Where do you rank Wladimir Klitschko among the ATG heavyweights?

How would you rate his career up until the end of 2014?

I think he's well into the all-time top ten now, arguably in the top 5.

He's only 8 fights away from Joe Louis record of 25 title defences

Who thinks he can do it..?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/heavywe...7956--box.html

Full Fight here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdW4YluD5Y

He's top 10 for sure. Over 10 years of undefeated dominance, 18 years with only 3 losses, and despite what people think, he's fought some serious competition.

Give me Wlad's competition over Joe Louis' any day of the week.

He can go anywhere between 9 and 11 depending on how you rate Johnson, Dempsey ahead of behind him.

I voted top 15. But could be in the lower half of the bottom 10.

Total wins, successful title defenses, reclaiming the title, getting up from the canvas to win, getting a KO late in a title fight....

Wladimir is an All-Time Great, top 10 no doubt

The knock on Wlad will always be that he has no hall of famers on his CV. I would have to look at the list, but one has to think bottom 10 to 20.

Give or take one or two, these guys probably all rank above him:

Dempsey, Johnson, Ali, Louis, Foreman, Lewis, Holyfield, Marciano, Jeffries, and Holmes. I'm not saying about head to head, but on legacy and resume, I'm not sure how you rank him above most of those guys.

With that said, his ranking might improve if he smashes through the Holmes and Louis records. However, his ranking might also be cast in stone because are wins over Jennings, Wilder, Stiverne, Fury, Chisora, Huck any better than the guys he's already faced like Povetkin, Pulev etc.? I would argue that they aren't.

He is outside the top 10 because of his defeats which are embarrassing. He has improved but takes far too long to beat opponents that he should easily beat. His consistency and the way he conducts himself is all credit to him.

We always get these threads after Wlad kos another inept heavyweight.
No way in top ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberto duran legend

We always get these threads after Wlad kos another inept heavyweight.
No way in top ten.

---

Inept? You act like Pulev was of the same ilk as Lepai....both earned their shots legitimately but Pulev was undefeated, fought some decent competition, looked like the best challenger out of the entire division......if Pulev looked "inept" it's because Wladimir MADE HIM LOOK INEPT.

10 years, 17 consecutive successful title defenses....only 2 heavyweights can boast better or even similar Championship reigns....Larry Holmes and Joe Louis....they are top 10 greats no questions asked and so is Wladimir.

Top 10 for me.

Found this article on Wladimir.
Wladimir Klitschko Would've Been A Title Threat In Any Era

For me, he has been to 10 ever since he unified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberto duran legend

We always get these threads after Wlad kos another inept heavyweight.
No way in top ten.

---

I also used to think this but he deserves to be put in the top ten but not in the top five.

Wherever he is in the top ten vitali is in a better position.

I would put Wlad in the top 15 but I'd put his jab in the top five.

If a flagrantly out of shape Lennox busted his brother open- needing a bazillion stitches. A Prime Lewis does to him what Vitali did to Shannon the cannon-mouth.

Ali 64-67 was too fast, too talented, with masterful reflexes.

Since styles make fights, earnie Shavers who lost his biggest fights would've stopped Wladimir IMO.

I'm not sure about Holmes, or even Tyson. If a prime Tyson couldn't stop Ruddock (legit) like fight two which went 12 rounds...Both K2's could've...maybe defeated Tyson.

Steward did a masterful job with Lewis and so, too Wlad.
Simply masterful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Since styles make fights, earnie Shavers who lost his biggest fights would've stopped Wladimir IMO.

I'm not sure about Holmes, or even Tyson. If a prime Tyson couldn't stop Ruddock (legit) like fight two which went 12 rounds...Both K2's could've...maybe defeated Tyson.

---

Shavers would be lucky to have lasted past 3 with Wlad. He was a bum.

i remember years ago thinking that wlad was highly overrated. he was so one dimensional yet, steward helped him become effective in that one dimension. his biggest downfall for me though is not just that he got KO'd by lesser opponents (because i could get past that), but its that in my mind, he became dominant when the rest of the decent HWs retired. i regard the HW division of the last 10 years very low. honestly, i dont put anybody on wlads list of victims above a C level fighter (and thats being generous to some). the best fighters that he has faced are byrd and haye. i think that he had a perfect style to beat byrd so that was more of a style makes fights. haye was a decent win but i feel like haye was scared and could have made it more competitive if he would have tried.

either way, his lack of good opposition is to his detriment because he has shown me that he has gotten better over the years, but hasnt shown me that he has truly fixed his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. because of his accomplishments though, i have to put him in the top 15.

