Where do you rank Wladimir Klitschko currently amonst list of Heavyweight greats?

People hate Golovkin too, and he's even more of a nice gentleman.

 

The opposite argument can be made with much greater effect. Namely, that once the much larger populace of the USSR got the chance to participate in professional boxing, the true, woeful state of the previous US-dominated eras was exposed. :hey

 

so... where are all the sugar ray robinson haters then, genius?


exposed.


proof of the pudding that's its the crazed fans that are the ones hated, not the actualathletes.

 

Stricter PED testing is the reasons for the Yanks becoming also rans in the Sport.

 

@ Boxed Ears

Going strictly by resume', Holyfield, Tyson, Johnson and Holmes do not have a better record than W. Klitschko. Forgetting for a moment how much we may have liked them as fighters, and how destructive they may have seemed in the ring, they simply have too many losses, some of them woeful, to compare. And this IS where sheer volume comes into play. Klitschko almost has more KO's than Tyson and Holyfield have fights. Think on that for a moment.

Holyfield, warrior that he is, has a higher quality of opposition than Tyson / Holmes. But then he also has more losses.

That's 4 of your top ten that I can eliminate right off the bat without too many hassles.

Now, the argument can be made that quality of wins makes up for losses. Assuming that, check out the records of some of these ATG's. There are a LOT of no-namers and no-hopers that litter their stats. Wlad has those too, but a careful examination reveals that his opponents often had a very favourable win/loss ratio. That HAS to count for something, since the tests he has been exposed to have been consistently stiffer as an average.

 

:good

 

"Having fought in a better era"

That's only based on the fact that these fighters beat each other. Notice how the guys that Klitschko beat continue with undefeated streaks in some cases.

But better era? Really?

Look at Holmes' first 26 wins. They're basically garbage, no offence. Tyson's first 19 are the same.

Wladimir has the same sort of padding in the start of his career, but then the quality of opposition picks up dramatically and stays there. It is consistently mandatories or undefeated fighters or fighters with a single loss.

 

hiow do you know they are garbage? tell me what you know about them that makes them garbage.

 

Wlad has moved himself into the top 10.

 

OK, maybe that was too strong a term. Let's put it like this, then - in terms of ATG fighters, which is what we are discussing, they are pretty much no-namers.

 

tell me how they are all rubbish, give me specific details for each.

then why is he being wiped out instantly when he steps up to a failed contender from lewis era by then retired, unable to prove he can beat him in a rematch?

 

ok, concession accepeted but to your next point -
why would anyone be fighting ATG fighters on the way into contention?

which hw champ actually did fight a prime or near prime atg on the way up into contention?

 

Exposed how?:huh

 

Agreed. BUT...numbers don't mean much when you're talking about those early fights. It's the actual fight. The 16-16 guy who was kod 16 times can put up a better performance than the 20-1 guy.

 

He's #1 heavyweight ATG in Ukraine. How can anyone argue otherwise?