Wladimir Klitschko has a very good resume..where does it rate in history

Again, Wlad beat Chageav, the #3 fighter with fairly conclusive wins over Ruiz and Valuev. I guess Tyson didn't clean out the mid 80s because he only beat Smith, and didn't knockout Witherspoon and Weaver himself. :rofl Louis didn't beat Elmer Ray himself either, so maybe he didn't clean out ****?

Lewis retired and Vitali/Wlad isn't happening. Hardly a fair criticism. When Vitali and Lewis retired, the division was in shambles but Wlad unified and established order by beating three major lineal alphabet Champions in Byrd, Sultan, and Chageav. It depends on how literal one wants to take the phrase "cleaning up the era." I pesonally don't think it means Wlad had to fight and beat everyone with a pulse, I think taking out Chageav is a realistic enough subsitute for Valuev and Ruiz.

 

Good post, i agree. :good Walcott has the best chance because of his timing and power, like you said.

 

I both agree and disagree. Lennox Lewis retired in 2003, and from 2004 onward, it has basically been a totally different era. Wlad was not the top dog in those days, and Lennox was at the end of his run anyway.. Facing Vitali is a virtually unmakable match given Wlad's relation to him... You have a point about Ruiz and Valuev, however Wlad has beaten men who in turn have defeated those guys, therefore I don't hold it against him much.... The biggest check mark against him are those 3 losses.

 

Yes its a laundry list of top heavyweight fighters "of this era", but realistically they just arent that good and in the case of a bunch of not very good fighters you have to fight all the best which he did not. Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, were probably three of the best fighters he faced when they were at their respective best, but two of those three were far past it. He also lost badly against two midlevel contenders and a lost against a journeyman. I dont care what titles they had guys like Sanders and Brewster, were not good fighters.
I think Wlad is very talented with size speed and boxing ability, but I dont think he would have made it past the first round in the mid to late 90's which I dont think very highly about, because of his lack of fighting instincts.

 

In all fairness, Lamon Brewster was fairly decent fighter.. He lacked skill, but his heart, chin and punching power compensated for some of it. Corries sanders doesn't have much of a resume, but in all honesty his style and power could have made him a potential threat to just about anybody. I agree with the rest of your points though..

 

Sorry, I don´t understand would you mean by that in these circumstances.

 

I had a very strange dream last night that Wlad was fighting Valuev in Germany. He was winning handily until the giant unleashed a huge right hand punch knocking Wlad clear out of the ring. The audience was stunned and totally silent. After the huge upset with Wlad being counted out and Don King rejoicing in the ring a melee ensued. Vitaly had to be restrained from going after Valuev. Wlad climbed back into the ring after the upset loss and was not seriously injured. It was really strange needless to say.

Wlad will get more props as he piles up the defenses. But like other unexciting but highly effective fighters he will not be regarded in that same pantheon of legends that electrified fight fans and the even casual fans. If Haye knocks him down or hurts him and Wlad roars back to win his legacy goes up exponentially though.



If Wlad

 

Enough with the Sanders jokes Suzie.

I don't consider the man as having credentials that are worth anything, but yes he is a dangerous fighter who could have possed a threat to a lot of men.

 

So was Bert Cooper he almost had Holyfield out. Sanders was not much better.

 

That's my point though. I'm not trying to make the guy out to be an elite entity of boundless talent, but rather treachurous opponent on th right evening.. Sort of like a Bert Cooper, only a little bit better.

 

yep

 

Okay, I'm back.

Remember not losing is only one criteria for greatness. How many top men you defeat, longevity, dominance, etc also count.

so how do they rate?

1-----Marciano

2-----Jeffries (only loss to all-time great when in mid-thirties after six year layoff)

3-----Holmes (first losses in mid to late thirties to proven top fighters Spinks and Tyson. Had not laid off and Spinks was a lightheavy, so slightly behind Jeffries.

4-----Louis (badly beaten by Schmeling, but reversed. 22 at the time but certainly at the top of the division. Only losses to top level champions)

5-----Ali (I would rate him slightly behind Louis because of his loss to Norton at 31)

6-----Lewis (bad one punch losses, but later reversed both. Hurts his standing quite a bit. otherwise would be #1)

7-----Johnson (early ko's and especially the loss to Hart pull him down)

8-----Frazier (only lost to top champions. Good performances even in defeat to Ali, but blowouts to Foreman hurt standing)

9-----Foreman (Loss to aging Ali, and especially to Young, and not reversed, certainly pull him down quite a bit)

10----Liston (bad losses to Ali hurt. It is not so much that he lost as the way he lost. Was green against Marshall and past it against Martin, but these defeats do hurt at this level)

11----Holyfield (Bowe beat him two of three near his prime. Also lost to Moorer and had scads of defeats when old)

12----Dempsey (ko by Flynn hurts badly. Losses to Meehan were only four round bouts. Couldn't handle Tunney, but past best. It is not so much his losses as not fighting Wills which hurts him)

13----Tyson (oh, man, does that debacle against Douglas hurt. Also the failures against Holyfield. Those defeats really take the air out of his balloon for his victories were impressive)

14----Vitali (lost to the two best men he faced. As far as defeats go, these were not the most devastating, but they really pull him down because of his thin resume)

My take is that the three bad defeats will probably keep Wlad out of the top 10 no matter what he does (within reasonable speculation) the rest of his career. He seems to be building a good case for top 15 or so, though.

 

1. You equate Lewis and Vitali with Witherspoon and Weaver? Neither of them was ever the top man in the division.

2. "Louis didn't beat Elmer Ray himself either, so maybe he didn't clean out ****"

He didn't after the war. He defeated Walcott who in turn lost to Charles. Charles then defeated Louis also. Louis did not defeat Ray, Murray, and Thompson among the top postwar contenders.
Louis cleaned out his era before the war. I can't think of a top man from 1934 to 1941 whom he didn't defeat.

3. I don't mean to imply Wlad not beating Lewis and Vitali as a criticism. Wlad didn't fight them, but no matter how it is spun, Wlad didn't defeat them and they were better, in my judgement, than the men he did defeat. Kind of unfair, I know, sort of like Wills (and perhaps Dempsey, but that might have been his own fault) but it still matters.

 

1. No, clearly I intended them to be a rough equation to Valuev and Ruiz. They were two of the major active top 10 regular names Tyson didn't defeat when he cleaned out the division 85-86. That's because Tyson instead faced #3 Smith, who had beat both of them as their stock dropped. Do you see the analogy now?

2. That's fair.

3. Not the same at all. Lewis was the Champion and retired before Wlad could get his shot. Despite The Ring's high ranking, Wlad was still cleaning out his fellow prospects and rising fringe contenders during most of Lewis' reign. He couldn't start from the top, he was still working his way up officially. He was regarded as a future threat to Lewis and a potential future opponent but that's about it; Byrd and Rahman were Lewis' official mandatories around this time.