Vladimir Klitschko, Top Ten Worthy?

[HomicideHenry]

Okay, okay, everyone's gonna have a shit fit but hear me out....

You can't criticize Klitschko for fighting in an era void of real threats, because let's face it Joe Louis and Larry Holmes essentially fought in the same climate and era as Vladimir, so that logic goes out the window...

You can't criticize Klitschkofor his kayo defeats, because he regrouped and since then has had 17 title defenses, he is but 5 away from tying Holmes and 8 away from tying Joe Louis, and let's face it can you see anyone in five years being able to take him outside of Vitali (and we know that fight will never happen)....

You can't keep wearing the rose colored glasses and say a guy like Joe Frazier or Ali would have been a deadlock to of beaten him, when Frazier was flattened by 6'3" 215 pound George Foreman, and Ali never faced a man who had the size, skill, power, conditioning, ring generalship, and heart that Klitschko has (Ali's faced men almost as tall in Chuck Wepner and Terrell, faced men almost as heavy in Buster Mathis, faced men almost as skilled, etc)....

Sure you will say I'm being blasphemous, but let's figure he didn't fight Ali and Frazier, Foreman or Norton, etc. let's pose the question: Would Vladimir of beaten all of the men most heavyweight title holders defeated in title defenses? Marciano defended the belt againt Walcott, Charles, Moore and Cockell. Patterson defended the belt against Rademacher, London, Harris, etc. I mean when you go down the line, it's almost a certainty that Vladimir would have beaten the same guys that they did.

So, I ask the forum, is Klitschko top ten worthy, and if not why and what can he do to change your mind?

[Mendoza]

You could argue he is top 10 either legacy or head to head. Legacy these days is world wide.

The intriguing part of the equation is he has some good years ahead of him. If Wlad had Steward at the start of his career, I think he has 1-2 less losses.

[lufcrazy]

I dont think so just yet.

He's banging on the door due to achievemtns but his resume holds him back.

I believe I have him at number 12 behind Liston and Holmes. Those two I rank above him on H2H as they fall in the same tier.

[dinovelvet]

The excuse of no real threats for him wont wear anymore as there are plenty of decent HWs out there now and he seems to want no part of them.
It also plausible he could suffer another loss.
The ranking is irrelevant otherwise guys ranked 50-100 could claim they are ATG's.
When its all said and done he just wont be known as one of the greatest of all time.

[HomicideHenry]

Originally Posted by orriray59

I'm personally open-minded about all this. Have at it.


Of course you can't criticize Wladimir, as it isn't his fault, but it's a weak era nonetheless.

Not true. Louis and Holmes fought better opponents than Wlad in my opinion. A guy like Tim Witherspoon would in all likelihood be a dominant contender today.

What? Of course you can, and you should. Getting stopped thrice against guys like Puritty, Brewster and Sanders should be held against you when ranking a boxer, just like I hold Louis' loss to Schmeling against him.

But, Louis was the champion. Wlad is not as he still hasn't unified the belts yet. Louis was the champ.

Not really, no. And that's a testament to how good he is, as there's some good boxers around today with solid to great amateur credentials.


I do agree with this point of view, though I can still see strong arguments for Frazier being made and I'd heavily favor Ali over Wladimir. Heavily.

For the record, Foreman was 217lbs, a stylistic nightmare for Frazier and one of the hardest punchers to ever lace up gloves.
Bit ironic as well seeing as Wlad was devastated by lesser boxers, yet in your point of view we can't hold it against him.

Same thing can be said for Wlad, who's never fought a guy in the same stratosphere as Ali. Wladimir's best win is Chris Byrd, Ali's is prime Foreman. The gulf in class is ridiculously large, and should be a prominent factor.


I don't consider it blasphemy, I just disagree with a lot of points you're making, but I'm reading with an open mind.

Sure, because he's a great boxer and has the class to do so. But would he beat Liston, Foreman, Frazier? Who's to say?

Not yet, for me. But he's closing in.

Outside of Walcott, Conn and Schmeling in Louis' reign, there isn't no one on the defense list of Joe Louis I could see beating Vladimir. Even at that, Conn is simply too small, and I think its safe to say Vladimir has surpassed Schmeling as the greatest European heavyweight of all time; Schmeling was good, but tended to be too methodical for his own good. Walcott is the only man in that list I could see beating Vladimir, but even then it wouldnt of come easy for Walcott either.

