Is Wladimir Klitschko a top ten ATG heavyweight?

[amwsnw]

1. Ali
2. Louis

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

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

I agree with your names but not your order. Holyfield beat prime Tyson twice plus Foreman & Holmes. The 12 you list leaves Wlad about 13th all time!!

No issues for anyone scrambling the 3-10 order

But Holyfield didn't beat prime Tyson I disagree with that

Holyfield was the one who made the world realize Tyson may not be at his prime any longer. He deserves to be in top 10. Good list. petty accurate. WK never had his tyson, bowe or frazier which is a pity. a trilogy of wars may have pushed him into the top 10. That said he can only fight who is put i n front of him and did bloody well against the vast majority.

[Ossyrules]

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.

To come and play games and test credentials, as oppose to reply to any of the content is arrogant in my opinion. Things aren't sour for me. I'm not here to play games with you. There's no need for me to report you at all, being arrogant isn't a crime.

[Keko]

Normally it was not. He is the top 15

[Ossyrules]

I agree with your names but not your order. Holyfield beat prime Tyson twice plus Foreman & Holmes. The 12 you list leaves Wlad about 13th all time!!

No issues for anyone scrambling the 3-10 order

But Holyfield didn't beat prime Tyson I disagree with that

Holyfield was the one who made the world realize Tyson may not be at his prime any longer. He deserves to be in top 10. Good list. petty accurate. WK never had his tyson, bowe or frazier which is a pity. a trilogy of wars may have pushed him into the top 10. That said he can only fight who is put i n front of him and did bloody well against the vast majority.

Valid point, but I don't think Tyson was at his prime at any time after prison. He was completely finished when Holyfield fought him. But he was some way short of being at his best imo

[cold187]

tyson nuthuggers need to drink the kool aid

a 41 year old wlad can compete with top heavyweight

a 37 year old Tyson got floored by williams and kevin mcbride

dont give me the tyson age shit, wlad turned pro at 20, and been boxing for 21 years as pro

after jail, tyson padded his record with bums like seldon, ettiene, nielsen, savarese, and ofcourse peter mcneeley!!!!!!!!

[candyslim]

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.

To come and play games and test credentials, as oppose to reply to any of the content is arrogant in my opinion. Things aren't sour for me. I'm not here to play games with you. There's no need for me to report you at all, being arrogant isn't a crime.

Fortunately not or Verlichte would be serving fifteen to life. I don't get it: You accuse Ossy of trying to gain respect by mentioning old time fighters but what is your motivation for not just calling him out on it, but trying to force him to engage with all the enthusiasm of a privateer chasing down an unarmed merchantman. Do you get off on attempting to humiliate people?

You accuse him of dishonesty but having stopped posting as "The enlightened one" you return to the forum as "Verlichte" being arrogant enough to assume that we ignorant peasants are not going to realize that "Verlichte" in Dutch means "enlightened". Why would you have two (or as has been suggested) several, identities on the same forum?

I know all about your "few simple questions" having been subjected to the same interrogation myself, only later I find out that the questions are not yours at all, but recommended by someone on you-tube. Someone, I might add, of considerably less apparent intelligence than yourself, and who appears very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb, for reasons known only to himself.

The whole thrust of your argument was/ is, that one cannot venture an opinion about a boxer, or by extension anything, that you haven't witnessed first hand, at least on film. Granted that is of course preferable, but if you discount anyone or anything you haven't witnessed yourself this is to consign a lot of great fighters to oblivion which is surely neither fair nor desirable. There are other ways to absorb information besides visually.

If you are limited to what you have seen, or at least what an eyewitness has seen, then by those criteria we can know nothing of history because not only were those teaching us not present, but neither were those who taught them. I challenged you about this belief and also asked you if a blind man could (using your criteria) ever have an opinion about anything other than what it's like to be blind?

You are not a stupid man and I know the point of my question was not lost on you, but you chose to answer the question as if you had not understood it.

A while ago there was a thread about barring you from the forum. I was absolutely against the idea (I thought it was a joke). I spoke up for you and would do so again, but when I read further and saw criticisms of how you pick selective parts of a post to respond to, while disregarding the rest, avoiding questions, being deliberately evasive, etcetera, I must confess it did all seem rather familiar.

I wouldn't want to put you on "ignore" because sometimes your posts are very worthwhile. This was not such an occasion. You are better than this EO.

[Ossyrules]

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.

To come and play games and test credentials, as oppose to reply to any of the content is arrogant in my opinion. Things aren't sour for me. I'm not here to play games with you. There's no need for me to report you at all, being arrogant isn't a crime.