Top 15 and every time he fights he's inching up. The closer he gets to the record for title defenses the faster he climbs.
It doesn't matter whether you like his style or not, the man is within reach of another major boxing prize…arguably the biggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i remember years ago thinking that wlad was highly overrated. he was so one dimensional yet, steward helped him become effective in that one dimension. his biggest downfall for me though is not just that he got KO'd by lesser opponents (because i could get past that), but its that in my mind, he became dominant when the rest of the decent HWs retired. i regard the HW division of the last 10 years very low. honestly, i dont put anybody on wlads list of victims above a C level fighter (and thats being generous to some). the best fighters that he has faced are byrd and haye. i think that he had a perfect style to beat byrd so that was more of a style makes fights. haye was a decent win but i feel like haye was scared and could have made it more competitive if he would have tried.

either way, his lack of good opposition is to his detriment because he has shown me that he has gotten better over the years, but hasnt shown me that he has truly fixed his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. because of his accomplishments though, i have to put him in the top 15.

---

In saying all that about Wlad, what would you say about Joe Louis' competition? Or Rocky Marciano's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Since styles make fights, earnie Shavers who lost his biggest fights would've stopped Wladimir IMO.

I'm not sure about Holmes, or even Tyson. If a prime Tyson couldn't stop Ruddock (legit) like fight two which went 12 rounds...Both K2's could've...maybe defeated Tyson.

---

Shavers would be lucky to have lasted past 3 with Wlad. He was a bum.

---

You mean the bum that all the 1970's HW greats talked about?! LMAO!

Let's stroll for a quick minute down memory land--and then (diss') the fighters who made these statements, cool?
Shavers:
68 out of 74 fights ended by KO; 76% KO ratio

1. Ali said "Earnie hit me so hard, he shook my kinfolk back in Africa!" Apparently Ali wasn't quick enough to evade the shots of a (bum).

2. Larry Holmes said "Shavers was the hardest hitting fighter I met in the ring. Being hit by Mike Tyson was like getting hit by a speeding Ferrari. Being hit by Earnie Shavers was like being hit by a Mac Truck!" Apparently Holmes' jab wasn't superior enough to keep this (bum) at bay.

3. By your standard was the Ken Norton who took Ali 39 rounds a bum when he got KO'd 1st round by Shavers?

4. Seven fighters retired after being knocked out by Shavers: Ron Asher, Frank Smith, Bunky Akins, Bill McMurray, Harold Carter, Eddie Parotte, and Larry Sims. How many has Wlad retired?

5. Shavers recorded 23 first-round knockouts and 50 knockouts within the first three rounds.

So the bum label seems different from my claim of (styles) makes fights.

If Peters' style of fight could hurt & drop Wlad, Was that a bum that did that? Would you say Peter isn't a bum, but Shavers is?

Ross Purity--what was he? Serious when Wlad's corner stopped the fight? Was Purity a bum?

Corrie Sanders? Surely he was a bum too?

But look at his (style) of fight. Same as Lamon Brewster.

Interesting debate I'd like to partake with you-respecting a lot of your posts, btw. So not so much do you agree with me, but do you see a trend?

Wlad didn't lose to fighters with different styles, let alone was troubled by flee-footed fighters like Chris Byrd. If anything Byrd who is NOT a bum...was beaten by Wlad like a BUM.

Then IMO Shavers style of a heavy handed, flat footed-come-get-some-style could knocked him out...LIKE THE OTHER BUMS WHO STOPPED WLAD..or were they not bums?

Not to say knockdowns from both fighters could have occurred as Shavers was suspect in the chin department I admit.

But I am relieved if not curious you chose that mythical prediction over the one about Tyson/Holmes.
Interesting to say the least...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i remember years ago thinking that wlad was highly overrated. he was so one dimensional yet, steward helped him become effective in that one dimension. his biggest downfall for me though is not just that he got KO'd by lesser opponents (because i could get past that), but its that in my mind, he became dominant when the rest of the decent HWs retired. i regard the HW division of the last 10 years very low. honestly, i dont put anybody on wlads list of victims above a C level fighter (and thats being generous to some). the best fighters that he has faced are byrd and haye. i think that he had a perfect style to beat byrd so that was more of a style makes fights. haye was a decent win but i feel like haye was scared and could have made it more competitive if he would have tried.

either way, his lack of good opposition is to his detriment because he has shown me that he has gotten better over the years, but hasnt shown me that he has truly fixed his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. because of his accomplishments though, i have to put him in the top 15.

