who were better than Brewster such as Povetkin and Pulev.

As far as age goes, people age differently. Mike Tyson was losing to Kevin McBride and Danny Williams at age 38 while Vitali Klitschko was the number 2 heavyweight in the division at that age.

Dude...the Wlad that fought AJ is not the Wlad that established himself as an ATG. That happened way before that fight. Get over it already. You are conflating various points.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed. He was well past it. That alone should be enough to show that Joshua's win over him doesn't mean anything.

But you can look at Klitschko himself. The division has sucked for a very, very long time. If you are relatively new to the sport and don't care to look at what happened before your time, you won't get this.

People that know the sport also know that the number of title defenses don't mean anything. This is is a sport where you pick your opponents. Yes you have WBS mandatories, but even those seldom mean anything. They aren't going to be against one of the other three "champions", and often can't be against another top contender because that guy is set to fight for another WBS title.
Not to mention, that sometimes there simply are any decent opponents to fight. This has been the case in the heavyweight division for more than 15 years.

Seldom has there really been a big deal about Joe Louis having 25 title defenses. People knew that the sheer number meant nothing. Many other champions could have made those same defenses.
Joe Louis is highly regarded for the good opponents that he beat while champion and before he won the title, and mostly for how good he was.
He isn't highly regarded because of the number 25.

Tommy Burns had more title defenses than Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Frazier Foreman, Holyfield etc. Most people can figure out that Burns was nowhere near as good as them.

If you know the history of the sport, you also know that great fighters don't get humiliated by three different non-great fighters like Klitschko did. That didn't happen to the the truly great heavyweight champions.

[oogiebe]

Agreed. He was well past it. That alone should be enough to show that Joshua's win over him doesn't mean anything.

But you can look at Klitschko himself. The division has sucked for a very, very long time. If you are relatively new to the sport and don't care to look at what happened before your time, you won't get this.

People that know the sport also know that the number of title defenses don't mean anything. This is is a sport where you pick your opponents. Yes you have WBS mandatories, but even those seldom mean anything. They aren't going to be against one of the other three "champions", and often can't be against another top contender because that guy is set to fight for another WBS title.
Not to mention, that sometimes there simply are any decent opponents to fight. This has been the case in the heavyweight division for more than 15 years.

Seldom has there really been a big deal about Joe Louis having 25 title defenses. People knew that the sheer number meant nothing. Many other champions could have made those same defenses.
Joe Louis is highly regarded for the good opponents that he beat while champion and before he won the title, and mostly for how good he was.
He isn't highly regarded because of the number 25.

Tommy Burns had more title defenses than Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Frazier Foreman, Holyfield etc. Most people can figure out that Burns was nowhere near as good as them.

If you know the history of the sport, you also know that great fighters don't get humiliated by three different non-great fighters like Klitschko did. That didn't happen to the the truly great heavyweight champions.

Fair points. Louis had his "bum of the month" club. I agree there weren't many good contenders during Wlad's reign, but I can't fully discount AJ's win over Wlad. AJ was knocked down and got up to win. Yes, Wlad was a shell of himself, but AJ dug down deep and won. It is not, however; an implication of AJ's greatness. AJ is an unfinished book, who needs to beat some top level fighters in order to build a legacy. A legacy that hasn't been written yet.

[Ambling Alp II]

Saying that he dug down deep is one way to spin it. Another is that he is that came very close to an embarrassing loss.

[oogiebe]

Saying that he dug down deep is one way to spin it. Another is that he is that came very close to an embarrassing loss.

I'm no AJ fan, and that's an honest take away. I still have Bruno over AJ for now.

I don't spin, except for Efe Ajagba! LOL!

[Cojimar 1946]

Lewis has two losses to non-greats in McCall and Rahman. To say Wlad's losses are an issue but not Lewis's doesn't make much sense.
Also many if not the majority of people do not see Moorer or Bowe as great and they both beat Holyfield.

As far as perception of era's go it has a lot to do with someone's age
People born in the 1920s have a much lower opinion of the 70s than those born in the 1940s
People born in the 1960s have a much higher opinion of 90s than those born in the 1940s.

There is an overwhelming tendency for people to think their own era is the best but obviously they can't all be correct.