Fortunately not or Verlichte would be serving fifteen to life. I don't get it: You accuse Ossy of trying to gain respect by mentioning old time fighters but what is your motivation for not just calling him out on it, but trying to force him to engage with all the enthusiasm of a privateer chasing down an unarmed merchantman. Do you get off on attempting to humiliate people?

You accuse him of dishonesty but having stopped posting as "The enlightened one" you return to the forum as "Verlichte" being arrogant enough to assume that we ignorant peasants are not going to realize that "Verlichte" in Dutch means "enlightened". Why would you have two (or as has been suggested) several, identities on the same forum?

I know all about your "few simple questions" having been subjected to the same interrogation myself, only later I find out that the questions are not yours at all, but recommended by someone on you-tube. Someone, I might add, of considerably less apparent intelligence than yourself, and who appears very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb, for reasons known only to himself.

The whole thrust of your argument was/ is, that one cannot venture an opinion about a boxer, or by extension anything, that you haven't witnessed first hand, at least on film. Granted that is of course preferable, but if you discount anyone or anything you haven't witnessed yourself this is to consign a lot of great fighters to oblivion which is surely neither fair nor desirable. There are other ways to absorb information besides visually.

If you are limited to what you have seen, or at least what an eyewitness has seen, then by those criteria we can know nothing of history because not only were those teaching us not present, but neither were those who taught them. I challenged you about this belief and also asked you if a blind man could (using your criteria) ever have an opinion about anything other than what it's like to be blind?

You are not a stupid man and I know the point of my question was not lost on you, but you chose to answer the question as if you had not understood it.

A while ago there was a thread about barring you from the forum. I was absolutely against the idea (I thought it was a joke). I spoke up for you and would do so again, but when I read further and saw criticisms of how you pick selective parts of a post to respond to, while disregarding the rest, avoiding questions, being deliberately evasive, etcetera, I must confess it did all seem rather familiar.

I wouldn't want to put you on "ignore" because sometimes your posts are very worthwhile. This was not such an occasion. You are better than this EO.

Cheers for the post.

I too voted against EO. He comes up with some good stuff but more too often though he wouldn't like to admit it, it's pointless trolling. He doesn't ruffle me though he'd be wrong to think that, I just know exactly what his angle is, and I'm not here to satisfy his tests.

I am a boxing fanatic, always have been. I'm not just one to tune in to the odd Joshua fight when it's on sky? I love the sport, competed when I was younger (school) and love learning more, especially about the old greats. I'm not here to blow my own and proclaim I know most, but I enjoy reading more about fighters in the past.

As for his point re Langford. I'd be happy to discuss with anyone my opinions, but not playing games to catch people out. He's a pre war fighter. I learn from books, TV shows etc what other experts are saying. In many atg heavyweight discussions his name is mentioned albeit he misses out of top 10 mostly. The worst thing about EO is his obsession to prove people wrong that he completely misses the point when he gets so target focussed on a Langford vs Wlad match up, which Isnt what the thread is about, but it's all he can digest for some reason.

On topic, saturdays fight did Wlads legacy far more good than harm imo, but heavyweight history is long and distinguished. Getting top 10 is get difficult, he is just outside it imo, but only by a small margin

[verlichte]

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.

To come and play games and test credentials, as oppose to reply to any of the content is arrogant in my opinion. Things aren't sour for me. I'm not here to play games with you. There's no need for me to report you at all, being arrogant isn't a crime.

Fortunately not or Verlichte would be serving fifteen to life. I don't get it: You accuse Ossy of trying to gain respect by mentioning old time fighters but what is your motivation for not just calling him out on it, but trying to force him to engage with all the enthusiasm of a privateer chasing down an unarmed merchantman. Do you get off on attempting to humiliate people?

You accuse him of dishonesty but having stopped posting as "The enlightened one" you return to the forum as "Verlichte" being arrogant enough to assume that we ignorant peasants are not going to realize that "Verlichte" in Dutch means "enlightened". Why would you have two (or as has been suggested) several, identities on the same forum?

I know all about your "few simple questions" having been subjected to the same interrogation myself, only later I find out that the questions are not yours at all, but recommended by someone on you-tube. Someone, I might add, of considerably less apparent intelligence than yourself, and who appears very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb, for reasons known only to himself.

The whole thrust of your argument was/ is, that one cannot venture an opinion about a boxer, or by extension anything, that you haven't witnessed first hand, at least on film. Granted that is of course preferable, but if you discount anyone or anything you haven't witnessed yourself this is to consign a lot of great fighters to oblivion which is surely neither fair nor desirable. There are other ways to absorb information besides visually.

If you are limited to what you have seen, or at least what an eyewitness has seen, then by those criteria we can know nothing of history because not only were those teaching us not present, but neither were those who taught them. I challenged you about this belief and also asked you if a blind man could (using your criteria) ever have an opinion about anything other than what it's like to be blind?