---

In saying all that about Wlad, what would you say about Joe Louis' competition? Or Rocky Marciano's?

---

Here; we agree. That is why I did that thread on the what era had the greatest HW's. It seems easy to clown HW eras, but rarily do we know how to cite our favorite..then defend our era as much as we attack other eras; particularly the era(s) of K2.
Dominant.;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

You mean the bum that all the 1970's HW greats talked about?! LMAO!

Let's stroll for a quick minute down memory land--and then (diss') the fighters who made these statements, cool?
Shavers:
68 out of 74 fights ended by KO; 76% KO ratio

1. Ali said "Earnie hit me so hard, he shook my kinfolk back in Africa!" Apparently Ali wasn't quick enough to evade the shots of a (bum).

2. Larry Holmes said "Shavers was the hardest hitting fighter I met in the ring. Being hit by Mike Tyson was like getting hit by a speeding Ferrari. Being hit by Earnie Shavers was like being hit by a Mac Truck!" Apparently Holmes' jab wasn't superior enough to keep this (bum) at bay.

3. By your standard was the Ken Norton who took Ali 39 rounds a bum when he got KO'd 1st round by Shavers?

4. Seven fighters retired after being knocked out by Shavers: Ron Asher, Frank Smith, Bunky Akins, Bill McMurray, Harold Carter, Eddie Parotte, and Larry Sims. How many has Wlad retired?

5. Shavers recorded 23 first-round knockouts and 50 knockouts within the first three rounds.

So the bum label seems different from my claim of (styles) makes fights.

If Peters' style of fight could hurt & drop Wlad, Was that a bum that did that? Would you say Peter isn't a bum, but Shavers is?

Ross Purity--what was he? Serious when Wlad's corner stopped the fight? Was Purity a bum?

Corrie Sanders? Surely he was a bum too?

But look at his (style) of fight. Same as Lamon Brewster.

Interesting debate I'd like to partake with you-respecting a lot of your posts, btw. So not so much do you agree with me, but do you see a trend?

Wlad didn't lose to fighters with different styles, let alone was troubled by flee-footed fighters like Chris Byrd. If anything Byrd who is NOT a bum...was beaten by Wlad like a BUM.

Then IMO Shavers style of a heavy handed, flat footed-come-get-some-style could knocked him out...LIKE THE OTHER BUMS WHO STOPPED WLAD..or were they not bums?

Not to say knockdowns from both fighters could have occurred as Shavers was suspect in the chin department I admit.

But I am relieved if not curious you chose that mythical prediction over the one about Tyson/Holmes.
Interesting to say the least...:rolleyes:

---

Earnie Shavers was a BUM. A hard hitting bum, but a bum none the less.

He fought an ancient Ali and did OK, he KO'd a Jimmy Ellis in the latter stages of his career, he stopped a 7-3 Jimmy Young, and he KO'd a Ken Norton at the end of his career. Oh and he caught Larry Holmes with a hail mary right hand. Good for him.

He was never champ, most of the guys he fought were shit, when he fought someone decent he'd usually lose. He had HUGE power, NO chin, NO heart, NO stamina, mediocre skills. He was a bum.

Enough with this guy. It's amazing how many people believe in the fairy tales of big bad Earnie Shavers who would have have swung his powerful fists and KO'd any HW champ who lived after 1980. It's nonsense. He SUCKED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i remember years ago thinking that wlad was highly overrated. he was so one dimensional yet, steward helped him become effective in that one dimension. his biggest downfall for me though is not just that he got KO'd by lesser opponents (because i could get past that), but its that in my mind, he became dominant when the rest of the decent HWs retired. i regard the HW division of the last 10 years very low. honestly, i dont put anybody on wlads list of victims above a C level fighter (and thats being generous to some). the best fighters that he has faced are byrd and haye. i think that he had a perfect style to beat byrd so that was more of a style makes fights. haye was a decent win but i feel like haye was scared and could have made it more competitive if he would have tried.

either way, his lack of good opposition is to his detriment because he has shown me that he has gotten better over the years, but hasnt shown me that he has truly fixed his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. because of his accomplishments though, i have to put him in the top 15.

---

In saying all that about Wlad, what would you say about Joe Louis' competition? Or Rocky Marciano's?

