Wlad Klitschko has the worst style for Ali

No, I wouldn't discount them at all, but surely you admit that losing to Frazier over 15 rounds (and then avenging it) stands better on an ATG resume than getting blitzed by Sanders and Purrity and then not avenging either? You could say the same for Ali, really; he was not at his best when he lost to Holmes and Berbick. H2H for me is prime vs prime, and the Ali that went into both the Liston and Foreman fights as a huge underdog, especially the first Liston fight, and absolutely toyed with an ATG, puts him on another plateau.

I don't see how that version of Ali loses to anyone, personally. I think he beats Holmes, Lennox, and Louis. I think those 3 beat Wlad, and I don't want to get too bogged down in triangle theories, but Ali had a level of heart and desire in him that Wlad would never be able to match, which is why he could never beat him, I think.

Technically, Wlad is brilliant, hits hard, ATG jab, the fella is a legend no doubt, but he's just not made of the stuff that the S-tier ATGs are in my book; he lacks the heart and/or chin, he's just in a bracket below.

 

I’ve no idea how you can be sarcastic with someone, after the nonsense that you’ve put, and especially about Norton with his jab.

You aren’t even aware when you contradict yourself.

Nostalgia?

Wlad impersonated an octopus against Povetkin.

That was during his reign.

A crude B-C level Peter had him down 3 times.

That was also during his reign.

So of course George would have had a chance.

 

You’re either a troll, or one of the least knowledgeable people on the entire forum.

 

Wlad is indeed a very tough match up for Ali but anyone who thinks that Ali is only slightly faster or that there speeds are comparable needs glasses.

Wlad does have that big left hook and a hard right, plus a strong jab which will all cause Ali problems.

Also the referreing becomes an issue. In Germany, with German refs, it will be hard for Ali to win with the constant leaning and pushing tactics employed by Wlad.

But with a fair ref, i think Ali's quicker hands, superior foot speed, faster combinations and greater work rate should give him a close hard fought decision. I think Wlad will stun Ali multiple times but i also think a 5-6 punch combination from Ali will stun Wlad at some point.

Very close fight and i say this as a big Ali fan and a big Wlad hater.

 

So your entire basis on ranking fighters is nostalgia and vibes. Figured as much

He loses the same way he lost to Frazier and Norton lol. Ali was never invincible, he struggled with the same technical flaws at his peak as he did when his athleticism declined there just wasn't anyone big enough or disciplined enough to exploit them yet. Inventing magical reasons why Ali would win instead of looking at the technical tools both men bring to the ring is just lazy analysis. Ali never showed the tools necessary to beat Wlad’s specific style, whereas Wlad’s style is a literal nightmare for Ali. Could Ali hypothetically overcome it? Maybe. But based on what we actually saw in the ring, Wlad has every tool Ali struggled with. The logical conclusion is a Wlad victory.

Except for the fact that Wlad would demolish almost everyone you have ranked below him lol. You can’t actually analyze these fighters technically, so your entire framework for greatness is built on hype and 'warrior' vibes while ignoring the actual mechanics of boxing. In other words, you’re just a casual.

 

Again, when did I say Ali was invincible? You're putting words in my mouth. Your entire basis for ranking fighters is nostalgia; you do realize Wlad has retired, too? I must have hit a nerve if you're using the word 'casual'; people only use that word when someone is poking valid flaws in their opinion.

Put it this way, a 22-year-old Ali wouldn't have got smashed from pillar to post by a journeyman like Ross Purity like Wlad did. He also wouldn't have let an overweight, over-the-hill Sanders smash him to bits, either. Of course there's more to boxing than the mechanics; if there wasn't, then Wlad wouldn't have lost to Sanders or Purrity in the first place.

He didn't have the stones to compete against the S-tier ATGs. Ali walked through the best Foreman had to offer, a much bigger puncher than Wlad. You honestly believe Wlad, who looked like a deer in the headlights against Sanders, would suddenly get his **** together against George Foreman in Zaire?

Holyfield lost to Tyson despite being nowhere near as quick or powerful; there's more to boxing than a nice 1-2 and mechanics. Klitschko would've been a fringe contender in the 90s; his entire resume is pedestrian wins against B-rate opposition or blown-up cruiserweights/light heavyweights. I'm not buying it. Other people can have opinions that are different, by the way, it doesn't make them a casual, yours isn't the gospel.

 

Old Tony Thompson gave prime Wlad a good fight.
Ali would beat him 100 times out of a 100

 

:

No my entire basis is actual analysis, watching them and thinking about how fighters measure up not just recounting age old myths and legends and going off that as you are.