You are not a stupid man and I know the point of my question was not lost on you, but you chose to answer the question as if you had not understood it.

A while ago there was a thread about barring you from the forum. I was absolutely against the idea (I thought it was a joke). I spoke up for you and would do so again, but when I read further and saw criticisms of how you pick selective parts of a post to respond to, while disregarding the rest, avoiding questions, being deliberately evasive, etcetera, I must confess it did all seem rather familiar.

I wouldn't want to put you on "ignore" because sometimes your posts are very worthwhile. This was not such an occasion. You are better than this EO.

All I did was to politely ask the kid to explain the reason why he was supremely confident that Sam Langford was “better” than Wladimir Klitschko.

Instead of answering this rather simple question, he became defensive and resorted to insults.

In my opinion, people don’t usually become angry and frustrated when asked simple questions that they consider rather easy to respond to. However, they do become emotional if they boasted knowledge that they don’t possess... and they're asked a question that they "should" be able to answer, due to the fact that it exposes their lies and inadequacies.

Simply put: I wasn’t trying to humiliate the boy. I only wanted to understand for the reason for his supremely confident claim.

Now let’s stay on the topic of honesty…

You have just claimed that I was “very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb”.

Can you prove this? If not, I think I deserve an apology, don’t you? Otherwise, you’re acting in precisely the same manner as this “Ossyrules” kid.

A lot of the accusations about me are false or embellished. People who boldly proclaim themselves to be “experts”, whilst refraining from fact-checking their opinions, nearly always resort to insults when challenged by someone that not only knows their stuff, but can justify their opinion with cold hard facts.

Also, if your opinion doesn’t adhere to the mainstream, then you’re automatically labelled as an “idiot”.

The thing is… the majority of people that frequent this forum believe in “black and white”, certain fighters are heroes and can do no wrong, whilst others are villainous and always responsible for all misdemeanours… whereas I believe in “shades of grey”. There’s good and bad in everyone and everything.

In regards to the rest of the points detailed in your post, we’ve already discussed these at length in a different thread, but I will say this… great fighters from previous eras, where there is almost no media to prove their credentials, should never be compared to boxers competing in the modern era, because there are far too many knowledge gaps.

[gilgamesh]

Yeah I'd probably have him in there.

[verlichte]

To come and play games and test credentials, as oppose to reply to any of the content is arrogant in my opinion. Things aren't sour for me. I'm not here to play games with you. There's no need for me to report you at all, being arrogant isn't a crime.

Fortunately not or Verlichte would be serving fifteen to life. I don't get it: You accuse Ossy of trying to gain respect by mentioning old time fighters but what is your motivation for not just calling him out on it, but trying to force him to engage with all the enthusiasm of a privateer chasing down an unarmed merchantman. Do you get off on attempting to humiliate people?

You accuse him of dishonesty but having stopped posting as "The enlightened one" you return to the forum as "Verlichte" being arrogant enough to assume that we ignorant peasants are not going to realize that "Verlichte" in Dutch means "enlightened". Why would you have two (or as has been suggested) several, identities on the same forum?

I know all about your "few simple questions" having been subjected to the same interrogation myself, only later I find out that the questions are not yours at all, but recommended by someone on you-tube. Someone, I might add, of considerably less apparent intelligence than yourself, and who appears very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb, for reasons known only to himself.

The whole thrust of your argument was/ is, that one cannot venture an opinion about a boxer, or by extension anything, that you haven't witnessed first hand, at least on film. Granted that is of course preferable, but if you discount anyone or anything you haven't witnessed yourself this is to consign a lot of great fighters to oblivion which is surely neither fair nor desirable. There are other ways to absorb information besides visually.

If you are limited to what you have seen, or at least what an eyewitness has seen, then by those criteria we can know nothing of history because not only were those teaching us not present, but neither were those who taught them. I challenged you about this belief and also asked you if a blind man could (using your criteria) ever have an opinion about anything other than what it's like to be blind?

You are not a stupid man and I know the point of my question was not lost on you, but you chose to answer the question as if you had not understood it.

A while ago there was a thread about barring you from the forum. I was absolutely against the idea (I thought it was a joke). I spoke up for you and would do so again, but when I read further and saw criticisms of how you pick selective parts of a post to respond to, while disregarding the rest, avoiding questions, being deliberately evasive, etcetera, I must confess it did all seem rather familiar.

I wouldn't want to put you on "ignore" because sometimes your posts are very worthwhile. This was not such an occasion. You are better than this EO.

Cheers for the post.

I too voted against EO. He comes up with some good stuff but more too often though he wouldn't like to admit it, it's pointless trolling. He doesn't ruffle me though he'd be wrong to think that, I just know exactly what his angle is, and I'm not here to satisfy his tests.

