Vitalis record is worse than Wlads. His main claim to fame is getting his face ripped open by Lewis, quitting against Byrd, and his (admittedly impressive) comeback. Neither has a place in the top 15 of HWs. Maybe lower 50s at best.
That gives us a huge list of greats. Too many. I really enjoy reading your lists of the premium fighters by weight divisions and then looking at your arguments as to why but i wouldn't consider everyone who makes those lists great. Then when considering fighters who are great but never made it to being the best in the division the list of greats becomes even longer. Do you consider great to be all time great or a gap between the two?
Vitali is nowhere near the top 50 IMO, so agree there. Wlad is getting closer to the upper echelons, but not all that as a fighter. Both lucky that they came along when they did.
In Wlads case, all he ahs going for him is his dominance, if he keeps that up and retires on top, no one will be able to question his legacy. Its a bit unfair for guys like Tyson, Marciano and Vitali, Wlad when there is lack of competition. Holmes also, however he made up for it with his longetivity and the fact that he was still kicking ass when he was around like 50 years old If Holyfield was in his prime in THIS era, or if Ali was, would they still be considered great? No they probably wouldnt.
Sadly in the case for Wladimir and Vitali, it's just unlucky that there is no competition around today to really help them make their legacies great.
What if he is a C-class fighter in a division full of D-class fighters? He's still the best of the lot but how can someone who is an average fighter himself be a great?