Wladmir klitschko last 12 fights - how does it compare?

i think Brock, Chambers, thompson, Ibragimov were decent too. and all in prime when they challenged. they were nothing special but were solid
chagaev was good fighter too. but i think he might have been on the slide since he got ill a year or two before

 

His brother's presence hurts his legacy because you have two seemingly unbeatable champions at the same time who can't fight one another to find out who is better. If they were not brothers then history could judge who was ducking whom and readjust their historical ranking accordingly but alas, that is not the case here.

A fighter's historical ranking is helped by being "the man" of his era; neither Wlad nor Vitali can make that claim which hurts their respective historical ranking.

 

Wlad is the champion. Vitali holds a belt.

 

if mother klitschko had only had one boy he would be rated higher then !

 

There wasn't one undisputed best heavyweight in that span - but yes, if you go by names only Byrd had the best resume.

Wlad won a IBF&WBO eliminator - he could have rematched Brewster - he instead chose Byrd who was on the decline and whom he easily beat already.

Wlad rematched with Brewster when Brewster was on a clear decline and wasn't given much of a chance.

 

Byrd was arguably above vitali until he unified with sanders. He was clearly the number 1 when wlad beat him.

Yes wlad beat peter, instead of facing lamont he went after the number 1, surely you aren't criticising that. It wasn't too long until he rematched lamont but it makes no odds; he was just rematching someone who'd previously beaten him.

 

Personally Chagaev impressed me with the way he executed the job against Valuev too for what it's worth - no not a world beater but a respectable fighter nonetheless - Sanders wasn't necessarily a world beater but he was certainly capable of KTFO of Vlad if he had his chance - and I'd rank some of that 12 as better fighters than Sanders

 

It's a good list of wins, it's a weak era but not as weak as some make it out to be. I think around 10 champions had better comp though. Longevity and dominance give him bonus marks, he may make top10 I'm unsure.

Not if you have him losing to Oquendo and Golota, which many had him doing

 

No he wasnt.

 

Fighting in US still has a big impact on boxing people.....If Wlad was doing this championship run in US he would be remembered as a greater fighter......

 

I acknowledge that this is your own personal view, however, a number of commentators and fans people consider Vitali to be better/greater than Wladimir.

Additionally, it could be argued that Wladimir did not do enough to establish his own lineage during Vitali's enforced absence from the sport and therefore Vitali returned in 2008 as the reigning, lineal champion, notwithstanding what Wladimir has achieved since. It could very competently be argued that Vitali is, in fact, the champion ("The Man") whereas Wladimir is merely a (multiple) belt holder.

We will never know who is the superior fighter of this era and I maintain that this hurts both of their historical standings.

 

I don't get people complaining about mediocre opposition:
- 3 unifications
- 8 fights against current or former champs
- out of other 4: Brock, Thompson, Chambers were solid contenders with good records

Perhaps these fighters didn't look stellar against Wlad but they did very well against everyone else.

 

I can see Haye, Chambers and Chagaev being top 10 in almost every era.....

 

if they were fighting in the 1970s with afros on, or the 80s with gehri curls and a cocaine habit, or the 1990s when HBO and the MGM Grand supported heavyweight boxing .... im sure people here wouldnt be so quick to dismiss them.