I am a boxing fanatic, always have been. I'm not just one to tune in to the odd Joshua fight when it's on sky? I love the sport, competed when I was younger (school) and love learning more, especially about the old greats. I'm not here to blow my own and proclaim I know most, but I enjoy reading more about fighters in the past.

As for his point re Langford. I'd be happy to discuss with anyone my opinions, but not playing games to catch people out. He's a pre war fighter. I learn from books, TV shows etc what other experts are saying. In many atg heavyweight discussions his name is mentioned albeit he misses out of top 10 mostly. The worst thing about EO is his obsession to prove people wrong that he completely misses the point when he gets so target focussed on a Langford vs Wlad match up, which Isnt what the thread is about, but it's all he can digest for some reason.

On topic, saturdays fight did Wlads legacy far more good than harm imo, but heavyweight history is long and distinguished. Getting top 10 is get difficult, he is just outside it imo, but only by a small margin

I politely asked you a simple question. You chose not to answer it and resorted to insults.

This not only contradicts what you’ve just said, but it also suggests a distinct lack of knowledge about the subject matter on your part.

If you were gracious and chose to not answer the question or ignore my post, then I wouldn’t have minded, but you instead resorted to insults, which motivated me to retaliate.

If I’ve offended you, then I truly apologise, but I do feel that you could have handled things better. If you don’t believe me, please review the message trail and reconsider.

[Ossyrules]

To come and play games and test credentials, as oppose to reply to any of the content is arrogant in my opinion. Things aren't sour for me. I'm not here to play games with you. There's no need for me to report you at all, being arrogant isn't a crime.

Fortunately not or Verlichte would be serving fifteen to life. I don't get it: You accuse Ossy of trying to gain respect by mentioning old time fighters but what is your motivation for not just calling him out on it, but trying to force him to engage with all the enthusiasm of a privateer chasing down an unarmed merchantman. Do you get off on attempting to humiliate people?

You accuse him of dishonesty but having stopped posting as "The enlightened one" you return to the forum as "Verlichte" being arrogant enough to assume that we ignorant peasants are not going to realize that "Verlichte" in Dutch means "enlightened". Why would you have two (or as has been suggested) several, identities on the same forum?

I know all about your "few simple questions" having been subjected to the same interrogation myself, only later I find out that the questions are not yours at all, but recommended by someone on you-tube. Someone, I might add, of considerably less apparent intelligence than yourself, and who appears very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb, for reasons known only to himself.

The whole thrust of your argument was/ is, that one cannot venture an opinion about a boxer, or by extension anything, that you haven't witnessed first hand, at least on film. Granted that is of course preferable, but if you discount anyone or anything you haven't witnessed yourself this is to consign a lot of great fighters to oblivion which is surely neither fair nor desirable. There are other ways to absorb information besides visually.

If you are limited to what you have seen, or at least what an eyewitness has seen, then by those criteria we can know nothing of history because not only were those teaching us not present, but neither were those who taught them. I challenged you about this belief and also asked you if a blind man could (using your criteria) ever have an opinion about anything other than what it's like to be blind?

You are not a stupid man and I know the point of my question was not lost on you, but you chose to answer the question as if you had not understood it.

A while ago there was a thread about barring you from the forum. I was absolutely against the idea (I thought it was a joke). I spoke up for you and would do so again, but when I read further and saw criticisms of how you pick selective parts of a post to respond to, while disregarding the rest, avoiding questions, being deliberately evasive, etcetera, I must confess it did all seem rather familiar.

I wouldn't want to put you on "ignore" because sometimes your posts are very worthwhile. This was not such an occasion. You are better than this EO.

All I did was to politely ask the kid to explain the reason why he was supremely confident that Sam Langford was “better” than Wladimir Klitschko.

Instead of answering this rather simple question, he became defensive and resorted to insults.

In my opinion, people don’t usually become angry and frustrated when asked simple questions that they consider rather easy to respond to. However, they do become emotional if they boasted knowledge that they don’t possess... and they're asked a question that they "should" be able to answer, due to the fact that it exposes their lies and inadequacies.

Simply put: I wasn’t trying to humiliate the boy. I only wanted to understand for the reason for his supremely confident claim.

Now let’s stay on the topic of honesty…

You have just claimed that I was “very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb”.

Can you prove this? If not, I think I deserve an apology, don’t you? Otherwise, you’re acting in precisely the same manner as this “Ossyrules” kid.

A lot of the accusations about me are false or embellished. People who boldly proclaim themselves to be “experts”, whilst refraining from fact-checking their opinions, nearly always resort to insults when challenged by someone that not only knows their stuff, but can justify their opinion with cold hard facts.

