Is Wlad even top 20?

Johnson below Wlad ? An argument could well be made....it would be wrong though !

 

borderline

 

I dont think you can call anyone from the worst heavyweight era categorically, even the top of the pile, all time greats. it's silly

 

true johnson is definitely above wlad at present.

 

charles, schmeling and walcott are all AROUND the same place as wlad in my book. charles being easily the most talented of the bunch all round

patterson is a step below all of them

talent wise and resume wise wills is right up there; had he fought dempsey and won, he'd definitely be top 20. being denied the chance hurts him but his record, notably all the wins against a near peak langford, bring him into top 20 contention

 

Jack Johnson was well known for being the Heavywieght Champion who was proud to be black & for fighting Jeffries who was retired. In other words his claim to fame is more about his personality & how he advanced his race in the sport more than him actually fighting.

 

Worst? Not by a long shot. :-(

 

Please present the credentials you're going by to determine that opinion.

Let's face it, very little actual footage of Johnson exists for us to compare and his competition level & the general size of his opponents would suggest he's below Klitschko. Head to head Wladimir would massacre Johnson IMO.

Just as those that would claim Klitschko isn't in the top 20 can't seem to list 20 better Heavys.....................:deal

 

okay, 2nd worst, next to the previous one that picked up after lennox's fight with vitali. the heavyweight landscape since that fight has been the bleakest its ever been all around, and has only recently gotten better with the influx of characters like Haye and up and comers like Arreola, who look to challenge the brothers. Wladimir is a good fighter, and I personally like Vitali, but they're showing their skills against all time low (skill wise and in terms of physicality) elite heavyweights, which is neither of their faults but still must be noted. This comment is only being made for the CURRENT time period, who knows what fights wlad will get involved in within the next few years that define his legacy and sway my viewpoint? I am not a biased viewer, I enjoy Wlad's skill set, but this is my opinion.

 

I call bull****.

Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson & the infamous Ruiz/Byrd eras were all worse by far. Larry Holmes defended the title against Tex ****in' Cobb, imagine the slack either Klitschko would get for giving Tex a title shot! Joe Louis fought such stiffs that he's well known for the "bum of the month club."

 

well i definitely have wlad in my top 20. but it's a fair question: i have johnson rated higher (though it's not much higher) for a few reasons

1)Skill level-I have a ton of respect for wlad. This is not a knock against him but Johnson's skill level was INCREDIBLY high. Probably the most talented pre war heavy. It's hard to gauge without footage and i normally loathe to rate people without seeing them fight but the literature on Johnson's skills and dominance is compelling

2)Resume-I think it's better than given credit for. Wins over Joe Jeanette, prime Sam Langford, an admittedly past it Bob Fitzimmons, Jim Flynn, Jack O'Brien and even Peter Jackson show (pre title) he took on the very best available. And beat them consistently. Remember: this is in an era where records were relatively sketchy and he and his opponents likely fought far more than shown. He dominated for YEARS before given a shot.

3)Impact on the sport-i know a lot of people don't buy into this as a reason but it has some bearing. He changed the sport forever and that does count for ATG placement for me.

The size issue shouldn't matter. This isn't H2H but all time placement. Johnson was big but not huge and beat his opponents on skill. I don't think Wlad's size is the sole reason for his dominance and it's unfair to present that his physical attributes as a reason for ATG placement.

To be sure, I have wlad 15-20. He's not far away from Johnson now on my list but right now, he's got a little way to go. Hope this clarifies my opinion

 

Okay, to be fair, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Marciano would be modern day big cruiserweights. aside from that, I think the sheer effort displayed by these guys, coupled with the effort given by their competitors in some of their toughest battles, which they won or went out valiantly (every fighter you just mentioned) in during their primes, far outweigh anything Vitali or Wlad has ever done. IMO, MANY of the guys the greats you just mentioned fought could absolutely WRECK Samuel Peter, Juan Carlos Gomez, Corrie Sanders, Chris Byrd, Ruslan Chagaev Tony Thompson, and KNOCK OUT an overweight and/or unmotivated Lennox Lewis. I mean, Rahman and McCall did it, and who the **** are they? nothing but a blip in heavyweight history.

 

All good reeasons, I can see your point to a degree. I don't rank fighters higher for political impact on the sport & this thread did not specify whether the matchup was head to head or based on accomplishments.

I have seen some sketchy footage of Johnson's fights against Jeffries & Stanley Ketchel. Both were of bad quality but you could still see that Jack had fast hands, a good jab & he held a lot! He seemd to throw a lot of arm punches too.................

 

haha, yeah if you think john ruiz was bad, look at the early 20th century. those mothers knew how to clinch! but his skills are still transparent. you're right, fast hands, good jab and brilliant at controlling the pace and distance. i'll have to watch for those arm punches though...

the political impact is definitely a take it or leave it measure of greatness to be sure. i was going off accomplishments/resume/currently placement. Head to head (as always) is a much different story

good stuff ruskull!

 

Ali was the master of holding & holding while hitting..............:yep