I'm only stating facts and you haven't poked a single hole in anything I have said all you've done so far is double down on your own arguments while having 0 response to any of mine (dw that's pretty common over here)

Instead he arguably lost to Doug Jones and almost got knocked out by a LHW lol. I thought we were comparing fighters at their best not considering how they were before they hit their best. Wlad was at his best during his title reign where he hardly lost a round. Bring up the fights he lost is doesn't tell us anything just like bringing up the early fights where Ali struggled doesn't tell us much about prime Ali.

1. Wlad hits just as hard as Foreman and is arguably an even better knockout puncher considering he has more knockouts against much heavier foes while Foreman was mostly knocking out smaller HWs. The former is much more impressive.
2. Yes I think prime Wlad shuts Foreman down scares him with his power and if Foreman couldn't bully someone he would have no idea what to do. Foreman was good against smaller stationery opponents. Someone larger then him who could keep him at range and not allow him to plant his feet to punch would be a nightmare for him.

You’re free to have an opinion, but when you ignore basic technical mechanics in favor of vibes it discredits your entire argument. It’s hilariously ironic that you bring up "blown-up cruiserweights" as a knock against Wlad, when that describes almost every notable win Ali had in the 60s.

While Ali was dancing around 185lb men like Henry Cooper, Wlad was dominating legitimate Super Heavyweights who were significantly larger and hit harder than almost everyone in Ali’s prime, and he did it without dropping a single round for years. My issue isn't that we disagree, it’s that your stance has no objective basis. When I point out the technical reality and you retreat into heart and soul cliches, it proves my point, you’re viewing the sport through a casual lens, relying on hype and legends rather than actual boxing analysis.

 

Saying "I think nobody beats that version of Ali" doesn't mean that I think he's indestructible; I just back him to win. Just as you clearly do with Wladimir. Wlad doesn't hit as hard as Foreman, though; he hasn't KO'd anyone who breaks into the top 30 of the all-time HW rankings. Maybe Byrd, Rahman? Both of them years past their best. Wach went the distance, so did Povetkin. He could obviously punch, but not to the level of Foreman. Foreman obliterated Frazier in 2 rounds; Norton didn't do much better either. Both of these would be the best wins on Wlad's win by a country mile. Or are you going to tell me Samuel Peter is better than Joe Frazier next?

Resorting to insults like "casual" shows you're losing control of your point. You're talking about "technical reality" and "actual boxing analysis" - your actual boxing analysis is just as subjective as mine is. It doesn't hold any more weight. I consider heart and mental fortitude over technical prowess a deciding factor in a lot of ATG matchups; you don't, we can agree to disagree.

Wlad is a tier below the true HW greats, in my opinion. He has no wins against fellow all-time greats, no wins where his back was against the wall, he avenged none of his KO losses, and turned an entire generation of sports fans away from the heavyweight division.

Not to mention, he lost his title to Fury and was knocked out by Joshua, two fighters who are drastically overrated in the grand scheme of things. Although he was slightly past his best. The idea he loses to the version of Ali who toyed with Liston and walked through hell to knock out Foreman? I don't see it.

 

Claiming a fighter would beat every other ATG that came after him implies you see him as unbeatable, that’s just how logic works. You can’t back a guy to win every single hypothetical matchup and then claim you don't think he's invincible. The difference is that I’m backing Wladimir based on a stylistic matchup that I favor his style in. You’re backing Ali based on a hero narrative that you created that has very little basis in reality.

Wladimir regularly knocked out opponents that are legit HWs and SHWS. If you understand basic physics, you'd know that generating the force to stop a 250lb+ athlete is a much greater showcase of power than Foreman knocking out 205lb fighters. Instead you're using All-Time Ranking as a metric for punching power, which is a fundamentally flawed way to assess anything let alone power. Frazier was a stylistic gimme for Foreman, a small, come-forward pressure fighter. Norton, frankly, is overrated, I’d back Povetkin to chin him without much trouble. Both were fighters who were smaller then Foreman and couldn't fight on the backfoot, making them easy for Foreman to bully. When George couldn’t bully his man, as seen with Ali and Young, he struggled. Given Wlad’s size, strength, and elite range control, there is zero evidence Foreman could replicate those performances against him.

Calling you a casual isn't an insult, it’s a diagnosis. You’ve admitted your analysis is based on heart and vibes, whereas mine is based on technical mechanics and evidence. While all opinions are subjective, the opinion grounded in objective data and stylistic reality holds more weight than one based on how a fighter makes you feel. Any reasonable person can see which view has more grounding.

