Wladimirs resume is excellent...

[Peter Plys 44]

Wlad is by far the greatest HW ever - comparing Wlad to Ali is like comparing Usian Bolt to Jesse Owens. Ali would barely be top 25 today as Owens would not even be top 250 today.

[imp]

One thing thats evident is that these brothers dominate this post lewis era. Whether you like their style or not.

[Dropanuke]

To me his record should put in in top 3 p4p

[ono]

He's a good fighter with a good resume but no matter how you break it down, he's fighting in a very very weak era. Not his fault but he's had to spend the majority of his career fighting very mediocre opposition.

Take away his size advantage and I dont see anything special in him. That's why I wouldn't have him in my pound for pound list. For example, if he was 147lbs I don't think he'd make much of a dent at welterweight.

Dont mean to interrupt all the wanking going on in here. Just don't see anything in him talent wise. He's merely a good fighter with a big physical advantage in an embarrassingly poor division.

[Peter Plys 44]

He's a good fighter with a good resume but no matter how you break it down, he's fighting in a very very weak era. Not his fault but he's had to spend the majority of his career fighting very mediocre opposition.

Take away his size advantage and I dont see anything special in him. That's why I wouldn't have him in my pound for pound list. For example, if he was 147lbs I don't think he'd make much of a dent at welterweight.

Dont mean to interrupt all the wanking going on in here. Just don't see anything in him talent wise. He's merely a good fighter with a big physical advantage in an embarrassingly poor division.

Why the heck should you take away Wlad's size and other physical advantages? Wlad was born to grow his height but his body is a result of 25 years of disipline and hard training. Would you also take away Tyson's speed, Ali's chin or Big George's power? - or are there other rules for them than for Wlad? Weak era and not talent for Wlad?.... Wlad became Olympic champ in 1996 and he is top dog 16 years later - how is that possible without special talent?

[ono]

I'm not, but if he was the same size as any other elite fighter, do you think he'd stand out?

[Peter Plys 44]

I'm not, but if he was the same size as any other elite fighter, do you think he'd stand out?

He has defeated boxers just as heavy or heavier than himself. Size is not the ultimate weapon in boxing. Look at Ustinov, Valuev and 100s of others boxers. Every boxer has to use his weapons good or bad.

I best answer your question with another question: would Bolt be a good marathon runner if he lost 20 cm of his height and 50 pounds of his weight?

[Gandalf]

Vitali is a better fighter than Wlad, so Wlad isn't even the best fighter of his own generation let alone all time.

[THE PHILOSOPHER]

Vitali is a better fighter than Wlad, so Wlad isn't even the best fighter of his own generation let alone all time.

No he isn't.

It seems like a lot of people are making their decisions based on chins. That has nothing to do with who the better fighter is. If it does then ask yourselves a simple question: who's the better fighter, James Toney or Roy Jones? Both great fighters, but Toney definitely has the better chin. I'd say the majority of us would say Jones is the better fighter, though.

Sure Wlad got kayoed early in his career and then taken out by Sanders, but Brewster beat him because he just had nothing left in the tank. What has Klitschko done since his last loss? Improved. His defense is better, his pace more measured- you can see him in there thinking instead of simply trying to blast away opponents (which would probably work with 99% of them). He could have pulled the trigger on Calvin Brock 1-2 rounds earlier than he did, he could have taken out Austin in a single round, he could have put Chris Byrd away sooner considering Byrd played right into his fight.

It wasn't lack of ability that made these kayoes come later, Klitschko was playing chess master and once all the pieces were in the right order he moved in for a checkmate.

Who's the long reigning linear champ? Who won olympic gold? Who has the better resume? Wlad is better.

[THE PHILOSOPHER]

I'm not, but if he was the same size as any other elite fighter, do you think he'd stand out?

He has defeated boxers just as heavy or heavier than himself. Size is not the ultimate weapon in boxing. Look at Ustinov, Valuev and 100s of others boxers. Every boxer has to use his weapons good or bad.

I best answer your question with another question: would Bolt be a good marathon runner if he lost 20 cm of his height and 50 pounds of his weight?

If they would have been the size you mention they would be completely different fighters. So asking that question doesn't make any sense. It's like saying what if Shaquille O'Neal were 6 feet 3 inches.

The klitschkos have other attributes that set them apart! How good would Sonny Liston be if he didn't have an 84" reach advantage? How good would Foreman be without such emense power in both hands? How good would Ali be if he wasn't so agile or quick on his feet?

Size was never talked about when Hearns was fighting! David Tua had an unfair left hook advantage.
James Toney had an unfair Defense advantage. Roy Jones had an unfair hand speed advantage. Joe calzaghe had an unfair rapid fire advantage. LOL. It's just like Usain Bolt in the sprint races. Advantage? Unfair? Nobody sayin so!

[THE PHILOSOPHER]

I'm not, but if he was the same size as any other elite fighter, do you think he'd stand out?

Yes.

What is this nonsense about size! If it were to do with size then why cant fellow eastern europeans timo hoffman and dimitrenko match what the klitschkos do! American e'g's? Lance whitaker? Corey sanders? Derrick jefferson? It is there ability not there size!!

