Wladimir Klitschkos Legacy

Those who use the "weak era" argument to undermine what he's done are essentially admitting he was good enough to consolidate multiple generations of heavyweights into one era that was defined by Wlad ruling it. That's a rarity in boxing. There aren't 10 other heavyweights in history that did that, so he's a top 10 lock for me.

Some more bits to piggyback off your numbers:
-His title reign alone lasted longer than Marciano's entire career, almost as long as Joe Frazier's entire career, and longer than Jeffries' original career (not counting the Johnson comeback).

-The first world caliber heavyweight he fought was in 1999. He's fighting the highest level of competition in the division 18 years later. For a mirror reference of just how long that is: it's the difference betwwn Ali-Moore and Ali-Holmes, Holmes - Shavers 1 to Holmes - McCall (which was a 17 year gap), Holyfield - Qawi to Holyfield - Donald, and Tyson from Berbick to Danny Williams.

Did the timespan between those fights comprise "one era", too? I'd argue "no". Even though Ali's name is big enough to define the timespan that he fought, it undersells his longevity to paint that as a single era. Nobody would reasonably think that Liston and Holmes shared the same era had Ali not been around to fight them.

-The challengers who were finally able to topple him weren't pros until he was already champion.

 

I don't think so , it is not as black and white as you think it is , fighters are progressing , Wlad progressed until
2010 , he was a late bloomer and his experience made him a lot better than he was in 2003 or 2004.

 

So what have we learned about Joshua?

Quite a lot I would say.

I had a few lingering doubts, that held me back from making bold predictions for him.

Q. Was he going to gas in the later rounds?
A. He is clearly good for twelve rounds in necessary, and he carries his power late to boot.

Q. Does he have a glass chin that will undo him?
A. It is not the best, but it is probably good enough in the scheme of things?

Q. Can he hold it together mentally when the going gets tough?
A. Obviously so.

It is hard to see who can stop him now.

 

Actually do not forget Wlad got TKO.He did not go the distance.In a way Joshua exposed some his flaws: a weak chin and one dimensional game ( inabilility to fight on the inside, no body punching)

Still a good effort by Wlad.You can make a case that it adds to his legacy.The case had been much stronger had Wlad lost a split decision.

 

Well I think his most dangerous opponent is Ortiz. I think he will knock Wilder out who is a papet champ.Fury will give him problems because he is slick though I see Joshua prevailing by a close decision, based on workrate.

 

Great post! And to think during his run he rarely lost rounds. It's imho impossible to keep him out of the top 10.

 

I can't see Fury getting back to where he was at to be honest.

If he comes back he is likely to be a spent force.

 

If Joshua is the new dominant force then Wlad's legacy is surely not impacted by his performance, possibly enhanced if anything.

 

That he is in the top 10 is a certainty , the question should be wether he is in the top 5 or not.

 

I don't think anyone can deny his longevity but your post is a demonstration of just how far longevity can be taken to inflate his legacy.

The length of time he reigned, does not change the fact that Wlad has not one marquee win on his resume. It is this fact, which undermines the 'greatness based on longevity' argument.

 

Utter garbage. Posters like you are beyond a joke.

 

That's a superb argument. Your education shines through with such impeccable logic.

 

Wladimir Klitschko has impressive and dominant wins over David Haye , Kubrat Pulev , Chris Byrd and a lot more ,
only because he made them look like schoolgirls , doesn't change the fact that he beat good fighters in dominant
fashion.

He reigned for nearly 10 years and his performance against Anthony Joshua at 41 years old was unbelievable , i have never seen a 40+ fighter better , not even remotely as good as Wlad.

Larry Holmes has a similar resume and everyone has him in their top 10 , the most have him in their top 5.
Wladimir Klitschko is one of the best ever , you can't deny that.

I personally think that Wlads record is better than the record of Larry Holmes.

 

I don't agree at all that he has no "marquee wins", but to play along with this, I'll add that when you dominate people that clearly, they're not going to look marquee.

It's a catch-22. Ali gets more credit for the life and death Frazier trilogy than if he hadn't been exiled and schooled him in the first place. It wasn't until Ali left that Frazier could establish himself as "the man", and Frazier having success vs Ali legitimized him even further. Had Ali schooled him when Joe was at the contender level, Joe Frazier doesn't mean nearly as much to Ali's legacy. With that, Foreman's victory over Joe means less, and so Ali's victory over Foreman does, too. Ali sticking around and dominating everyone would've made his era look worse in hindsight compared to how it actually shook out.

In pure boxing terms, it's much more desirable to dominate and shut out your opponents. Yet, we want to see champs struggle (sometimes even lose) and come back from it to legitimize the era. When a fighter like Wlad or Louis is TOO dominant, that doesn't happen, and their whole reign gets sold short.

 

I think if Haye fought some top ten heavyweights, apart from Wladimir and Valuev when he was in his prime it would of boosted Wladimir's legacy.
Haye was more than capable of beating ring magazine top ten heavyweight, and look good doing it, but instead he liked to take easy fights like Harrison, Ruiz etc.

I think Povetkin would of also boosted Wladimir's resume if he did not take drugs, and actually fought Wilder. I thought Wilder vs Povetkin was a 50/50 fight at the time, but from observing Wilder and Povetkin since I think Povetkin would most likely beat Wilder.

Haye now that he has come back, looked awful against Bellew, and there is now no doubt in my mind he has no chance at the top of the division anymore.

I am disappointed that before the Joshua fight people were saying how Wladimir looked in decline against Pulev, Jennings and Fury, some people I read on here said even as early as 2012 he was showing signs of decline.

But now a 41 year old Wladimir gave Joshua pretty much all he can handle, people are now trying to say he was at his best in his early fourties.
Yes Wladimir did not clinch nearly as much as the last few years, and tried to box more like his much younger self, but that does not change the fact that his speed and reflexes are in decline, and he's 41.

I think Wladimir being so good at 41 is proof of how good he really was, and not counter proof.