---

louis' competition is underrated. everybody brings up the bum of the month but nobody understands they called it that because he was black and it made his accomplishments seem less than what they were. you can imagine if it were a white man doing it, they definitely wouldnt be calling his fights the bum of the month.

with that said, louis fought some solid competition and fought bigger fighters too. max baer and schmelling were both very good fighters. baer was known as extremely dangerous and louis destroyed him. louis did lose to schmelling very early in his career but came back to easily win. billy conn was a great fighter although smaller but still very good. he fought both charles and walcott at the end of his career. charles is widely known as the best LHW ever and walcott was a solid HW who he KO'd in their second fight. there are a few other alright names on his resume. and again, you can say some of these fighters were small compared to todays HWs but he fought max baer, buddy baer, primo carnera, and abe simon who were all around the same size as todays HWs. and he KO'd them all.

marciano doesnt have a great resume. most of his competition was old when he fought them. he is a great fighter but i always have trouble ranking him because of the reason i have for ranking wlad. the competition just isnt there and marciano showed glaring weaknesses about being able to be outboxed. he was just durable and never gave up.

top 20

it would be higher but the competition isn't up to scratch

If he fights the young guns and wins I might put him in the top 15

Fair play to the guy and he impressed last time but he hasn't fought anyone who really had a chance


Job Biscuit (entertaining at least...for a change)!!!!



eh eh!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

louis' competition is underrated. everybody brings up the bum of the month but nobody understands they called it that because he was black and it made his accomplishments seem less than what they were. you can imagine if it were a white man doing it, they definitely wouldnt be calling his fights the bum of the month.

with that said, louis fought some solid competition and fought bigger fighters too. max baer and schmelling were both very good fighters. baer was known as extremely dangerous and louis destroyed him. louis did lose to schmelling very early in his career but came back to easily win. billy conn was a great fighter although smaller but still very good. he fought both charles and walcott at the end of his career. charles is widely known as the best LHW ever and walcott was a solid HW who he KO'd in their second fight. there are a few other alright names on his resume. and again, you can say some of these fighters were small compared to todays HWs but he fought max baer, buddy baer, primo carnera, and abe simon who were all around the same size as todays HWs. and he KO'd them all.

---

Well in terms of the black angle, they never called Jack Johnson's opponents Bum of the Month, or SRR's, so why was Joe so special?

In the end, the guy had a 25-fight title run and you could only bring up 4 names.

No doubt Louis fought some real good fighters too, but I'd be interested in knowing what made guys like Schmelling, Baer and Conn that much better HWs than guys like Povetkin, Wach, Thompson, Chambers, Peters, ect. Why are guys like Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera and Abe Simon any more dangerous than guys like David Haye or Samuel Peter?

So den, you don't think Foreman could have beat Wlad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

So den, you don't think

---

No, isn't it obvious?

woo!! woo!!....slow down...Wlad would have struggled beating his older brother let alone a live under dog.....look what happened when vitali klitschko fought a out of shape unfocused Lennox Lewis and then confirm to everyone how any of the Klits would have got into the top 15 let alone top 20??

Job Biscuit (This is ridiculas)!!!!


eh eh!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

louis' competition is underrated. everybody brings up the bum of the month but nobody understands they called it that because he was black and it made his accomplishments seem less than what they were. you can imagine if it were a white man doing it, they definitely wouldnt be calling his fights the bum of the month.

with that said, louis fought some solid competition and fought bigger fighters too. max baer and schmelling were both very good fighters. baer was known as extremely dangerous and louis destroyed him. louis did lose to schmelling very early in his career but came back to easily win. billy conn was a great fighter although smaller but still very good. he fought both charles and walcott at the end of his career. charles is widely known as the best LHW ever and walcott was a solid HW who he KO'd in their second fight. there are a few other alright names on his resume. and again, you can say some of these fighters were small compared to todays HWs but he fought max baer, buddy baer, primo carnera, and abe simon who were all around the same size as todays HWs. and he KO'd them all.

---

Well in terms of the black angle, they never called Jack Johnson's opponents Bum of the Month, or SRR's, so why was Joe so special?

In the end, the guy had a 25-fight title run and you could only bring up 4 names.

No doubt Louis fought some real good fighters too, but I'd be interested in knowing what made guys like Schmelling, Baer and Conn that much better HWs than guys like Povetkin, Wach, Thompson, Chambers, Peters, ect. Why are guys like Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera and Abe Simon any more dangerous than guys like David Haye or Samuel Peter?

