It' s hard to rate Wilder when it comes to ATG rankings but I think he is at least A-level.

Friend, you must be totally and completely high as a kite if you think Mariusz Wach, Alex Leapai, Francesco Pianeta, Ray Austin, Jean Marc Mormeck, Calvin Brock, Tony Thompson, Bryant Jennings, Eddie Chambers, David Haye and Ruslan Chagaev et al were GREAT heavyweights and would've been EVEN GREATER if they hadn't have faced Wlad.

They all got beat by other guys, too.

There wasn't a GREAT heavyweight in the bunch.

Although, you could argue, Haye was one of the better cruiserweights ever.

Wlad got bounced around like a pinata by average guys for the first decade or so of his career ... then Emanuel Steward taught him jab, throw a right and then CLINCH LIKE HIS LIFE DEPENDED ON IT until the ref pulled them apart ... and his manager learned how to match him with one slow plodder after another for the next 10 years ... and, together, they managed to put together an impressive run at the end to salvage what, for about 10 years, was a fairly underwhelming career.

His team did their job.

But don't, for a minute, think he fought GREAT challengers and they would've been EVEN GREATER if they hadn't crossed paths with him. That's funny. And totally not realistic.

The two best heavyweights Wlad ever fought were Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua. And he didn't beat either.

 

That's also not true.

Vitali was named RING champion. Then he retired. Then he returned (like Fury) and (unlike Fury) regained the WBC belt ... around the time Wlad fought Tony Thompson the first time.

Wlad was considered the clear #1 heavyweight in the world when Vitali retired for a second time and Wlad defeated Alexander Povetkin in 2013

Wlad was then considered the top guy until 2015.

So, TWO YEARS. Not 10.

10 years before he lost to Fury, in 2005, Wlad was coming off a knockout loss to Lamon Brewster, and after that he was floored by Davarryl Williamson and was bailed out by a ref who said Wlad's cut was too bad to continue, and then he had to pick himself up off the floor TWICE against Sam Peter to pull out a decision.

So he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire. It took about eight years of consistent winning to finally win over the boxing public - because he'd crashed and burned so many times before that.

 

Yes, I do believe some of those guys could've potentially been greats, if not for Wladimir Klitschko. After those guys lost to Wladimir Klitschko, and realized that they couldn't beat Wladimir Klitschko, and also realized Wladimir Klitschko wasn't going anywhere for years, they simply stopped on their growth as boxers. In other words, Wladimir Klitschko STOPPED them from being greater boxers. Just like how guys like Foreman, Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier had no Wladimir Klitschko around to stop them from being the greats that many deem them to be.

Without Wladimir Klitschko, David Haye was going to be a great. Nobody was going to be beating Povetkin. Ruslan Chagaev was EVERY BIT (and I mean this by the way) as good as Andy Ruiz Jr. The only reason why Andy Ruiz Jr is looking as impressive today whilst Ruslan Chagaev didn't look as impressive during the Klitschko era, is because Joshua didn't stop Ruiz from looking as impressive (by beating him) whilst Wladimir Klitschko stopped Ruslan Chagaev from looking great (by beating him). Ruslan Chagaev would have beaten Joshua today and we would all be praising Chagaev, instead of Ruiz Jr today.

Calvin Brock was a very skilled technician that only lost twice, one stoppage loss against Wladimir Klitschko and a close decision loss to Eddie Chambers. Otherwise, had it not been for Klitschko, we could of been seeing him reach the heights of Evander Holyfield perhaps.

It's your word against mine. You can't prove any of this, neither can I! But, what's indisputable is Klitschko did dominate the division and was the undisputed number 1 guy for a decade. Something nobody from today's era has come close to achieving.

Wladimir Klitschko was the number 1 heavyweight based on resume, number of top guys beaten and due to holding more belts. Whilst Vitali had only one belt in comparison, plus had beaten fewer top guys. This is not even up for debate!