[oogiebe]

Lewis has two losses to non-greats in McCall and Rahman. To say Wlad's losses are an issue but not Lewis's is the height of hypocrisy.

Of course Lewis' losses are considered.

[Ambling Alp II]

It certainly hurts Lewis' rating. however, not nearly as much as Klitschko's debacles.

- It happened to Lewis twice, not three times as it happened to Klitschko.
- The McCall loss was controversial. It was a premature stoppage.
-Rahman and McCall were better than Sanders, Brewster, and much better than Purritty.

Many people do get obsessed as Cojimar does with the fighters from his era.
However, most don't have blind worship as he does.
Many people on this forum through the years had an interest in fighters well before their time. Cojimar (and some others) don't.
I first began watching boxing in 1976. I have never assumed that the fighters before my time were inherently inferior. Thank goodness most people are like. Common sense told me that some guys were better and some were worse.

Most serious fans who were born in the may have a certain affection for fighters they grew up watching. However, they realized that there were fighters from before their time that were great too.
Same thing with people born in the 1940s.

Some people are curious about what happened before them. Others aren't.

[oogiebe]

It certainly hurts Lewis' rating. however, not nearly as much as Klitschko's debacles.

- It happened to Lewis twice, not three times as it happened to Klitschko.
- The McCall loss was controversial. It was a premature stoppage.
-Rahman and McCall were better than Sanders, Brewster, and much better than Purritty.

Many people do get obsessed as Cojimar does with the fighters from his era.
However, most don't have blind worship as he does.
Many people on this forum through the years had an interest in fighters well before their time. Cojimar (and some others) don't.
I first began watching boxing in 1976. I have never assumed that the fighters before my time were inherently inferior. Thank goodness most people are like. Common sense told me that some guys were better and some were worse.

Most serious fans who were born in the may have a certain affection for fighters they grew up watching. However, they realized that there were fighters from before their time that were great too.
Same thing with people born in the 1940s.

Some people are curious about what happened before them. Others aren't.

I was fortunate to have my dad and my uncle who were eyeball deep into boxing and exposed me to so many ATG's before my time! Back stories; what was happening at the time; the cultural significance; the good, the bad, and yes the ugly. Been watching since late 1960's.

[cfang]

I guess British heavyweights is one section of boxing history where the recent are clearly superior to the past. Fitz was great of course but hardly a heavy. Then we had wells (smashed by Carpentier), Phil Scott who was poor, Harvey a Lt heavy then farr did well but lost to nova, Braddock then a succession of guys found wanting at the top level like
woodcock, cooper, bugner, Bruno etc..then we had Lewis and AJ and fury! Those three are all much better in my view.

In other weight classes it's different. Wilde, Moran, kid Lewis, kid berg etc were all superior.

[Cojimar 1946]

The Purrity loss occured when Wladimir was just a prospect long before he emerged as a ranked contender let alone reached his peak. I really don't see how this should impact his legacy. It would be the equivalent of Lewis losing a fight in 1990 if he had I wouldn't make a deal of it because Lewis in 1990 wasn't the fighter he would become years later.
As far as McCall and Rahman being better than Brewster and Rahman if they were better I don't think it was by much.

[oogiebe]

The Purrity loss occured when Wladimir was just a prospect long before he emerged as a ranked contender let alone reached his peak. I really don't see how this should impact his legacy. It would be the equivalent of Lewis losing a fight in 1990 if he had I wouldn't make a deal of it because Lewis in 1990 wasn't the fighter he would become years later.
As far as McCall and Rahman being better than Brewster and Rahman if they were better I don't think it was by much.

Both Lewis and Wlad had flaws that were mitigated when they engaged Emmanual Steward. Like Joe Louis losing to Herr Max, those early losses are considered, but they also helped to mold those fighters into what they became.

[Ambling Alp II]

Klitschko had 24 fights after and an extensive amateur career when he lost to Purrity. That counts. You don't get to use the too green excuse when you have that much experience and get stopped by a journeyman. We don't do that with anyone else.

I don't buy into the Manny Steward made them so much better narrative.
Steward was Klitschko trainer for the Brewster fiasco. In fact, he got some blame for it. He was also his trainer when he almost got stopped by Samuel Peter.
Steward was also Lewis trainer for the Rahman fight. And for his subpar performances in other fights.
Some of their best fights were pre-Steward.

