Wladimir Klitschko

Me and a most knowledgeable friend have just been discussing his status. I do believe he is a great heavyweight, but we were talking about a place in a top ten list. I said that i can think of ten other men i would rate higher than him, but it is subjective and he could get in as my friend brought up the dominance factor. I am open minded here, as i like to think i always am and i really really want everyone to know i have no bias on this subject, i just want to debate a hot topic classic esb style, that's all.

I said the dominance factor for him is his biggest strength, but others that have gone before him (unfortunately for Wlad) have far better resumes. Then he said it's a lot like Larry Holmes, not a great resume but longevity is very present. I then said that when hairs are there to be split then maybe the aspect that is ability can play a factor in splitting them. In this regard i personally think Wlad is miles behind Larry. And Holmes' resume is not too bad but you can argue for Klitschko in saying that he never struggled with the bulk of his best opposition as much as did Larry.

I also think that Holmes would have no trouble with Purrity, Sanders and Brewster in his prime. I don;t think it's nitpicking to bring that up, we are not talking about the odd ko loss such as what Joe Louis and Lennox Lewis suffered and avenged (regardless of circumatances).

I don't think its absurd to have Wlad on a list that is respectably thought through, but to have him as a lock i think is ignorant personally. Wladimir has some wins that are underrated imo, due to the massive view that is held on the 'weak' era in general.

I haven't made this thread as any attack on Wlad, as i have highlighted his strong points as well as bad ones in terms of his legacy, what are your thoughts on Wlad breaking into a list as it stands?

 

Well my list before Wlad would go like this i think, in no order-

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Jack Johnson
Rocky Marciano
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Larry Holmes
Jack Dempsey
George Foreman
Sonny Liston

I'm open minded and don't normally dol lists, but seen as though i committed to this thread i'd be a clown not to deliver. I understand the arguments against Dempsey, and even Tyson, but i still think over the years Tyson has a decent wins resume, Wlad's is certainly not on a different level. Also if even two men are to leave this list i feel Evander Holyfield and Joe Frazier are feeling pretty hard done by to not be on there.

 

Yeah i never have given credence to the whole theory of taking from a fighter's legacy on what they didn't do (lose respect for them maybe, yes, but this is an objective debate), i can only rank on them on what did occur in their respective careers.

 

I have whole heartedly stated more than once that this is categorically not a Wlad bashing, far from it

 

The one area in boxing where i am ready to admit being biased is Mike Tyson.

I'm not getting into it!

 

:good

 

I think my standpoint is that he doesn't rank with the greatest heavies ever McVey, not that he does. I was just giving flipside arguments so i don't look like an apparent hater (SuzieQ was lurikng when i made this thread).

I think though that it's not too out there to begin a rating of him now however, more wins over today's heavies won't alter things all too much, but a loss as you say, definitely would, which actually plays into my hands here.