Ever since Wladimir Klitschko went on his dominant run, everyone and their mother could see that he was the number one heavyweight and yes, even above his brother. And that status was held by Wlad for a decade.

So due to beating the better opposition during that decade, Wlad > Vitali and that's not even up for debate! You literally couldn't even make a case for anybody being above Wlad during that decade. Meanwhile, you could make a case for any of the top guy for being better than the other in today's era.

 

LOL. You are so stoned. You think, without the Wlad loss, Calvin Brock would've been Holyfield? (LOL)

I CAN prove it. They weren't great before fighting Klitschko. They weren't great after they fought Klitschko. And they weren't great when they were fighting Klitschko.

You can't prove it, because guys like Francesco Pianeta and Ray Austin did NOTHING to REMOTELY suggest they WERE great or could've BEEN great, if not for Wlad.

Yes, if only Calvin Brock hadn't fought Klitschko and EDDIE CHAMBERS ... he could've been an all-timer. (LOL)

 

Sure you can. Vitali was rated the #1 heavyweight and Corrie Sanders was rated the #2 heavyweight (after he knocked out Wlad in two rounds). They fought. Vitali won. Vitali was named the RING champion. Vitali fought 11 more times and never lost for the rest of his career. And Wlad never beat Vitali.

There's your case.

LOL.

Must be some good weed.

 

You didn't prove anything I'm afraid. You literally gave your 'STONED' opinion on them not being great. You need to learn how the burden of proof / evidence works!

I never mentioned anything about Pianeta. So that's a straw-man.

How about I do the same thing! Calvin Brock looked great before fighting Klitschko. And he looked great whilst fighting Klitschko. Therefore he is a great!

See how easily I used your principles of 'proof' to prove my point.

Same thing with Ruslan Chagaev, or Eddie Chambers, or Chris Byrd.

Right! And Chris Byrd lost to Wladimir Klitschko twice, who beat Vitali Klitschko. Ergo, Wlad > Vitali.

Apart from that,

1) Wlad held more belts. Which means Wlad > Vitali.

2) Wlad held his titles for longer. Which means Wlad > Vitali

3) Wlad beat better ranked opposition. Which means Wlad > Vitali

4) Wlad has more title defenses. Which means Wlad > Vitali

So four irrefutable reasons why Wlad > Vitali.

So you need to try again, and a lot harder as you literally made no case. The case you think you made, is easily refuted by the fact that Wlad beat Chris Byrd twice who Vitali Klitschko lost to.

 

You lose.

 

Fury and Joshua have a long way to go to catch up to Povetkin, and it doesn't really matter if Joshua beat Povektin at age 39. Age is the reason Wlad lost to Fury ( 39 ) and Joshua ( 41 ) too. If the web was around in the early 1980's some might think Leon Spinks was great because he beat an older Ali.

Chageav was good enough to win a world title and defend it a few times. He was also an amateur gold star. A near great heavyweight, who if not for Wlad would have been #1 for a while. Put it to you this way Chagaev would be Wilder's best win if he pulled it out.

Fury has beaten ONE man in the top Ten. He was 39.

Wilder has beaten ONE man in the top ten. And he was 38 -41.

THAT's it. Wlad has beaten at least 8 men in the top ten, many of whom were in their primes.

You wanna compare their resumes?

 

We could do this forever. Wlad lost to Puritty. Vitali then beat Puritty. So what? You asked who else had a claim. Vitali did. Corrie Sanders knocked out Wlad and Sanders was rated #2. Vitali knocked out Kevin Johnson and was rated #1. Lewis retired. In their next fights, Vitali #1 and Sanders #2 faced each other. Vitali won. And Ring named Vitali the CHAMPION.

And Vitali fought 11 more times and never lost. So he had a claim to the title. The number of belts has nothing to do with who is best - as we saw again at Madison Square Garden a couple weeks ago.

Wlad wasn't considered THE CHAMPION until Vitali retired and Wlad #1 beat Povetkin (then #2).

