Wladimir Klitschko is not (and never shall be) a Top 10 Heavyweight

I think most people see this... or at least I hope they do.

I don't think boxing historians will look back that favorably for the Klitchsko's, it would be ******ed if they did .


They have beaten the worst group of opponents for so called great fighters that I've ever heard of. Seriously, David "Toe" Haye, Samual Peter, and a bunch of other nobodies who I don't even care to name.

And they beat most of these tomato cans unimpressively, awkwardly, and looking about as mediocre as you can get. It's a shame the HW division is so terrible that no body has come along to expose these guys.

 

He is without any doubt. Total dominations for a long period in the ring. Outside of the ring supporting less fortunate ones all over the world and giving back to communities.

 

top 10 or not, k2 are one of the greatest in people's heart (except for haters)

bored or not, no one can take the belts of them till now

let's have a look at the top 10 heavyweight of all the times below:

1. rocky marciano (american)
2. muhammad ali (american)
3. joe louis (american)
4. jack dempsey (american)
5. joe frazier (american)
6. gene tunney (american)
7. george foreman (american)
8. joe walcott (american)
9. evander hollifield (american)
10. ezzard charles (american)

WOW!!!! GREAT!!!!

THEY ARE ALL AMERICAN!!! FANTASTIC!!!!

WHERE IS THE NON AMERICAN??? IS HOLLIFIELD BETTER THAN LEWIS OR TYSON????

I JUST THINK THAT ONE DAY THE TITLE MUST BE CHANGE INTO ' TOP 10 HEAVYWEIGHT OF AMERICA OF ALL THE TIMES FOR I THINK THAT WILL BE A BETTER ONE

K2 AND LEWIS ARE NOT AMERICAN!!!! RACISM???? I DO THINK SO

TOP 10 IS JUST A NAME AND MADE BY HUMAN, TRUE TOP TEN IS ALWAYS THERE IN EVERYONE'S HEART

 

According to Ring Magazine, back in the day, Tyson was "a blown-up cruiserweight feasting on the weakest heavyweight division ever and the first big man with a decent jab will make that readily apparent." Buster Douglas and Lennox Lewis proofed this. Riddick Bowe was curiously avoided for some strange reason. Klitschko has the tool kit to disassemble Iron Mike. Klitschko can hit hard enough to make Tyson back up, as for the "glass chin", Buster Douglas and Lennox Lewis had both been KOed before. So had Holyfield.

I'm leaning towards throwing Tyson into my "overrated pile" including Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano.

 

Why did Wlad dodge Valuev?
I mean, why?

 

Comical list. Most of those CWs to little HWs would be blown out of the ring by modern HWs

 

A prime Tyson (when he still had his father figure and without the personal problems) was a very capable boxer.
But he also could have been stopped by Buster if he was more consistent and not a lazy fat ass.

I have no doubt a focused Lewis would defeat any version of Mike Tyson.

Also Vitali seems a bit featherfisted sometimes, in his fight with Lewis he really gave Lewis a wonderful straight, but he was still standing.
Or Lewis has an incosistent chin which goes from glass to chobham depending on the day, or Vit is featherfisted knocking out bums.

 

Frank, I'll give you his recent choices and the non rematch with Sanders. But any conversation in which someone is said not to have fought the best and includes Joe Mesi it's not I've I can have.

 

I don't agree it's the worst era at all. It's the worst era for Americans yes, but the European based guys are just better. Even the most exciting US based guy right now is a Russian import.

 

You know the heavyweight division sucks when the heralded prospects are British.

 

Any era is the worst era for heavyweights if you bother reading any boxing magazines written during that whatever era you choose.

 

Don't agree about this era being the worst for heavyweights.

The early 1900s were bad. Jack Dempsey's era was also weak, and he didn't fight the other only valuable contender, Wills. The 1930s and especially the 1940s were weak. Rocky Marciano's era was heavily criticized. Larry Holmes' era was heavily criticized.

In fact, most HW eras are weak or boring. Except the 1960s, 1970s and the 1990s. The rest of the eras have been mediocre, with the division focused on one guy: Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Holmes. The early 1930s had many champions, but most of them sucked.

I think this era is absolutely average. Mediocre. But not the worst.

 

No most aren't in agreement, and if they are it only shows that "most" are usually clueless. Why are they clueless? B/c they can't reason or get beyond their petty prejudices.

According to your "logic" Wlad beating legit 230+ lb HWs, many near his height, reach, and weight are less valuable than when in the 60s top HW contenders were the likes of 195lb Patterson, Quarry, and "big" 210lb bulls like Bonavena? atsch
Okaaaaaaaay :-(

 

I think this era could more than hold their own vs the bulk of their predecessors. There's a much, much larger population of heavyweights today than any other period. The old timers could not compete vs athletes from behind the Iron Curtain. I'm fairly certain that there may have been a handful of Soviet-types who would have killed most members of Louis' "Bum of the Month Club" and could have knocked Patterson's head into the cheap seats or would have made Marciano's face even uglier. Beyond just the changed borders there's the changed size, back in the day 6'0 and 188lbs would have been a big, bad, burly man, some may even go so far to call a giant, but today he probably wouldn't be allowed in the ring and on top of all that PEDs. If there was a time machine and an old timer, from any division, was brought into the ring vs the champ, the oldtimer would have his ass handed to him just on the basis of the modern fighter being juiced.

In competitive activies, over the course of time, you either improve or go extinct unless you can get a gov't bailout. Same thing with boxing.