This isn't mean to bash Steward. Obviously he was a great trainer.

[oogiebe]

Klitschko had 24 fights after and an extensive amateur career when he lost to Purrity. That counts. You don't get to use the too green excuse when you have that much experience and get stopped by a journeyman. We don't do that with anyone else.

I don't buy into the Manny Steward made them so much better narrative.
Steward was Klitschko trainer for the Brewster fiasco. In fact, he got some blame for it. He was also his trainer when he almost got stopped by Samuel Peter.
Steward was also Lewis trainer for the Rahman fight. And for his subpar performances in other fights.
Some of their best fights were pre-Steward.

This isn't mefan to bash Steward. Obviously he was a great trainer.

Big difference between "So much better" and mitigating their deficiencies. My point is that those losses weren't killing their legacy, in fact they both learned about themselves and became better fighters.

[Ambling Alp II]

Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe that really become better fighters.

[oogiebe]

Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe that really become better fighters.

Ok, fair enough. We disagree. Won't be the last time! Cheers mate!

[Cojimar 1946]

Wladimir wasn't even ranked in the top 10 when he fought Purrity, he was just a prospect at that stage. Number of fights don't really tell us much if they weren't against quality opposition. He hadn't beaten anyone of note at this stage, to suggest he was prime is ridiculous. Lennox Lewis also had extensive amateur experience but few would argue that the 1990 Lewis was anywhere near as capable as the 1997 Lewis.

He also went on to beat vast numbers of fighters who were far superior to Purrity and didn't lose between 2004 and 2015 in an unbeaten run that few have matched.

[Cojimar 1946]

Frankly Dillian Whyte may have already surpassed Bruno. I'd be much more interested in hearing people argue why Bruno should rank ahead of Whyte. This seems like an argument within the reals of plausibility.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wladimir wasn't even ranked in the top 10 when he fought Purrity, he was just a prospect at that stage. Number of fights don't really tell us much if they weren't against quality opposition. He hadn't beaten anyone of note at this stage, to suggest he was prime is ridiculous. Lennox Lewis also had extensive amateur experience but few would argue that the 1990 Lewis was anywhere near as capable as the 1997 Lewis.

He also went on to beat vast numbers of fighters who were far superior to Purrity and didn't lose between 2004 and 2015 in an unbeaten run that few have matched.

He was experienced enough that he should have easily beaten a journeyman. Instead he got stopped by him. His wins over the opposition from 2004-2015 would have been accomplished by dozens of fighters. You don't know that because you don't know about fighters before your time.

[Ambling Alp II]

Frankly Dillian Whyte may have already surpassed Bruno. I'd be much more interested in hearing people argue why Bruno should rank ahead of Whyte. This seems like an argument within the reals of plausibility.

Just stop.

[tiny_acres]

Wladimir wasn't even ranked in the top 10 when he fought Purrity, he was just a prospect at that stage. Number of fights don't really tell us much if they weren't against quality opposition. He hadn't beaten anyone of note at this stage, to suggest he was prime is ridiculous. Lennox Lewis also had extensive amateur experience but few would argue that the 1990 Lewis was anywhere near as capable as the 1997 Lewis.

He also went on to beat vast numbers of fighters who were far superior to Purrity and didn't lose between 2004 and 2015 in an unbeaten run that few have matched.

Wlad was 24-0 and was fighting for the wbc international belt. He was rated by all 3 recognized alphabet groups. To say he was not rated is crap

[oogiebe]

Wladimir wasn't even ranked in the top 10 when he fought Purrity, he was just a prospect at that stage. Number of fights don't really tell us much if they weren't against quality opposition. He hadn't beaten anyone of note at this stage, to suggest he was prime is ridiculous. Lennox Lewis also had extensive amateur experience but few would argue that the 1990 Lewis was anywhere near as capable as the 1997 Lewis.

He also went on to beat vast numbers of fighters who were far superior to Purrity and didn't lose between 2004 and 2015 in an unbeaten run that few have matched.

Wlad was 24-0 and was fighting for the wbc international belt. He was rated by all 3 recognized alphabet groups. To say he was not rated is crap

Wlad was well established when he lost to Puritty, I remember being in shock when he lost. Utter shock.