---

louis was targeted because being the HW champion was something special that a black man shouldnt have the opportunity to have. jack johnson did have a bum of the month because he didnt defend his title as much and as long as louis did.

i mainly named fighters like carnera and simon to prove a point that some people have (not saying you) that all HW fighters used to be small (like around 200 lbs). louis beat fighters who were well over 6 feet and weighed well into the 200's. i understand that carnera isnt really that good and was kind of a joke.

but to answer your question, its an eye test. i have seen quite a bit of film of baer and schmelling. enough footage to rate them fairly accurately. ive probably seen more footage of them than ive seen of certain wlad opponents like wach or povetkin. i feel like when i watch many of wlads opponents, they remind me of carnera. big but slow. they probably have a decent punch because of their size but lack many basic fundamentals. haye is one opponent who was better but used his athleticism more than his fundamentals. if he fought a smarter fight, he probably could have won that fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denilson200

Here are ten heavyweights who would have beaten Klitschko and I'm only going to remain in the last 30 years of heavyweights

Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Larry Holmes
Tim Witherspoon
Riddick Bowe
Evander Holfield
Razor Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Micheal Spinks

As for ATG heavyweights I think Klitschko would struggle to get in my top 30.

---

I'll give you Tyson, Lewis, and Holyfield just for argument's sake...but Witherspoon, Bowe, Rudduck, Mercer, Bruno, Spinks, and Larry Holmes?!?!?! That is ridiculous and of course in being specific "I'm only going to remain in the last 30 years of heavyweights" means you're going back to 1984....so yeah 1984 Larry Holmes wouldn't last with Wladimir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Since styles make fights, earnie Shavers who lost his biggest fights would've stopped Wladimir IMO.

I'm not sure about Holmes, or even Tyson. If a prime Tyson couldn't stop Ruddock (legit) like fight two which went 12 rounds...Both K2's could've...maybe defeated Tyson.

---

Shavers would be lucky to have lasted past 3 with Wlad. He was a bum.

---

At 6 foot Shavers has 0 chance against Wlad. Wouldnt get close to tagging him and Wlad would just lean on him on the inside. Shavers might win the 1st round, maybe the 2nd but after that hed just be drained and and Wlad would jab him to submission getting stopped before the end of the 7th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i remember years ago thinking that wlad was highly overrated. he was so one dimensional yet, steward helped him become effective in that one dimension. his biggest downfall for me though is not just that he got KO'd by lesser opponents (because i could get past that), but its that in my mind, he became dominant when the rest of the decent HWs retired. i regard the HW division of the last 10 years very low. honestly, i dont put anybody on wlads list of victims above a C level fighter (and thats being generous to some). the best fighters that he has faced are byrd and haye. i think that he had a perfect style to beat byrd so that was more of a style makes fights. haye was a decent win but i feel like haye was scared and could have made it more competitive if he would have tried.

either way, his lack of good opposition is to his detriment because he has shown me that he has gotten better over the years, but hasnt shown me that he has truly fixed his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. because of his accomplishments though, i have to put him in the top 15.

---

In saying all that about Wlad, what would you say about Joe Louis' competition? Or Rocky Marciano's?

---

louis' competition is underrated. everybody brings up the bum of the month but nobody understands they called it that because he was black and it made his accomplishments seem less than what they were. you can imagine if it were a white man doing it, they definitely wouldnt be calling his fights the bum of the month.

with that said, louis fought some solid competition and fought bigger fighters too. max baer and schmelling were both very good fighters. baer was known as extremely dangerous and louis destroyed him. louis did lose to schmelling very early in his career but came back to easily win. billy conn was a great fighter although smaller but still very good. he fought both charles and walcott at the end of his career. charles is widely known as the best LHW ever and walcott was a solid HW who he KO'd in their second fight. there are a few other alright names on his resume. and again, you can say some of these fighters were small compared to todays HWs but he fought max baer, buddy baer, primo carnera, and abe simon who were all around the same size as todays HWs. and he KO'd them all.

marciano doesnt have a great resume. most of his competition was old when he fought them. he is a great fighter but i always have trouble ranking him because of the reason i have for ranking wlad. the competition just isnt there and marciano showed glaring weaknesses about being able to be outboxed. he was just durable and never gave up.