As for Holmes, granted, 'Spoon and Weaver and Berbick were among the better men he defended the title to; but you can argue Cooney belongs there too. Even at that, I would argue Vladimir has the stuff to beat Berbick and Weaver; Cooney and Spoon would of been the tougher fights. Still, factor in the rest: Cobb, LeDoux, Leon Spinks, Frank, etc. Vladimir beats them all, including the man Holmes lost the title to Michael Spinks.

And.... true, Vladimir don't hold the WBA belt (Povetkin holds it) and sure Vitali holds the WBC belt, but let's face it Vladimir holds the WBO/IBF/RING/IBO belts and he only doesnt hold the WBA belt because of politics, and the WBC, well because the brothers wont fight. He is essentially the undisputed champion of the world, politics be damned. I think people place too much value on the trinkets today. The man with the most belts, or who is most dominate is indeed the champion. Holmes didnt hold all the belts, and neither did Ali at times, but they were still the man to beat.

[turbotime]

Nope. No. Uh uh.

[janitor]

As a student of boxing history, I would not have any problem with somebody putting Wlad in their top 10, based on his ring acomplishments to date.

I am not going to take the plunge yet, but if he keeps knocking off the ranked contenders the way he is, the question cannot be put off for ever.

[PetethePrince]

He's banging on the door. Realistically he has done enough to surpass Dempsey. And he's genuinely right there with Liston, if he hasn't passed him already. However, there are still ten names ahead of him and having him crack that list would be tough considering their opposition and their respective eras. For example, Holyfield was inconsistent but who exactly did Holyfield lose to? Tremendous fighters. But look who did he beat. Let's be honest, Holyfield is a guy that's borderline top 10 HW for most people which is why I used him as an example. You make a good case and there's certainly a good argument. It takes time for fighters to get their dues and usually they get a more balanced ranking once they've retired. The same can be said of guys like Tyson & Lewis. I don't like ranking active fighters for that very reason.

[Mr Butt]

Not yet for me

[McGrain]

Yeah, I could stand to see him there.

[KidDynamite]

ATG but not top 10.

not yet.

[janitor]

I guess the question you have to ask, is when his title reign starts to compare to that of Larry Holmes.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by janitor

I guess the question you have to ask, is when his title reign starts to compare to that of Larry Holmes.

But even Holmes has the luxury of going 48-0. And while Wlad is virtually unified (Barring his brother, which is a big crux against him), he still lost to multiple fighters. Brewster was a good, tough, strong, perhaps underrated fighter but not a great fighter. Not a fighter Wlad was supposed to lose too. Sanders had firepower, but he was pushing forty and Purity never should've happened.

It can be argued to some extent that Wlad has equal quality in his reign compared to Holmes. In fact, it could be argued to be superior considering his dominance in comparison to Holmes. It's an interesting prospect and point of reflection.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

But even Holmes has the luxury of going 48-0. And while Wlad is virtually unified (Barring his brother, which is a big crux against him), he still lost to multiple fighters. Brewster was a good, tough, strong, perhaps underrated fighter but not a great fighter. Not a fighter Wlad was supposed to lose too. Sanders had firepower, but he was pushing forty and Purity never should've happened.

It can be argued to some extent that Wlad has equal quality in his reign compared to Holmes. In fact, it could be argued to be superior considering his dominance in comparison to Holmes. It's an interesting prospect and point of reflection.

And that is how the question is likley to be played out!

[rusak]

Originally Posted by HomicideHenry

Outside of Walcott, Conn and Schmeling in Louis' reign, there isn't no one on the defense list of Joe Louis I could see beating Vladimir. Even at that, Conn is simply too small, and I think its safe to say Vladimir has surpassed Schmeling as the greatest European heavyweight of all time; Schmeling was good, but tended to be too methodical for his own good. Walcott is the only man in that list I could see beating Vladimir, but even then it wouldnt of come easy for Walcott either.

Schmeling is a slow runt counterpuncher. He has no chance against Vlad, gets beaten like he stole something. Walcott absolutely cannot take what Vlad dishes out and doesn't stay away enough, Vlad by brutal KO.