Also, if your opinion doesn’t adhere to the mainstream, then you’re automatically labelled as an “idiot”.

The thing is… the majority of people that frequent this forum believe in “black and white”, certain fighters are heroes and can do no wrong, whilst others are villainous and always responsible for all misdemeanours… whereas I believe in “shades of grey”. There’s good and bad in everyone and everything.

In regards to the rest of the points detailed in your post, we’ve already discussed these at length in a different thread, but I will say this… great fighters from previous eras, where there is almost no media to prove their credentials, should never be compared to boxers competing in the modern era, because there are far too many knowledge gaps.

There's so much wrong in this post but your inability to actual read the responses is quite extraordinary.

You've not been insulted, unless you count being told that you're acting arrogantly as an insult?

You have a flair for exaggeration that goes against you

You haven't frustrated or embarrassed me? You're reading into things far too much and with respect, giving yourself far too much credit.

I do agree with your last paragraph however and have expressed as much in other threads re era. I understand I've gone against this by posting a top ten. That's not quite as bad as creating mythical match ups, as you turned this thread into re Langford and Wlad. I probably would have bit and explained myself but when you start going on "when did you first see Langford and what drew you to do that?", it's clear where your going. I come across your type all the while. Have little points to make themselves but have a mission to disprove everyone else. I'm not playing EO, sorry mate, no bite here

[gilgamesh]

I must say I find it odd to read people saying Vitali would rank higher than Wlad. Wlad has almost twice as many wins, and many more title defenses, not to mention he beat significantly better fighters than Vitali...other than the perception that he takes a punch better, I don't see any reason why anybody would consider Vitali's to be the better career of the two Klitschko brothers.

[verlichte]

Fortunately not or Verlichte would be serving fifteen to life. I don't get it: You accuse Ossy of trying to gain respect by mentioning old time fighters but what is your motivation for not just calling him out on it, but trying to force him to engage with all the enthusiasm of a privateer chasing down an unarmed merchantman. Do you get off on attempting to humiliate people?

You accuse him of dishonesty but having stopped posting as "The enlightened one" you return to the forum as "Verlichte" being arrogant enough to assume that we ignorant peasants are not going to realize that "Verlichte" in Dutch means "enlightened". Why would you have two (or as has been suggested) several, identities on the same forum?

I know all about your "few simple questions" having been subjected to the same interrogation myself, only later I find out that the questions are not yours at all, but recommended by someone on you-tube. Someone, I might add, of considerably less apparent intelligence than yourself, and who appears very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb, for reasons known only to himself.

The whole thrust of your argument was/ is, that one cannot venture an opinion about a boxer, or by extension anything, that you haven't witnessed first hand, at least on film. Granted that is of course preferable, but if you discount anyone or anything you haven't witnessed yourself this is to consign a lot of great fighters to oblivion which is surely neither fair nor desirable. There are other ways to absorb information besides visually.

If you are limited to what you have seen, or at least what an eyewitness has seen, then by those criteria we can know nothing of history because not only were those teaching us not present, but neither were those who taught them. I challenged you about this belief and also asked you if a blind man could (using your criteria) ever have an opinion about anything other than what it's like to be blind?

You are not a stupid man and I know the point of my question was not lost on you, but you chose to answer the question as if you had not understood it.

A while ago there was a thread about barring you from the forum. I was absolutely against the idea (I thought it was a joke). I spoke up for you and would do so again, but when I read further and saw criticisms of how you pick selective parts of a post to respond to, while disregarding the rest, avoiding questions, being deliberately evasive, etcetera, I must confess it did all seem rather familiar.

I wouldn't want to put you on "ignore" because sometimes your posts are very worthwhile. This was not such an occasion. You are better than this EO.

All I did was to politely ask the kid to explain the reason why he was supremely confident that Sam Langford was “better” than Wladimir Klitschko.

Instead of answering this rather simple question, he became defensive and resorted to insults.

In my opinion, people don’t usually become angry and frustrated when asked simple questions that they consider rather easy to respond to. However, they do become emotional if they boasted knowledge that they don’t possess... and they're asked a question that they "should" be able to answer, due to the fact that it exposes their lies and inadequacies.

Simply put: I wasn’t trying to humiliate the boy. I only wanted to understand for the reason for his supremely confident claim.

Now let’s stay on the topic of honesty…

You have just claimed that I was “very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb”.

Can you prove this? If not, I think I deserve an apology, don’t you? Otherwise, you’re acting in precisely the same manner as this “Ossyrules” kid.

A lot of the accusations about me are false or embellished. People who boldly proclaim themselves to be “experts”, whilst refraining from fact-checking their opinions, nearly always resort to insults when challenged by someone that not only knows their stuff, but can justify their opinion with cold hard facts.