And in regards to size obviously those who use this accusation never felt the urge to check the records of other famous boxers like Ali or Foreman. Because it's actually them who notoriously outweighed their opponents...

name of the fighter and in how many fights the boxer has been out-weighed (in no particular order):

-George Foreman 11% (9 of 81 fights)
-Sonny Liston 18% (10 of 54)
-Joe Louis 22% (16 of 70)
-Vitali Klitschko 27% (12 of 43)
-Lennox Lewis 27% (12 of 44)
-Muhammad Ali 27% (17 of 61)
-Riddick Bowe 31% (14 of 45)
-Ron Lyle 37% (19 of 51)
-Earnie Shavers 37% (34 of 90)
-Joe Frazier 40% (15 of 37)
-Ken Norton 40% (20 of 50)
-Wladimir Klitschko 46% (27 of 50)
-Larry Holmes 46% (35 of 75)
-Mike Tyson 55% (32 of 50)
-Evander Holyfield 81% (45 of 55)

You know the critics have no arguments left when they are using this old cliche.

[Althugz]

I'm not, but if he was the same size as any other elite fighter, do you think he'd stand out?

Yes.<br />
<br />
What is this nonsense about size! If it were to do with size then why cant fellow eastern europeans timo hoffman and dimitrenko match what the klitschkos do! American e'g's? Lance whitaker? Corey sanders? Derrick jefferson? It is there ability not there size!!<br />
<br />
And in regards to size obviously those who use this accusation never felt the urge to check the records of other famous boxers like Ali or Foreman. Because it's actually them who notoriously outweighed their opponents...<br />
<br />
name of the fighter and in how many fights the boxer has been out-weighed (in no particular order): <br />
<br />
-George Foreman 11% (9 of 81 fights) <br />
-Sonny Liston 18% (10 of 54) <br />
-Joe Louis 22% (16 of 70) <br />
-Vitali Klitschko 27% (12 of 43) <br />
-Lennox Lewis 27% (12 of 44) <br />
-Muhammad Ali 27% (17 of 61) <br />
-Riddick Bowe 31% (14 of 45) <br />
-Ron Lyle 37% (19 of 51) <br />
-Earnie Shavers 37% (34 of 90) <br />
-Joe Frazier 40% (15 of 37) <br />
-Ken Norton 40% (20 of 50) <br />
-Wladimir Klitschko 46% (27 of 50) <br />
-Larry Holmes 46% (35 of 75) <br />
-Mike Tyson 55% (32 of 50) <br />
-Evander Holyfield 81% (45 of 55) <br />
<br />
You know the critics have no arguments left when they are using this old cliche.

<br />
<br />

Useless stats - Those who outweigh Wlad do so due to lazyness for the most part. Heavies were generally in better shape back then. While I don't agree nor disagree with your point , you're using stats again that don't paint a full picture.

I rate Wlad, I think he would have held his own in most eras but I think we'd have seen a couple more losses on his record. I get the feeling somebody like Kenny Norton would have given him trouble or guys like Frazier who were great at slipping and sliding while getting inside.

[THE PHILOSOPHER]

I get the feeling somebody like Kenny Norton would have given him trouble or guys like Frazier who were great at slipping and sliding while getting inside

I Just posted a frazier thread.

[imp]

He's a good fighter with a good resume but no matter how you break it down, he's fighting in a very very weak era. Not his fault but he's had to spend the majority of his career fighting very mediocre opposition.

Take away his size advantage and I dont see anything special in him. That's why I wouldn't have him in my pound for pound list. For example, if he was 147lbs I don't think he'd make much of a dent at welterweight.

Dont mean to interrupt all the wanking going on in here. Just don't see anything in him talent wise. He's merely a good fighter with a big physical advantage in an embarrassingly poor division.

I only agree on the £4£ issue.
Size should not be taken away as thats what makes him a good fighter with a good history.
But putting vlad and every other fighter in the £4£ list he wouldnt make the top ten...or would someone disagree.

[THE PHILOSOPHER]

He's a good fighter with a good resume but no matter how you break it down, he's fighting in a very very weak era. Not his fault but he's had to spend the majority of his career fighting very mediocre opposition.

Take away his size advantage and I dont see anything special in him. That's why I wouldn't have him in my pound for pound list. For example, if he was 147lbs I don't think he'd make much of a dent at welterweight.

Dont mean to interrupt all the wanking going on in here. Just don't see anything in him talent wise. He's merely a good fighter with a big physical advantage in an embarrassingly poor division.

I wouldn't call gold medallist chagaev mediocre! We all know byrd was world class too! Peter? Very dangerous fighter back in the day! Haye? 2 weight world champ (For certain would beat i.e Michael moorer!) Brock? Undefeated and was the best amateur in america back in the day! Did better against mcline than shannon briggs/michael grant did! Ibragimov? Great amateur, certainly a better pro than i.e Oleg maskaev (see there fights with lance whitaker!) Schooled briggs!

Your credentials please? I'm assuming you are a step above these gold medallists and undefeated HW'S? I think your criticism and posters like u stems from the fear that wlad may have beaten your heroes! Nothing wrong with his opponents.

58-3.....LOL. Embarrassingly poor post to a truly top thread!