All you're basically saying is that your criteria for greatness is being exciting and having back against the wall moments which is really just a way to devalue Wlad for being too dominant to let those moments happen. By your logic, we should devalue any dominate champ like Joe Louis just because they were too dominate and didn't have any wars or back against the wall moments. It’s a classic casual take valuing drama over dominance.

Idk why you're bringing up Wlad losing to Fury and Joshua while past his prime. Ali lost to Leon Spinks, a LHW with only seven pro fights, and then got embarrassed by Holmes and Berbick. Bringing up losses from a fighter’s twilight years tells us nothing about their prime. It’s telling that you haven't referenced a single performance from Wlad’s title reign. Your inability to see past the hype and look at technique and styles is exactly why you're a casual.

 

I can appreciate other people's views and if I am wrong, but the HW champ that has the longest reign in history with the most total title defenses against the most people beaten for those defenses is only going to rank in the top 25? That's like saying Bill Russell is the 25th best basketball player ever.

 

Context is important, though. I do get your point. I have Wlad closer to 20 than 25, and if I had to sit down and think it through and give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe somewhere between 15 and 20 would be a fairer analysis. The problem with long reigns like Louis and Holmes is that they were so dominant, they didn't get smashed to pieces repeatedly by fringe contenders. The losses or contentious fights they were involved in, they avenged them all, something Wlad also didn't do.

In Purrity's case, we had a guy who never really cracked the top 20, taking Wlad out in the championship rounds. Wlad was dominant in a very poor era, which lacked serious depth and quality; outside the top 3 at any point, the quality went off a cliff. Guys like Boytsov, Arreola, and Bermane Stiverne were all in around the top 10 for years. It was a woeful time for HW boxing, I remember it all too vividly.

Wlad was the most dominant, but I don't think he was better than Vitali, and I definitely don't think he was better than Usyk, so he's not the best Ukrainian HW of all time, nor is he the best HW in his family. A legend, yes, and I know I'm using hyperbole, but Wlad just didn't have what it takes when the going got tough, which is why I think he would crumble against the greats.

 

You can't actually believe that? This guy was getting one of the worst beatings in HW history. For some reason Sdunek didn't teach his fighter to properly clinch so this guy gets a miraculous win because Sdunek jumps in the ring in the 11th round and stops the fight before Wlad even took any serious punishment. Just because Puritty was never a top 20 contender Wlad doesn't crack your top 15 when Wlad was only 22?Wlad clearly improved significantly over the next 15 years, but this and a couple slip-ups make guys that were at the very top of the sport for a few fights better than Wlad? Come on.

 

I'm saying true greatness is about how a champion faces true adversity; there's a difference. Clearly, you don't have much knowledge of Louis's reign, which doesn't surprise me, given that you think Wlad would beat him and you're throwing the word 'casual' around.

Louis is probably the best example of what I am talking about; he showed his heart countless times. He was behind on the cards when he knocked Conn out in the 13th round, and then he gave him the honour of a rematch when he had no obligation to, and knocked him out again. Jersey Joe Walcott should've got the nod on the cards in their first fight, had Joe down twice, and Joe immediately fought him in a rematch and knocked him out. He also climbed back in there against Schmeling after being knocked out and took him out in 1 round. That is what I mean by adversity, not getting smashed all over the place by journeymen and fringe contenders on multiple occasions and then having your brother avenge the losses.

I watched all of Wlad's title fights from the Peter fight onwards. In fact, I watched a lot of them live. What is there to discuss? Which one of those wins puts him alongside the likes of Ali, Louis, or Lennox? Saying I don't have the ability to look past the "hype" and focus on the technique is ridiculous when we're talking about Ali, a man who cruised to Olympic gold and made Liston look like an amateur for 6 rounds after he had just slaughtered Patterson twice. If you think Wladimir and his jab and grab technique against B-rate fighters hold a candle to the magic of Ali, then there's not much point in discussing this any further. We clearly have 2 very different views of the sport.

 

Wladimir should've been stopped in the 10th of the fight; he should not have been allowed out for the 11th, he was completely out on his feet. Yes, we might have different reasons for our rankings, but getting slapped across the ring by Brewster, Purrity, and Sanders definitely shows flaws in his heart and chin that Ali, Lennox, Holyfield, Usyk, whoever you want to name in the top 10, would've definitely exploited.

He doesn't crack my top 15, no, maybe he's in and around that top 20, he might creep into it, but he's been completely overrated since he retired. I've seen people put him top 3 which is absolutely insane to me, I see no justification at all for that.