Wladimir Klitschko is now the greatest heavyweight who ever lived, according to Boxrec.

The best fighter ever does not exist and it is just a matter of taste, it has never been confirmed anywhere who is the best ever, what we can only guess is who is better than whom, let's enjoy the current era...

 

No chance. Top 10 at a push yes but certainly not the greatest. Don't think he's even the best heavy weight of the past 20 years. Usyk is IMO.. Vitali was better too.. u could even argue Sanders who obliterated him.. very underrated HW..

 

I’ve not done a top 10 for years.

But there’s no way he can be top 5 or the GOAT.

 

You posted what I've been saying off & on for many years here.
Wlad "perfected" Ali's and others grab & jab style. Why is he so singled out?

Btw, he's easily top 5... #1 will always be up for debate.

 

Would have been nice to get a number off you since you weren't keen on mine but ok fine no prob I see doing these lists is challenge in itself let alone going further and further down.

 

This is true it will never be proven.

 

Ok I suppose you could argue Sanders could beat any Wlad because he beat Wlad unlike anyone else but that's one matchup I don't think it makes Sanders better overall.

 

Vitali can't carry Wlad's jockstrap when it comes to resume.

Using that logic you can argue Buster Douglas was better than Tyson.

 

Easily top 5?

Nonsense.

The negatives far outweigh the positives.

He can’t easily rank there.

 

BoxRec can go and dissolve then if this is the kind of rubbish they wanna advertise

 

Ali, Louis, Lewis, Evander and Larry would all have to rank higher for me.

Then it gets subjective.

It’s obviously subjective anyway, but after the top 5, it depends on your criteria. Your preference.

Wlad was very skilled, and in terms of title defences, he rates very highly.

But there’s just far too many negatives. Negatives what the others don’t have.

He was dropped 13 times in his career.

He lost to 3 non great fighters in his 20’s.

He ruled a weak era. And IMHO, he only did that because Vitali had to keep taking time outs with surgeries etc. If Vitali had been healthy, and he hadn’t have retired on two occasions, Wlad wouldn’t even have become the undisputed champion. So for me, he’s fortunate that Vitali was inactive.

Then there’s the fact that he was knocked out by Sanders, but then Vitali went in and avenged the defeat for him.

We then had his Octopus fight against Povetkin.

We saw him go life and death with Sam Peter.

Yet you’re telling me that he’s the 5th greatest HW that the sport’s ever seen?

Those aren’t the actions of the 5th greatest HW of all time.

And there’s no way on earth that he would have gone 11 years undefeated in a stronger era.

That’s how I see it.

He wasn’t better than Lennox, Evander and Holmes.

They weren’t perfect, but they weren’t as vulnerable. They didn’t suffer the same losses etc.

Anybody who has him down as being the GOAT, is completely delusional in my opinion.

 

Sure that's fine. This explains it.

 

You can say the same thing about Louis and Holmes. Actually, all other eras than 70's & 90's can be called weak if you want to nitpick.

You can't base ratings on "ifs". Being prone to injury is a weakness which was reflected in Vitali's career.

 

He would never have reigned for 11 years in any other modern era.

That’s fine. But after watching both of their careers, I know that what I’ve said would have rang true.

Wlad was fortunate.

There’s too many negatives to rate him in the top 5, and being the GOAT is just absolutely laughable.

 

You don't rate fighters on "wouldas" cause you can't verify it. I'd say he would blast through competition that Louis and Holmes fought and wouldn't lose to Michael Spinks and Ezzard Charles. But again, it's not verifiable.

I think there's an argument for the fifth place, but anything higher is, as you called it, absolutely laughable.