Wladimir Klitschko Retires - Where Does He Rank ?

I have yet to a rcognized boxing magazine or boxing journalist rank Wlad in the TOP 10 ATG.
Until then, these are just some opinions of Forum User that are mostly Wlad fans.

 

Wlad's physical gifts and longevity were impressive. And he had a damned good jab. That being said, I still cannot justify putting him in the top ten. He likely squeaks into the top 20 for his longevity and consistency. However, there are literally dozens of fighters (both ATG and not so great) who are likely to have flattened Wlad just like Corrie Sanders and Brewster did. And even more still who would have weathered the storm and outlasted Wlad like the limited Ross Puritty. Unlike Lennox Lewis, Wlad never attempted to avenge the Sanders and Purrity losses. And he didn't go anywhere near Brewster until Brewster was damaged goods. These factors clearly detract from his rating in my book.

 

Look up pictures from yourself in 2006. Go ahead and do it. I still had my hair back then. Think of what job you had, who was your girlfriend, or how young your kids were. For all that time up to two years ago he was the champion, and barely lost a round in all his defenses during that time. It really is incredibly long, and makes the championship reigns of Tyson, Liston, Foreman, Marciano, and Frazier look like a blip on the radar.

I like to use Larry Holmes as a benchmark, because he's a consensus top10/top5 ATG. So, how do you weigh a career? Wlad had more years at the top, and was even ranked in the p4p top10 at times. But Holmes looked better in his losses, and had fewer of them in his prime. Then again, Larry did not fight several top contenders, and at times struggled with lesser opposition; Wlad's career has neither of those negatives.

Depending on where you sit, Wlad comes out better or worse in comparison. It's subjective. But when you add all the positives and negatives, their accomplishments are certainly comparable.

To me he's a lock for the top10.

 

If you take on the best there is over more than a decade, then you're facing good competition. I can believe you can get a lucky break over two or three years, but not 10+. And while there's no Listons, Fraziers or Foremans there, or even even 96 Tysons - guys like Byrd, Peter, Haye and Povetkin were definitely solid contenders. As you say, reminiscent of Louis's competition and also Holmes's. Fighters that are in most people's top 5 (and Louis in most top 2s).

And name all those HW champions that beat better competition. Ali, yes, Holy, yes, Frazier, yes, Foreman (even though that was a terrible version of Frazier), yes, but then it gets thinner. And Holy, Frazier and Foreman had nothing like Wlad's consistency.

Finally, losing to Fury is not that hurtful for a 39-year old who's been a pro for half his life and had a shitload of fights. Likely we'll never get to know just how good that Fury was, but it's not at all unlikely that he was quite good.

If you have Wlad outside of your top 5, fine. It's crowded behind the top 3 and any number of ways to rank the other ATGs, but I can't see how you can find no argument for a top 5 place for someone who has dominated like Wlad did for a decade.

 

Good to see you again! It's been a while.

 

I remember when I used to be passionate about my boxing opinions.

8 years of arguing on forums kinda takes it out of me though.

Now I'm kinda like, Wlad is in my top 5, you don't have to agree every list is personal.

 

I am defining an era as a period of a few years, where the fighter in question was the dominant heavyweight in the division.

I have not included guys who lost the title, and won it back in such a period of time.

I have stretched a point for a couple of fighters on the list, and it has still ended up as a very short list.

 

This is the correct answer.

(You should get a prize.)


Vitali is # 20.

 

I will be honest with you. Retirement was a good idea. He was in for a tough fight, and I think he could have won, but it would have been for both guys whoever lands first and keeps the other guy down. Why does he need another fight like that at his age. Better to retire than go through that.

 

Holmes has the better record plain and simple. He was in better fights.

You can throw around all kinds of numbers. Fact is Wlad's record is not great and he was knocked out a few times in his prime.

Top 20 definitely, Top 15 arguably but certainly not Top 10.

 

I think ranking him near the top 10 kind of splits the argument between how long he reigned and how many title defeneses he had and his power and skills verse his weak chin, his losses, and lack of quality opponents. Those who focus on only the former seem to want to put him in the top 5 and those who focus on only the later seem to want to rank him in the bottom 20. I think ranking him in or near the top 10 more or less splits the difference between these two positions and reflects both the positive and negative aspects of his career. But comparing him to Holmes is in my opinion over the top.

 

Seconded!

 

Top 10 probably. In hindsight he will be ranked higher than he ever was during his active years and it'll be hard to think of ten fighters in the division's history better than him, but he will always be considered quite weak in hypothetical head-to-head fights.

 

Homles went 48-0 before he lost.

He never lost to a journeyman on the way up like Wlad did.

Holmes is his the history books as having fought one of the greatest rounds of boxing of all time against Norton. What great fight did Wlad ever win?

Holmes schooled Shavers twice in a majestic display of pure ring craft and skill . Wlad against his version of Shavers produced one of the most disgraceful displays of cheating the sport has ever seen simply because he hadn't the boxing skills to win the fight fairly or legally.

HWs were Ring fighters of the year SEVEN times in the 1970's.

Holmes was RING fighter of the year 1982. Riddick Bowe was RING fighter of the year 1992. Holyfield was RING fighter of the year 1996 AND 1997.

Wlad during this supposed 'great' reign was never awarded fighter of the year once. TysonFury achieved in one fight what Wlad couldn't achieve over his entire career.

Fourm fanboys are entitled rank Wlad #1 of all time all they want but they are not the decider of his ranking in history. He was recently ranked #16 for good reason.
The majority who knew Wlad was a manufactured Champ who flourished in a dreadful era far out number the people who believe he's a genuine ATG.

 

Absolute drivel.

Lennox Lewis best wins are against Holyfield who was the same age as Wlad was when he lost to Fury.
Unlike battle worn Holyfied, Wlad was in much greater condition and wasn't out sized against a genuine top 10 great of all time.
Their performances speak volumes of what greatness looks like and what it doesn't look like.

At no point in the Fury loss can you make an argument for any Wlad winning that fight. Younger Wlad was terrified to engage cream puffs Chambers and Sultan Imbragmov.
Fury stripped bare Wlads one dimensional skill set while he himself never even broke a sweat. Holyfield had Lewis rocked several times and fought to a rightful draw in the rematch.
Wlad didn't even look on the same page as Fury who is not even comparable to Holyfield .

Put it this way , Mayweather turned pro in the same year as Wlad and fought Paquaio at the same age Wlad was when he fought Fury -nobody would have given Floyd a pass for being in his late 30's if he had lost that fight. He HAD to win. And win he did in dominant fashion against to top level p4p ranked genuine ATG.
No ATG would never get toy'd with in the way Wlad was against Fury. Go back and watch how old and unprepared Lewis held onto his belts against Vitali Klitschko.