Are the Klitschko brothers alltime greats?

I don't think the Klits are all time greats, but they're definitely all time gayts.

 

dont be modest. youd have whupped lewis that night to, *Z*ima

 

We should discuss it over a nice malt beverage.

 

::

 

No doubt these sick freaks fondle each other

 

:laughing:

 

Maybe, but at least they don't gayge fight.

 

I didn't answer it because I tried to point out that it is not necessarily an important one. Yes, there is probably no other heavyweight great with three KO defeats, but does that automatically mean that a guy who does can not be great? Considering that we have heavyweight greats who have

- blatantly ducked their best opponents for years (Dempsey, Johnson, late Holmes)
- less than five title defenses (Foreman, Liston, Tunney)
- never actually been dominant in the division (Holyfield)
- never beaten another even borderline great fighter (Holmes)

I am not sure if even three KO losses is a critical matter. It could also be pointed out that there has never been a fighter who had reigned for seven years, never been close of losing and beaten pretty much all the best opponents available and is NOT called great. Wlad could be the first, of course, but it depends on our definition

 

::

 

I didn't read the thread, what was irish take on this?

 

I'm sure Wlad appreciates your love and your spin doctoring. But trying to sweep those losses under the rug is a fanboy move. And they are not just KO losses, but they are KO losses to fighters that a fighter of Wlad's supposed status shouldn't lose to. Wins AND losses matter when properly analyzing a fighter's career as whole. You can choose to ignore parts of Wlad's career that don't work for you, but doing so really doesn't help your case.

Boxing isn't like some other sports, the numbers DO lie. Just looking at the number of defenses or being undefeated for a certain amount of time doesn't tell the whole story (which is why fans of fighters with weak resumes do this), the quality of the wins AND losses are more important.

 

No need to take this to personal level, once again

I can accept your take on that losing three times to lesser fighters DQs the fighter's chances to be called great, I really do understand it. I just don't agree, since there have been undeniably great fighters with several losses (although not at heavyweight) and because of all the other reasons I gave above.

 

True.

 

It's not only the three losses, but when you combine that with his mediocre opposition and never proving he was the best heavyweight in the world...I don't see Wlad as an all-timer.

If you want to strictly go by how many years and title defenses and ignore much of the info that actually sums up Wlad's career, then that's up to you. it doesn't work for me.

 

You never did list your alltime greats. When you do, you will look like a hypocrite.

 

what if his list contains lots of WBC mandatories?

 

If I had to pick one of them it would be VITALY...I give him a decent chance vs. a lot of all time greats....Wladimir? Too pussy to not get knock the fuck out...or...humiliated by All time great Heavy's like Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson,Ali,Foreman, Holmes, etc...

 

You can also argue the point as follows {and if what I say seems outlandish, then you would do well to have a look at some of the shit that has been written about fighters in the past.....}

1. Purritty, Sanders and Brewster all would have had great chances of kicking the shit out of a lot of formerly "Great" fighters....I mean, Joe Louis was put on his ass by people like Fatty Galento and Buddy Baer. I can see Sanders blast him out. It's entirely unfair on Louis of course- he was 4" shorter, flat-footed, chinny and weighed a lot less. But..the point stands.

2. Take the Sanders loss. Every fighter, bar a very very select few, has those sort of losses. Ali, then Cassius Clay, came close with Cooper. Now, you might say Cooper was way better than Sanders, which even if it was true, would not explain how truly excellent fighters like Emile Griffith came to be blasted out by the truly average likes of Hurricane Carter. These things do happen, especially in the heavyweight division.

3. Purritty...pure inexperience, he dominated throughout.....was 20lbs lighter than his opponent and had been ill the week of the fight, and la Griffith vs the totally inferior Benvenuti, got so caught up in the pre-fight Hoopla {Griffith apparently spent more time getting his tux made up for the opening of the new MSG before the first Benvenuti fight than he did training} that he failed to give credit to a guy with a reputation for being very durable {Purritty was only stopped on a cut by Vitali and had gone the full distance with Sanders, Tommy Morrison..not exactly feather-fisted guys}. I think that was Wlad's 12th fight in a year.

As it happens, I don't put either man down as an "ATG"- drawing, as I do, a difference between being "Great" on one hand and being able to beat great fighters on the other.

 

It's one thing to have ONE of these type of losses. I do agree that every fighter, even the great ones, should get a "mulligan" for a bad or stoppage loss, but three of them, all to inferior fighters, is too much to overlook when making a case for a fighter as one of the very best ever.

And...there's a world of difference getting knocked down and getting up to win the fight and getting hurt and being stopped the way Wlad did.

Ali was knocked down early in his career, but he won the fights. He was also knocked down with a gigantic hook by Frazier in the last round of a brutal fight, but got up and didn't get stopped or staggered around the ring looking like a drunk after last call. He avenged that loss twice in rematches. He also had his jaw broken in a close loss to Kenny Norton (one of the very best non-great heavies ever) and got back in the ring with Norton as soon as he could after his jaw healed and won the rematch.

Louis had the upset loss to Schmeling (a former world champ and a good & experienced veteran at that point in his career), but each time he got knocked down during his ridiculously long title reign he got up and won the fight. And...Louis had the KO loss to Schmeling, and not only avenged that loss in a big way, but after he beat Braddock he said he didn't really consider himself to be the real champ until he fought Schmeling again. Wlad, on the other hand...was KOed by Sanders and needed to get his big brother to beat up Sanders and "even" the score.

Larry Holmes was knocked down and seriously hurt against Snipes and Shavers, but got up and stopped both of them. Holmes also suffered a knockdown early in his career against Kevin Issac, but he got up and won by stoppage.

These three fighters should be in the top few of anyone's Greatest Heavyweights list. And when comparing Wlad's career to theirs, it doesn't really stack up.

When it comes to Wlad, it's kinda like that old saying about "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me..." and I'm imaging "fool me thrice" is even more embarrassing.

Wlad is a really good heavy who has had a very successful career and will voted be in the Boxing Hall of Fame when he retires, but his career falls short of being one of the very best. There's no shame in that.