---

Ask me bollow. there is not one fighter on Louis rec that would beat Wlad. Part of the reason hes considered such a great fighter is because he was black in such a tough era for black americans. If he was white he wouldnt be held in such high regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

louis was targeted because being the HW champion was something special that a black man shouldnt have the opportunity to have. jack johnson did have a bum of the month because he didnt defend his title as much and as long as louis did.

i mainly named fighters like carnera and simon to prove a point that some people have (not saying you) that all HW fighters used to be small (like around 200 lbs). louis beat fighters who were well over 6 feet and weighed well into the 200's. i understand that carnera isnt really that good and was kind of a joke.

but to answer your question, its an eye test. i have seen quite a bit of film of baer and schmelling. enough footage to rate them fairly accurately. ive probably seen more footage of them than ive seen of certain wlad opponents like wach or povetkin. i feel like when i watch many of wlads opponents, they remind me of carnera. big but slow. they probably have a decent punch because of their size but lack many basic fundamentals. haye is one opponent who was better but used his athleticism more than his fundamentals. if he fought a smarter fight, he probably could have won that fight.

---

Yeah but Jack Johnson was also HW champ and I don't remember ever reading or hearing anyone calling his opponents "Bum of the Month" club. Whether they did it to Louis because he was black or not, the name was appropriate because a lot of those motherfuckers were bums, in some cases I'm sure both literally and figuratively.

Joe beat some big boys, the Baer brothers were big and could fight, but were they really that better than a Tony Thompson, or someone along those lines? What did they do specifically that was better than Thompson, or Rahman, or whoever.

Wlad whipped a lot of big guys, but he also whipped a lot of good small guys, too. He dominated a prime Chris Byrd, someone with world class boxing mechanics (and a guy who Lennox Lewis refused to fight). Calvin Brock, Eddie Chambers, Haye, Mormeck... these were all smaller, mobile guys with solid mechanics in there. What did Schmeling do that these guys couldn't?

Lennox refused to fight Byrd and Ruiz so what? He would have beat them anyway and he chose bigger and better opposition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lennox refused to fight Byrd and Ruiz so what? He would have beat them anyway and he chose bigger and better opposition

---

I don't know if I'd classify guys like Frans Botha, Tua, Rahman, and whoever else he was fighting at the time as being better than Byrd. They were hot fighters at the time for sure, but Byrd had that crafty, nasty style that would have given Lewis fits. And Ruiz had that ugly wrestling style.

I'm not saying Lewis would have lost to either of them, but I think it's pretty obvious he felt that there was a good possibility he wouldn't look good fighting either of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lennox refused to fight Byrd and Ruiz so what? He would have beat them anyway and he chose bigger and better opposition

---

I don't know if I'd classify guys like Frans Botha, Tua, Rahman, and whoever else he was fighting at the time as being better than Byrd. They were hot fighters at the time for sure, but Byrd had that crafty, nasty style that would have given Lewis fits. And Ruiz had that ugly wrestling style.

I'm not saying Lewis would have lost to either of them, but I think it's pretty obvious he felt that there was a good possibility he wouldn't look good fighting either of them.

---

I think the main reason he didn't fight Byrd and Ruiz is because one or both were handled by Don King at the time and that's what kept the belts divided up for so long....greedy promoters not willing to risk their cash cows.

I think if Lewis would have had a problem with Byrd or Ruiz it would have been Byrd. I believe Lewis was certainly strong and quick enough to dispatch Ruiz early on and Ruiz could block shots but avoiding them altogether? Not so much.

Lewis would have beaten both, but everyone knows he wanted to fight Kirk Johnson win by dominant KO and call it a career.

I can see why Lennox didn't take the fight with Byrd because he wanted the Tyson showdown, but I still say he would have struggled heavily vs Byrd. I think Chris was a brutal matchup for him, especially at that stage of his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I can see why Lennox didn't take the fight with Byrd because he wanted the Tyson showdown, but I still say he would have struggled heavily vs Byrd. I think Chris was a brutal matchup for him, especially at that stage of his career.

---

Chris Byrd was a really good heavyweight and I hate that he doesn't get more credit. Good defense, fast hands, not much power, but he shocked a few guys out there.

For sure, IMO one of the best pure boxers in the history of the HW division. Ballsy too. Took the fight with Vitali on 7 days notice, even in losing the first half of the fight he was making Vitali miss and frustrating him, then turned the pressure on, started hurting him with vicious body shots and started walking him down.

So even if Lennox beat him, he knew he wasn't knocking him out, he knew Chris was going to make him miss a lot, he knew Chris had no fear of him and he knew that he'd really have to work for every round and wouldn't be able to sit back and take rounds off. It's a tough fight for him, especially at that point.

Tua beat both Ruiz and was considered more dangerous than Byrd. Lewis was made £1million and a range rover for giving up his title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tua beat both Ruiz and was considered more dangerous than Byrd. Lewis was made £1million and a range rover for giving up his title.

---

David Tua did NOT beat Chris Byrd