Also, if your opinion doesn’t adhere to the mainstream, then you’re automatically labelled as an “idiot”.

The thing is… the majority of people that frequent this forum believe in “black and white”, certain fighters are heroes and can do no wrong, whilst others are villainous and always responsible for all misdemeanours… whereas I believe in “shades of grey”. There’s good and bad in everyone and everything.

In regards to the rest of the points detailed in your post, we’ve already discussed these at length in a different thread, but I will say this… great fighters from previous eras, where there is almost no media to prove their credentials, should never be compared to boxers competing in the modern era, because there are far too many knowledge gaps.

There's so much wrong in this post but your inability to actual read the responses is quite extraordinary.

You've not been insulted, unless you count being told that you're acting arrogantly as an insult?

You have a flair for exaggeration that goes against you

You haven't frustrated or embarrassed me? You're reading into things far too much and with respect, giving yourself far too much credit.

I do agree with your last paragraph however and have expressed as much in other threads re era. I understand I've gone against this by posting a top ten. That's not quite as bad as creating mythical match ups, as you turned this thread into re Langford and Wlad. I probably would have bit and explained myself but when you start going on "when did you first see Langford and what drew you to do that?", it's clear where your going. I come across your type all the while. Have little points to make themselves but have a mission to disprove everyone else. I'm not playing EO, sorry mate, no bite here

I took offence when you responded to my rather simple question with the following sentence:

• “if you weren't so incredibly arrogant I'd possibly engage”

I don’t assume that I’ve frustrated or embarrassed you. I do believe that the nature and the tone of your reply was needlessly emotional in the context of being asked a rather simple question.

It’s alright for people to have a different opinion than mine. And I wouldn’t have challenged anything you have said, unless it was factually incorrect.

I asked a simple question but instead of taking things at face value, you chose to “read between the lines” and drew the wrong conclusion.

[RScarf1]

I must say I find it odd to read people saying Vitali would rank higher than Wlad. Wlad has almost twice as many wins, and many more title defenses, not to mention he beat significantly better fighters than Vitali...other than the perception that he takes a punch better, I don't see any reason why anybody would consider Vitali's to be the better career of the two Klitschko brothers.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I rate Vitali higher than Wladimir because he beat guys that Wladimir lost to. Also, Vitali stopped Peter and Wladimir won a decision but was knocked down three times. Also, Vitali's performance against Lewis helps his status.

[Freedom2013]

I must say I find it odd to read people saying Vitali would rank higher than Wlad. Wlad has almost twice as many wins, and many more title defenses, not to mention he beat significantly better fighters than Vitali...other than the perception that he takes a punch better, I don't see any reason why anybody would consider Vitali's to be the better career of the two Klitschko brothers.

I agree.

I rate Vitali between #16 and #20, while Wlad is somewhere around #7 or #8.

Vitali was a very strong fighter, but he clearly did not accomplish as much in his career as Wlad.

[gilgamesh]

I must say I find it odd to read people saying Vitali would rank higher than Wlad. Wlad has almost twice as many wins, and many more title defenses, not to mention he beat significantly better fighters than Vitali...other than the perception that he takes a punch better, I don't see any reason why anybody would consider Vitali's to be the better career of the two Klitschko brothers.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I rate Vitali higher than Wladimir because he beat guys that Wladimir lost to. Also, Vitali stopped Peter and Wladimir won a decision but was knocked down three times. Also, Vitali's performance against Lewis helps his status.

Wladimir twice beat Chris Byrd who Vitali lost too.

Wladimir's 5 best wins: David Haye, Povetkin, Chris Byrd 2x, Ruslan Chagaev...and I guess it's up for debate what would be his 5th best win between names like Sam Peter and the revenge he got on Lamon Brewster.

Vitali's 5 best wins: Samuel Peter, Corrie Sanders, Dereck Chisora, Tomasz Adamek...and maybe Shannon Briggs since everyone seems to be so high on him lately.

This isn't a particularly impressive list of victims in comparison to Wlad's resume. Now I'm not saying the names on Wlad's resume are amazing or anything but they top Vitali's list of victims I'd say. Certainly in achievement, and plus Sam Peter who is certainly one of Vitali's best wins his brother Wlad also beat twice. Once by KO.

[Boxing Writer]

I must say I find it odd to read people saying Vitali would rank higher than Wlad. Wlad has almost twice as many wins, and many more title defenses, not to mention he beat significantly better fighters than Vitali...other than the perception that he takes a punch better, I don't see any reason why anybody would consider Vitali's to be the better career of the two Klitschko brothers.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I rate Vitali higher than Wladimir because he beat guys that Wladimir lost to. Also, Vitali stopped Peter and Wladimir won a decision but was knocked down three times. Also, Vitali's performance against Lewis helps his status.

