Yes, but likelier still is the possibility of Norton sparking Haye out. Haye most probably loses a decision, though.
I used to have him in my top 10 but now I don't. I can understand those who do rank him top 10 , but can't understand those who rank him higher than his brother. Vitali is a bright clear top 10 .
Last night's win was important for him because he actually beat an explosive fighter with power. In H2H matchups, the Sanders and Brewster loses don't haunt him as much now.
He'd be lucky to crack the top 20. His dominant streak consists all of 14 fights, and has been against a very weak playing field.
How many heavyweights have been the best in the world 14 fights in a row? And also how do you define the strength of a playing field? It's not like these guys can ever face off against other era's so there's no way to prove it.
Many people have Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano in their top 10. While I think Wlad would dust the likes of Jack Johnson, and Rocky Marciano, I'm not sure if he beats Jack Dempsey. Joe Louis was champ pre-1960.
By watching them fight each other and looking at the scales.. You have two former MIDDLEWEIGHTS winning belts in this era (Toney and Jones), today the two best challengers for Klitschko's is a former Lightheavyweight in Adamek and a former Cruiser in Haye, and one of the 5 best fighters of the era in Valuev is someone who is far too large to ever be a truly functionally good boxer, but was able to usually win anyway just because he was bigger, and a nearly 50 year old Holyfield beat him easier than a consensus top 5 heavyweight in Haye just because he ****ING KNEW HOW TO BOX. Shits ridiculous.
Please. The only reason Toney and Jones won belts is they fought Ruiz. Toney was busted for steroids, and many suspect Jones was on something too. I want to point out that Haye is 212 pounds, which is the prime weight of Holmes, Ali, and Liston, and well over the prime weight of Frazier, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. In fact I think all of the above fighters once fought professionally under 200 pounds. If you think 212 pounds is too small to compete with a skilled super heavyweight, just say so, but don't pawn off Haye or Adamek as being too small unless you apply the same rules to the other fighters I mentioned. The Klitschko's have won 18 matches in a row, mostly vs. top ten ring magazine ranked opponents. Valuev, one of the best five fighters of the era? Not buying that one either.
Translation - "Blah, blah, blah I dream about getting spit roasted from the Klitschkos every night and wake up all spunky and flustered"
He's inside the top 15 I think. There's no one out there at the moment that could have give him a better fight last night (apart from his brother) and he took Haye apart with relative ease. It's a shame we'll never see him truly tested, a real shame.
If you said 15 I would go with it. If you are talking top 10 since 1880 then you are up against some seriously stacked resumes.
Aye I think it would be very hard for Wlad to break the top 10 with today's competition. He'd have to fight a good 5-6 years longer and hope some good, young fighters appear.
People love to ridicule Wlad's competition which the curmudgeon in me readily understands, but sometimes I look at the championship competition of, say, Marciano and I just shake my head. One has to admit that these were a bunch of washed-up old men, mostly former lightheavies, who really were fortunate timing-wise to get a chance to hold a belt. Those versions of Walcott, Charles, Louis and Moore (let's not even mention butterball) would get annihilated even in the supposed weak era of the 2000's. I don't even think they last against a post-prison Tyson, a Chagaev pre-hep or Brewster. Were those guys, in the shape they were in at that stage of their respective careers, on Wlad's resume, would we really be jumping up and down about how great a run he was on?