Saying Wlad was the unquestioned #1 heavyweight for 10 years is simply wrong. He didn't become that until he beat Povetkin (when Vitali was gone) in 2013.

Saying Wlad was the unquestioned #1 would be like if Wilder beat Ruiz and Fury in 2020 ... and people started saying Wilder has been the unquestioned #1 for five years - since he won the title from Stiverne. That's just rewriting history.

Same with Wlad.

 

Yes, Wlad has the better resume and he beat better ranked opposition and more of them. Ergo, he is superior to Vitali Klitschko. A single fight doesn't prove anything in Vitali's favor.

If Vitali Klitschko is better than Wlad because he beat Corrie Sanders who beat Wlad, then by that same logic, Wlad is also better than Vitali because he beat Chris Byrd not just once, but twice, whilst Vitali lost to Chris Byrd. Meaning, Wlad's loss to Sanders evens out because he also beat a guy that beat Vitali.

Wladimir Klitschko then went on to defeat better boxers than Corrie Sanders. And has beaten multiple opponents who are better than anybody Vitali beat. That's what makes Wladimir Klitschko the superior heavyweight.

And yes, having more belts does prove your are the best, until those belts are taken off you. Until then, you are the best.

It's really that simple! Wlad has beaten better level of opposition and has a better resume. Thus, he is the superior of the two Klitschko brothers. It's really not that difficult to understand but it doesn't seem like you do.

Perhaps logic courses are your best bet? You should consider it!

 

You know, I get tired of hearing how many people someone beat in the TOP 10. Whose top 10? There are at least five Top 10s.

And saying someone beat FIVE guys in a the top 10 and someone else beat ONE guy in the top 10 doesn't mean anything unless EVERYONE in the top 10 is always the equivalent of a previous top 10.

But some top 10s are better than others. We all know that.

For instance, in 2009, Ring magazine had Eddie Chambers as the #3 heavyweight. They also included Dennis Boytsov, Chris Arreola, Alexander Dimitrenko and Tony Thompson in the top 10. Is that some stellar group? Wlad has three TOP 10 wins over Chambers and Thompson (twice).

In 2018, the Ring had Anthony Joshua, Deontay Wilder, Tyson Fury, Dillian Whyte and Luis Ortiz in the top 10, and Wilder had a KO win over Ortiz and a draw with Fury. And he dropped them five times combined.

Am I supposed to rate Wilder less because Wlad beat THREE top 10 guys in 2009 and Wilder beat ONE and Drew with ONE last year?

It's not apples to apples when talking about this guy beat THREE top 10 and this guy beat ONE.

Tyson Fury beat Wlad. Who did Wlad beat who was better than Wlad? Nobody. Tyson Fury DREW with Wilder. Who did Wlad beat or draw with who was better than Wilder? Nobody.

All the defenses against Tony Thompson and Alex Leapai and Ray Austin and Calvin Brock and whomever don't count as much as ONE win over Wlad and a draw with Wilder.

 

Averages are not measures of individuals. Everyone has different individual variables. 38 isn’t that old, especially for the heavyweight division. Wlad was also a physical anomaly, and an intellectual anomaly for a boxer, and had an anomalous work ethic. He is literally a one in a million sort of athlete, that’s why he was where he was and for so long. We only need to look at him at 38 and see that he was still in strong form. To rely on a statistical average when you have the anomaly in front of your face? Very strange and foolish thing to do.
Vitali and Kulev are nowhere near as explosive as Joshua, that’s why they spend nowhere near as much energy as Joshua. If you want I can teach you a biology and biomechanics lesson on why that is. Again this is something you can see if you simply understand what you’re looking at, if you have an eye for movement and the sport.

That’s a straw man talking about Wlad and his wear and tear, I never made those claims. Of course any athlete picks up wear and tear as they go, however any athlete who takes care of themselves in terms of diet, periodisation, rehab exercises, and stays in shape generally is not going to be affected as much as others. Then there are genetic factors, the fact that Wlad always had an economic and safety first style, and the fact that heavyweights have greater longevity due to not having to cut weight or move as much.