Wladimir twice beat Chris Byrd who Vitali lost too.

Wladimir's 5 best wins: David Haye, Povetkin, Chris Byrd 2x, Ruslan Chagaev...and I guess it's up for debate what would be his 5th best win between names like Sam Peter and the revenge he got on Lamon Brewster.

Vitali's 5 best wins: Samuel Peter, Corrie Sanders, Dereck Chisora, Tomasz Adamek...and maybe Shannon Briggs since everyone seems to be so high on him lately.

This isn't a particularly impressive list of victims in comparison to Wlad's resume. Now I'm not saying the names on Wlad's resume are amazing or anything but they top Vitali's list of victims I'd say. Certainly in achievement, and plus Sam Peter who is certainly one of Vitali's best wins his brother Wlad also beat twice. Once by KO.

And Peter was in really good physical shape against Wlad in BOTH fights, while against Vitali he was fat and out of shape. Of course, it's not Vitali's fault, but still

[RScarf1]

All fair points, but against Ross Puritty, Wladimir lost by TKO in the 11th and Vitali won by TKO in the 11th. Against Corrie Sanders, Wladimir lost by TKO in the 2nd and Vitali won by TKO in the 8th. Vitali's only losses were due to a shoulder injury and cuts. Perhaps in terms of accomplishments, Wladimir is better, but I think Vitali is better in terms of ability. Wladimir has more wins, but he also has more losses.

[man]

1. Ali
2. Louis

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

i am torn apart on this one. i do
not see frazier or marciano get
through wlad as much as they
would need to, given their lack
of reach.

[candyslim]

I've just been watching the fight again this time with a Russian or Ukrainian commentary. Last time it was live while in an Irish bar in Prague and the sound was totally drowned out by Irish and British Joshua fans. I'd quite like to have heard what Wilder in particular made of it.

Anyway I digress, I see there have been a few exchanges: Enlightened One now known as Verlichte, true to form has ignored most of my post. He makes no comment about the charge of arrogance other than to refer to a fellow poster as "boy" and "the kid" thereby reinforcing the impression that many have formed. You have also accused him of being dishonest, and talked of exposing "his lies and inadequacies" yet you're the one owed an apology?

If you read that paragraph again, I'm sure you will see that I did not accuse you of rubbishing Harry Greb's achievements. I said that your questions to Ossy and to me previously, were not your own, but taken from a guy on you-tube, who was rubbishing Harry Greb's achievements. This struck me me as strange since the you-tuber came across as someone of low intelligence and not the kind of person you would be likely to be impressed by. I would go so far as to say he was the very antithesis of enlightened.

The rest of my post is despatched in one sentence to the effect we have discussed all that before. I think that's pretty much how you dealt with it first time around as well, which bears out what your fellow posters had to say about your evasiveness.

All difficult incomings either slipped, blocked, or parried which I guess on a boxing forum is kind of fitting in its way.

[Ossyrules]

All I did was to politely ask the kid to explain the reason why he was supremely confident that Sam Langford was “better” than Wladimir Klitschko.

Instead of answering this rather simple question, he became defensive and resorted to insults.

In my opinion, people don’t usually become angry and frustrated when asked simple questions that they consider rather easy to respond to. However, they do become emotional if they boasted knowledge that they don’t possess... and they're asked a question that they "should" be able to answer, due to the fact that it exposes their lies and inadequacies.

Simply put: I wasn’t trying to humiliate the boy. I only wanted to understand for the reason for his supremely confident claim.

Now let’s stay on the topic of honesty…

You have just claimed that I was “very keen to rubbish the achievements of the late Harry Greb”.

Can you prove this? If not, I think I deserve an apology, don’t you? Otherwise, you’re acting in precisely the same manner as this “Ossyrules” kid.

A lot of the accusations about me are false or embellished. People who boldly proclaim themselves to be “experts”, whilst refraining from fact-checking their opinions, nearly always resort to insults when challenged by someone that not only knows their stuff, but can justify their opinion with cold hard facts.

Also, if your opinion doesn’t adhere to the mainstream, then you’re automatically labelled as an “idiot”.

The thing is… the majority of people that frequent this forum believe in “black and white”, certain fighters are heroes and can do no wrong, whilst others are villainous and always responsible for all misdemeanours… whereas I believe in “shades of grey”. There’s good and bad in everyone and everything.

In regards to the rest of the points detailed in your post, we’ve already discussed these at length in a different thread, but I will say this… great fighters from previous eras, where there is almost no media to prove their credentials, should never be compared to boxers competing in the modern era, because there are far too many knowledge gaps.

There's so much wrong in this post but your inability to actual read the responses is quite extraordinary.

