BoxRec

Since barry has lokced the thraed with the respective poll and the thread is hence about to disappear from page one, let's put an end to the discussion by summarizing the poll result here:

Q: Was Vitali Klischko the world's # 1 in heavyweight 2004/05?

Yes, of course 65% [ 17 ]

Yes, but only by a small margin 11% [ 3 ]

No, John Ruiz was 7% [ 2 ]

No, Chris Byrd was 15% [ 4 ]

No, Lamon Brewster was 0% [ 0 ]

Total Votes : 26

So by overwehlming popular acclaim -- 76 percent !! -- among the boxing experts who visit this site, Vitaqli Klitchko was the #1 heavyweight of the world in 2004/05, and he therefore joins an illustrous list that includes legends like Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and Muhammad Ali.

Glad this question is settled.

Cheers,
P

PS: there are of course the sore losers who when they come out on the wrong end seek all kinds of excuses why the poll is allegedly not valid -- but we can dismiss these folks calmly. Their motivation is all too clear.

Who gives a shit....I think pretty much all that can be said about Vitali Quitschko has been said multiple times, over and over again...why start more useless threads that have already been run into the ground? Vitali wasn't the best heavyweight...he never avenged the Byrd defeat...hell, he stayed as far away from Byrd as he could, which is something no one has mentioned yet, but that's fact...Vitali wanted nothing to do with Chris Byrd following the loss to him! The best heavyweight of 2004/2005 was unfortunately....Chris Byrd!

Also...for the record...the moderators are aware that several people are using multiple usernames...not mentioning any names...you know who are...so do we, so the poll means very little as there were people voting multiple times under different aliases!


Not to mention that everything stated above in this thread is already said quite clearly in the last post with the same title that's locked...personally I would delete thread, but I'll leave that for another moderator to decide!!!

barry wrote:Who gives a shit....I think pretty much all that can be said about Vitali Quitschko has been said multiple times, over and over again...why start more useless threads that have already been run into the ground? Vitali wasn't the best heavyweight...he never avenged the Byrd defeat...hell, he stayed as far away from Byrd as he could, which is something no one has mentioned yet, but that's fact...Vitali wanted nothing to do with Chris Byrd following the loss to him! The best heavyweight of 2004/2005 was unfortunately....Chris Byrd!

Extreme minority opinion littered with non-substantiated statements.

barry wrote: Not to mention that everything stated above in this thread is already said quite clearly in the last post with the same title that's locked...personally I would delete thread, but I'll leave that for another moderator to decide!!!

We know you would.
But this thread is needed exactly because you locked the other thread (for reasons that remain unclear to this day).

Cheers, P

I know you Vital-Lovers have problems with reality...but this is a waste of time and a waste of space, so I'll ask...who wants to see it deleted?

I'll go first....ME!! That's 1-0


I would put up a who wants to see it stay, but that doesn't fit into this poll!

>>>But this thread is needed exactly because you locked the other thread (for reasons that remain unclear to this day).<<<

Exactly what was needed in the other thread...more people yapping at one another because that is all that was going on in that thread at the time I locked it and that is the reason I locked it, since you have problems understanding why...I think is was pretty obvious to everyone else!

The last one was locked for the exact same reasons that this one will be locked, or deleted...though I'll give it a day to build to what it's going to build to!

Well, in the interests of free speech I wouldnt want to see this deleated or locked, Pundit has a right to put this up... but then again personally I'm pretty bored by this debate now and going around and around in circles with the same arguments... lets just agree to disagree and move on to another fighter, and a new subject!...Rocky Marcinao anyone!??... 8)

2004/2005 is so pointless as far as HW-s go .. produceing these threads actually work against your cause and Vitalys achievements.

Everybody can tell you that he had all the tools to be a good champion but he chose not to. Why protect him, why do you care cose he sure as hell didn't care. I think he was the best heavy and I think if not the cut.. Lonnox would have had one of the hardest fights in his career .. not to loose the side of the fact that Lennox was fearly old by then and past his prime and unmotivated. Do you really think Vitaly would have beaten Lennox in his prime?? cose that is all that matters. -(btw. he clearly beat Byrd and why he quit just makes no sense at all.... he only had to endure 3 more rounds.. he didn't care.. he didn't).

pundit wrote:Since barry has lokced the thraed with the respective poll and the thread is hence about to disappear from page one, let's put an end to the discussion by summarizing the poll result here:

Q: Was Vitali Klischko the world's # 1 in heavyweight 2004/05?

Yes, of course 65% [ 17 ]

Yes, but only by a small margin 11% [ 3 ]

No, John Ruiz was 7% [ 2 ]

No, Chris Byrd was 15% [ 4 ]

No, Lamon Brewster was 0% [ 0 ]

Total Votes : 26

So by overwehlming popular acclaim -- 76 percent !! -- among the boxing experts who visit this site, Vitaqli Klitchko was the #1 heavyweight of the world in 2004/05, and he therefore joins an illustrous list that includes legends like Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and Muhammad Ali.

