Based on dominance he's top 10 on most people's lists. His resume isn't **** poor either, it's just a weak era compared to most. If you rate top wins very highly though he could be bumped a bit lower. But if you rate head to head a lot that might bump him up over some of the smaller "greater" heavyweights.
Top 30! Holy ****, are you a Dino alt? No one serious has Wlad outside the top 20. I have him around 11 right now, just below his brother. Of he wins, that could move up, if he loses, down. But not much either way, no more than one or two, unless he wins, then unifies all the belts, and then AJ or one of his other victims becomes an ATG.
He's a top 10 all-time heavyweight. People say his era was weak but they say the same thing about Larry Holmes and Joe Louis, who are usually rated in the top 5. Wladimir Klitschko suffered most from being the first great heavyweight in the era where it became OBVIOUS that Americans were no longer the dominant force in the heavyweight ranks. The idea that his era was exceptionally weak comes from the fact that many of his better opponents were non-Americans.
One of the best HW'S of all time. Don't really know where his placement would be amongst the ATG' of the Heavyweight Division though..
I wouldn't bet against him against anybody on his best night. The length of his dominance for over a decade easily puts him in the top five of all time.
In no particular order, I think these fighters had the better resume, and thus rank higher. Ali Louis Lewis Frazier Foreman Holmes Holyfield Marciano Tunney Norton
He is easily top 10. H2H I would struggle to find more than a handful of people that I'd bet on over him in a fight. Given of course that he is at his peak, ie the Haye fight.
Based on resume its arguable that maybe there are 10 heavyweights better than him throughout the history. But based of domination of his era I think he is somewhere in the lower half of the top 10. I would definitely rank Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, and Lewis above him. The rest are up for debate.
"His era" should more be like two eras. In boxing seven years is an era and he has been there for ages.
Isnt wlad like 40 years old? Not sure why losing at 40 would bump someone far down the list of all time rankings....
His era was boring and untested more so than weak, in my opinion. It also 'suffered' (from Wlad's POV) from a lack of top American talent, which has traditionally been the benchmark of quality in the heavyweight division. That and the way Wlad methodically broke guys down without losing rounds lent credence to the idea that these guys were no good. Neither is a legitimate criticism of course, since many of the guys he beat were top talents internationally (Chagaev had beaten Savon twice, Ibragimov and Povetkin had insane amateur pedigree as well), but it all added up to the idea that the era he fought in was weak and nondescript. I think it'll be seen in a better light as time goes on, personally, but that'll be a few years away and, to a degree, depend on what his opponents go on to do in their own careers.