Wlad's all-time status?

Yeah like I said mate - 5 wins before 11's out and 3 of these are Haye/Povetkin/Valuev/Arreola/Solis then he's probably there or there abouts for me

 

I don't think Vlad will ever be top 10 on an all-time basis; his proven weaknesses are too serious ever to permit that. However, at the rate Vlad is going, he will definitely be top 15 or top 20. In other words, Vlad is so good, that only a truly great fighter can beat him when he's fighting his best.

The knock on Vlad is that in order for him to live up to his high potential, he has to avoid being hit. Just like the announcer said today on TV: Vlad's greatest strength is that he knows, and is respectful of, his own weaknesses.

What are Vlad's proven weaknesses? I'd say chin, stamina, limited capacity to fight on his backfoot, relative ponderousness, and that he's a frontrunner. Vlad will never win a "Thrilla In Manila" kind of war.

On the other hand, if a guy cannot exploit Vlad's weaknesses, then Vlad is like King Kong. He will utterly destroy his man. Not many guys in history could have exploited Vlad's weaknesses.

Right now, the only guys I'd pick to definitely beat Vlad are the following (assuming these men are in their primes):

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Sonny Liston
4. Joe Frazier
5. George Foreman
6. Larry Holmes
7. Mike Tyson
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Riddick Bowe
10. Lennox Lewis

I'm sure there are another 10 to 25 guys in history who would have had about a 50%/50% shot at beating Vlad, too.

My point is clear, though: Vlad is already in high company, and he should go down in history as being just one notch below true greatness.

 

I don't rate Joe Louis because of his resume. I rate him because of his skills.

I don't rate Wladimir because of his resume. I rate him because of his skills. His skills are good, but not top 10 ATG material (though last night's performance was heading more that way).

 

Wlad has certainly managed to adapt his boxing mindset over the years.

"One thing's for sure. Klitschko will fight like he always does. The man can't, and won't change. I discovered that when he parted ways with Freddie Roach after the trainer tried to show him how to clinch, when in trouble. The brothers weren't interested. Perhaps someone should have told them that if Wladimir clinched, he could have prevented his two knockout losses to lesser opposition."

 

Wlad will (probably) never get anywhere near the top 10 heavyweights of all-time.

For a fighter outside the old First World to make it, he has to be an icon, and have a personality that makes us feel comfortable and at ease.

Wlad still comes across as Rocky bad guy. He is too methodical and he takes the art out of the game.

Outside the Ring he lacks emotion and gives you no reason to attach yourself to him and become a fan. He always looks awkward talking, and because of that, he is too staged managed and although allegedly very intelligent, his interviews seem very cliche.

To have all these faults and still be one of the ten best Heavies of all time, you would need to be at least 100-0 and an undefeated 15 year Champion throughout your career. That is why Wlad probably never will not be considered a top 10 Heavyweight.

 

never he is gonna get chinned and then its goodnight

 

Sarcasm TBooze?

It's hard to tell on the internet.

 

It is going to be difficult. He has already suffered more ko defeats than Jeffries, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, and Lewis did in their entire careers. This is going to weigh heavily on his status. AND, the three men who ko'd him were NOT the best fighters out there, somebody like Lewis or Vitali, but a very ordinary Ross Purrity, and Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster, two fighters who did very little else in their careers.

 

True, and although we are talking about exceptional circumstances, I think the Klitschko brothers' failure to meet in the ring will ultimately be detrimental to the chances of either one of them achieving real legendary status as an individual- that is, Wlad is now (per the reckoning of what I believe to be the majority) the newly-established linear heavyweight champion, but he has not faced and probably never will face the best available opponent within his own era. The Klitschko brothers are both head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the field, and a win by one over the other would be easily the most meaningful mark either could achieve. Again, these are, of course, extraordinary circumstances, but I think a similar point can be made about, say, Dempsey as regards Harry Wills (strong difficulty getting such a fight to come off when it could be such a powerful catalyst for race-rioting), and this is nevertheless seen as a detriment to Dempsey's claim in terms of historical greatness. I don't think this means Wladimir is a bad guy or somesuch- if your personal, moral judgment and/or familial love is more important to you than strengthening some abstract mark of historical significance, then more power to you, and you're probably the better man for it in the most important ways. However, speaking purely in terms of "greatness" within one's boxing career, then clearly the best available means for Wladimir to achieve as much would be to face his brother, the only other real star of his era, and prove himself the best, and in lieu of such a fight, he will have a much tougher time gaining any such recognition.

 

I am happy to see you posting and hope you will be posting more often.

Yes, the three losses and not defeating the best of his time--Lewis, Vitali, and possibly even Holyfield before he was 40--will be a lot to overcome. Beating up a whole slew of second-raters is not likely to do it.

 

Why should Wlad's losses count so much against him he has developed onto the top fighter of his era the losses are in the past this is the present.

 

Because you are rated on your whole career. Also, his defeats didn't come when he was completely green. He was a mature man who had had plenty of fights.

I'll ask you a question:

If you rated the top three heavyweights of the 2000 to 2009 era, who would they be? I assume Wlad is one of them. Did he defeat either of the other two?

 

Wlad is already top 20, and might be top 15 by now. Those who appreciate the art of hitting without getting hit have to like this guy. Chagaev had a high guard. He kept his chin tucked, and had some head movement, but he just could not get past Wlad's jarring jab or bone rattling right hand. Klitschko's footwork was technical vs. his southpaw opponent. As I said before, Klitschko spend very little time on the ropes or in bad position. He knows what he's doing in there and forces the other guy to confront his size, athleticism and power.

Had it been Ingo, Chalres, Patterson, Corbett, Walcott....pretty much any small man in there with the same reach and size as Chagaev, they would have been badly out classed too. In fact, I'd say the same thing about Jack Johnson too who fails to impress as an out fighter on film, and in news reads.

The modern super heavyweights with skills, speed and power are never going to be out boxed by a 6' tall heavyweight with a short reach. The shorter man must get inside, which vs. Wlad is easier said than done. And when he gets in there, Wlad can put the clamps on him, lean his weight behind the other guys head, or push off re-set.

Chagaev wasn't a chump. No one has ever outclassed him like this.

W Klitschko is going to be very hard to beat. Had it been David Haye out there, I think the shot that floored Chagaev in round two would have finished him.

If title records, winning percentages, rounds won to round lost ratio, career longevity at the top, or KO% is part of your formula in ranking a fighter in the top 20, Wladimir Klitschko most certainly belongs.

Top 15 for Wlad right now id debatable. Top ten possible, but he has to win a few more times vs ranked oppoents, then hope those guys become champion when he retires. Some here felt Wlad was slightly past his prime. I think he is in it now, and much like Lennnox Lewis will stay there in his mid's 30's.