Is Wladimir Klitschko a top ten heavyweight alltime?

hard question because while I think Wlad could have beaten many in the top 10 ATG his career is still not over, he has some tough fights in front of him if he gets past Pulev then the winner of Stiverne-Wilder and then the box off against Perez-Jennings Fury-Chisora

Its all coming to a head but I want to see where the dust settles and where the chips fall to make that placement if he retired today he is top 10

 

I voted yes, but have him at the very bottom of it. I can also see arguments which place him anywhere from about 11-16. His career is subjective. There are a lot of world title fights, wins over ranked opposition, a gold medal and a very nice looking professional record. At the same time however, there are three devastating defeats - two of which unavenged to lesser men. He also lacks a win over a high caliber foe on the level of a Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson, Liston, etc...And many of his performances have failed to impress.

 

I rate him in the top ten right now, but with his career still going, a really bad loss or two, especially given his devastating earlier losses, could drop him a few notches.

 

How old would he have to be though before we give him a pass for old age? He's already 37.

 

I find it very hard to rate Vlad for various reasons. One is that I haven't seen all his fights, mainly because I don't have the channels that he boxes on; I have seen some on youtube and he looked awful against Sanders and Brewster. That said I thought he fought a very sound fight against David Haye, completely nullifying him.

I also have a hard time calling someone great when he shares an era with Fury and Chisora, but I suppose you can slate most eras. I think there must be some decent fighters on his CV (resume) because surely one era can't be absolutely devoid of quality?

I think the one thing that I do notice is the robotic style he uses; can he improvise and adapt if things go wrong? He has become very effective using that style and it protects his iffy chin, so I can't totally blame him, but I don't see the adaptability of Holmes or Ali.

It's a shame he never fought Bowe or Lewis, because we might have something more to go on.

 

38 I think.

A good point and some will give him a pass. However, a really bad knockout defeat or two would link with the earlier knockouts in evaluations--reinforcing the major criticism as a guy with a weak chin.

 

true.

 

joe louis gets away with it.

anyway arent pulev,povetkin,haye crap compared to the old timers
and wont beating fury be like holmes beating randall cobb.
easily top 10

 

Its impossible to say .
Its like if athletics had just been invented but 'time' had not...and i won 30 sprint races in a row by a wide margin against slow people...would that make me a great runner.
Only better competition or Timing the races would give my performance a perspective.
He has reigned through an incredibly weak era.
Having said that he looks a daunting opponent.....until i think back to Corrie Sanders. . .now i'm confused again...
Stick with my opening line.. impossible to say.
How would we have defined Ali without Frazier Foreman and Norton ?

 

This is the way I see it, a few good wins elevates him and some bad losses reinforces the negatives

 

If Marciano had fought to 38 he would have run into Liston. Do you think a 38 year old Marciano beats a peak Liston? Would this have been a blemish on Marciano's record? Should Wlad retire now to protect his legacy?

The greater issue here is that career planning is a huge part of legacy. Wlad has been the best heavyweight in the world longer than someone like Marciano had a career in the sport.

 

Why is this relevant? You're comparing a short pressure fighter (who never have long primes) against a fighter from the modern era, where today's guys seem to age better.* It's not uncommon to have fighters in their late 30's fighting and doing well today.
Besides, there is no Liston type fighter waiting for Wlad. I honestly don't see how this odious comparison is relevant.

*Most likely due to the splintering of titles, where opposition can be picked and chosen. At least that's one reason.

 

You know I don't rate him in my top ten but I have to say I don't know where people get "a" weak era. Wlad can't possibly be fighting in the same era this whole time, even since he lost last, can he? He's literally about to defend his title against a guy who turned pro years after he won that title. This can't possibly be considered all one era, can it? As far as I'm concerned he turned pro about three eras ago and is fighting in at least a fourth now. He's 38 years old and turned pro when he was twenty. Put it this way too: Tyson Fury is one of the top contenders now (who I think is better than advertised) and he is 25 years old. That means Wlad's last loss was when one of his current top contender was a fifteen year old boy. I don't think his era has been one era or as weak as it's made out to be. I think he's close to top ten but a fight or two off yet.