You've not been insulted, unless you count being told that you're acting arrogantly as an insult?

You have a flair for exaggeration that goes against you

You haven't frustrated or embarrassed me? You're reading into things far too much and with respect, giving yourself far too much credit.

I do agree with your last paragraph however and have expressed as much in other threads re era. I understand I've gone against this by posting a top ten. That's not quite as bad as creating mythical match ups, as you turned this thread into re Langford and Wlad. I probably would have bit and explained myself but when you start going on "when did you first see Langford and what drew you to do that?", it's clear where your going. I come across your type all the while. Have little points to make themselves but have a mission to disprove everyone else. I'm not playing EO, sorry mate, no bite here

I took offence when you responded to my rather simple question with the following sentence:

• “if you weren't so incredibly arrogant I'd possibly engage”

I don’t assume that I’ve frustrated or embarrassed you. I do believe that the nature and the tone of your reply was needlessly emotional in the context of being asked a rather simple question.

It’s alright for people to have a different opinion than mine. And I wouldn’t have challenged anything you have said, unless it was factually incorrect.

I asked a simple question but instead of taking things at face value, you chose to “read between the lines” and drew the wrong conclusion.

No emotional response from me, saying it how I saw it. You had a thread created against you. Nobody else gets that no matter how annoying, stupid, knowledgable, genius, whatever they are. Think about that.

This is my last response on this matter

[Freedom2013]

62% here say yes he is, nearly 80% on BS say yes:

https://www.BS.com/forums/show ... p?t=744373

[Andrew Kearney]

Yes, Wlad is definitely a top-10 heavyweight, arguably top-5 and higher.

In terms of the length of his reign (which was just over 10 years where he was champ and undefeated before losing to Fury), it's extremely impressive. In terms of # of consecutive championship defenses, he is #2 behind Joe Louis for all-time record. There is also truth to the comment that boxing today is more globally and internationally competitive than at any time in previous history. It's important to remember that many of the Greats of The Past such as Louis and Ali, had it easy in the sense that boxing was much more of a North American sport at that time, with some Western Euros (Brits, Germans, but not many). They weren't really "world champions" in the sense that the actual world was competing. Many Ukrainians, Russians, and Cubans in those times were not able to turn pro and properly compete with Americans. Had they done so, many of the old American greats possibly would have lost and never been great. Maybe not a popular opinion but its the truth.

Wlad Klitschko was a decade-long, dominant champion who rarely lost a round in his 10 years. He scored some scintilating KO's of some very decent opponents at the time, he also had a knack for KOing undefeated challengers. So, yes, he's absolutely top-10, probably top-5 as well. It seems the "consensus" viewpoint puts him in the top-10.

Unfortunately, you can ruin your legacy by continuing to fight after you become old. Roy Jones Jr, was fantastic in his day, but many fans will remember him in his final years as a journeyman and forget how great and special he used to be. It takes away from his legacy. Bernard getting KTFO of ring also takes away from his legacy. Same could happen to Wlad if he continues.

[RScarf1]

People talk about Wladimir's long title reign, but he was not the only champion. There were 4 champions at one time and Wladimir and his brother were two of the champions. If the brothers fought against each other, we may not be talking about Wladimir's long title reign. Before this fight against Joshua, I don't think anyone was talking about Wladimir being a top ten ATG. Maybe he is. BoxRec says he is. One reason why he is able to fight well in his 40s is because he did not have to face the type of competition that Ali and Norton fought and they fought each other. In terms of ability, I don't think Wladimir is top 10, but I guess people think he is because of his longevity and long title reign.

[candyslim]

My trouble is I have about 25 top ten heavyweights

It's hard enough to say whether Larry Holmes is better than Lennox Lewis, never mind trying to factor in fighters of 100 years ago. I'm prepared to accept that Jack Johnson was an amazing heavyweight back in the day, but how do you possibly compare him with say Floyd Patterson never mind some 6' 6" behemoth like those around today? (I'm not saying Johnson would beat Patterson or vice-versa I mean that literally ... how do you compare?) I cannot conceive of how Sam Langford goes about tackling Wladimir Klitschko (to give a topical example) even if I can imagine him making a monkey out of another 2 metre fighter in Jess Willard.

Rocky Marciano was a hell of a fighter but can you imagine him at 185lbs overpowering the likes of Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier? I certainly can't. At least comparing say for example Mickey Walker and Nino Benvenuti they at least weighed about the same being both Middleweights, but a typical Heavyweight of the early 1900s would be conceding weight to a modern Cruiserweight. It makes more sense to consider Marciano against Usyk not that I'd want to stick my neck out on that match up either.

It's fun to speculate but no one should take these kinds of ratings that seriously, and certainly no reason to attack anyone for their choices.