Glad this question is settled.

Cheers,
P

PS: there are of course the sore losers who when they come out on the wrong end seek all kinds of excuses why the poll is allegedly not valid -- but we can dismiss these folks calmly. Their motivation is all too clear.

Well I for one accept the polls verdict!. .. and dont see how it cant be valid!. .. a poll is a poll, which ever way you walk into it!... 8)

Free speech is great, but to continue with the same old shit is a waste of space! And I think cultus stated best...why do you care...Vitali sure as hell didn't!

Well, each to his own, as I already said, this argument has lost some of its shine for me now after a couple of days, on the subject of Vitali we should both agree to disagree, different opinions make the world go round on its merry way, just ask George Bush or Tony Blair.. :x . peace prize for these guys anyone?... we need an excuse to kick Tony out on his arse overhere! help us out!. :x :x :x
As for locking or deleating this thread I think that would be against the free speech and democracy of this forum, surely Pundit has the right to make such threads, he's not insulting anyone or anything like that and if people dont like it or find it boring they can just ignore it and leave it and it will fade away into the many pages of this forums colourful history and never offend anyone ever again, unless someone bumps it back up again !...

Will someone who voted for Klitschko explain why they voted Klitschko as # 1 in 2004-2005 when he didn't even have a fight in 2005?

Decagon wrote:All the poll showed is that a lot of people who browse this forum - but don't post - vote in the polls. In the other poll, four idiots voted "Yes, of course Vitali Klitschko is a Hall-of-Famer." Where are those four idiots? Not a single one actually posted on the topic. Further, of that dozen and a half people who voted that Klitschko was the #1 fighter in 2005 - a year he didn't even fight - only two or three of them actually posted on the topic.

No Vitali thread would be complete with out an unqualified post by our forum bore.

Ambling Alp wrote:Will someone who voted for Klitschko explain why they voted Klitschko as # 1 in 2004-2005 when he didn't even have a fight in 2005?

He still ruled supreme. Nobody could have touched him.

Decagon wrote:All the poll showed is that a lot of people who browse this forum - but don't post - vote in the polls. In the other poll, four idiots voted "Yes, of course Vitali Klitschko is a Hall-of-Famer." Where are those four idiots? Not a single one actually posted on the topic. Further, of that dozen and a half people who voted that Klitschko was the #1 fighter in 2005 - a year he didn't even fight - only two or three of them actually posted on the topic.

Just because some of the people who voted for Vitali didnt stay on the thread and whine away for days like you doesnt invalidate their votes!... or is that too complicated for you to understand?. When you take part in a vote you're not asked to write an essay justifying your reason for your decision... fact is those with your point of view lost the poll fair and square, ...get over it!... 8)

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Will someone who voted for Klitschko explain why they voted Klitschko as # 1 in 2004-2005 when he didn't even have a fight in 2005?

He still ruled supreme. Nobody could have touched him.

Except of course for Byrd who defeated him and made him quit.

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Will someone who voted for Klitschko explain why they voted Klitschko as # 1 in 2004-2005 when he didn't even have a fight in 2005?

He still ruled supreme. Nobody could have touched him.

Of course, because he was too afraid to fight anyone. Hasim Rahman chased him into retirement!

This makes two unqualified posts.

Decagon wrote:Klitschko was too injured to fight during all of 2005. When he's injured, he loses. He refused to fight Hasim Rahman in their fourth attempt at a bout even though he was medically cleared to fight.

Double unqualified post, brings the total count to four.

Decagon wrote:What do you mean by "unqualified"? It's well known that Quitschko was injured all of 2005 and unable to fight.

I know one when I see one. Btw, this was your unqualified post #5 in this thread.
Your current total I estimate at 3322.

Decagon wrote:Sorry, I've written for several websites, including Inside Fighting and CBS Sportsline. My qualifications are fine.

Why do you talk such biased crap then???...

Terence wrote:So being the best for one year makes you great Pundit?

Where did I write this?

Decagon wrote:Klitschko was injured all of 2005 and unable to fight. It's stupid to say that he was the best fighter in 2005. What's biased about that?

It's unqualified.

Terence wrote:

pundit wrote:

Terence wrote:So being the best for one year makes you great Pundit?

Where did I write this?

In the title of this thread, by saying he was the best in 2004 you are putting him forward for HOF status, it is part of the new voting system.

Where did I put Vitali forward for HOF status???

Terence wrote:

pundit wrote:

Terence wrote: In the title of this thread, by saying he was the best in 2004 you are putting him forward for HOF status, it is part of the new voting system.

Where did I put Vitali forward for HOF status???

Evidently you are a literalist.

VK didn't fight in 2005 did he? Are we giving guys points for nearly fighting in 2005 only for HBO to pull the plug on an easy fight and asking the guy to defend against a decent foe.

VK didn't fight in 2005, but he was still considered the #1 heavyweight that year.

Pundit, I think you need to get a life. Move on, son.