 

This guy talking about logic, when he considers Byrd as having a ‘win’ over Vitali. You really give the impression that you’ve never watched any of these fights you’re talking about, and if you have you clearly don’t understand what you’re watching.
When Vitali was around he was clearly viewed as being the superior Klit brother, Wlad was always viewed as more promising but he was considered a disappointment until Vitali retired.

 

Speaking of logic, I no longer think you're high, I think you're just dense. Or you have ZERO concept of time.

I never said Vitali was better than Wlad because he beat Sanders, I said Vitali had a claim to the #1 spot because he beat Sanders for the top spot and didn't lose after that. You said no one had a claim other than Wlad. I said Vitali did and here's why.

Sanders knocked down Wlad four times and stopped him in two. In his next fight, Sanders fought Vitali.

Vitali and Sanders were the top two when they met. Vitali won. Then he never lost again. So how could Wlad become the champ if Vitali became the champ and then never lost?

Wlad and Byrd were never the top two when they fought. Just like Wlad and Puritty and Vitali and Puritty weren't the top two when they fought. In other words, your Byrd reference is mind-numbingly dumb. Byrd and Puritty and Wlad were NON factors when Vitali and Sanders fought for the top spot.

And, speaking of logic, Vitali was way ahead of Byrd and then quit because of an injured shoulder (that required surgery) with a few rounds remaining. There is nothing EVEN about Vitali quitting while being miles ahead of Byrd, and Wlad getting his head caved inside two rounds by Sanders. Wlad didn't even last a couple rounds.

The losses are in no way equal.

And I refuse to converse anymore with someone who thinks the guy with the MOST BELTS defines who is best.

You know how we find out who is best? By two people fighting each other. Not by the number of belts. (See Joshua-Ruiz)

Wlad never fought Vitali so we don't know who was better. When the brothers were interviewed, Wlad said Vitali was better. And Vitali said Vitali was better. So they agreed Vitali was better. He had one belt.

I imagine they'd know.

 

Wlad has the better resume and that's an irrefutable fact! I challenge you to prove me otherwise!

But there are certain things that are inevitable for every human being. E.G. Death, requirement of oxygen and etc. In other words, no matter how anomalous of an athlete Wladimir Klitschko is, he is still not so anomalous that he is immune to certain inevitabilities such as death, injuries, wear and tear and etc.

A 41 year old Wladimir Klitschko who has boxed for 2 decades, is still inevitably going to have significantly more wear and tear than someone who is just starting new, irrespective of how much Wlad takes care of himself. It's no coincidence he had multiple injuries in the latter part of his career before he retired.

Vitalli is a lot more economical, but before his injuries, he was every bit as explosive as Joshua. Just because he isn't wasting as much energy foolishly as Joshua is, doesn't make him any less explosive.

How about Ike Ibeabuchi then? Another 240+ pounds heavyweight who never gassed in a single fight?

You see, my point still stands, if Joshua is incapable of learning how to conserve his energy by being more economical, and such a thing costs him in multiple fights, then all this proves is that Joshua was indeed exposed. So all you're doing is proving my point!

If being explosive makes Joshua tired, then Joshua should learn to sacrifice that a little bit. And if he is incapable of that, and continues to put himself in danger of losing multiple fights, then the guy would have to be considered exposed. It's really that simple!

You're using a giant fallacy, in assuming that just because Wlad is an anomalous athlete, that he isn't subject to certain human inevitabilities. When Wladimir Klitschko becomes immune to death, doesn't need oxygen to survive, doesn't need food or water to survive and etc. Only then, am I going to take the idea that somehow aging isn't going to have ANY effect on Wlad's performance. Until then, he is a human being, just like any other human being that is subject to athletic decline through aging from wear and tear and through internal functions declining.

Wladimir Klitschko absolutely was past his best by the time he fought Jennings. It's clear as day! You're gonna have to ignore the overwhelming evidence to convince yourself he wasn't.