Where is Wlad on the ATG heavyweight list right now?

yeah, you can't ignore longevity, nor can you use it selectively. larry holmes and joe louis are both rated so highly in large part to the length of their reigns. did they fight better opponents? yup. but if you took away 20 or so of louis' defense and just included the top 5 defenses, he would not be ranked where he is. more so with holmes, who did not have a single successful defense against a HOF or all time great heavyweight

 

with the quality of opposition (which is not his own fault) i feel its unfair to put him in the top 15 as of yet! His 3 KO defeats hurt him aswel IMO. To overcome those two negatives i think he needs to stay dominant for another couple years, beat Haye and maybe another 1/2 young hungry prospects

 

while your right in saying Louis didnt fight in the strongest era, he still faced much much better opposition than wlad has had a chance to. Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Max baer and Schmelling for example. Wlad hasnt had the chance to fight any of those calibre opponents. This, while being no fault of his own, hurts him. therefore i feel longevity is his best shot at getting into the top 15/10

 

Then judge him on his own real fights.

And let me remind you, his best win is against Chris Byrd.

Surely that wouldn't even get him into the top 100?

 

I agree, wlad atm is so dominant that we cant currently see anyone of the caliber of those you mentioned rising to the top and for the record here was my 2009 criteria for ranking atg's.

1) who they faced in their era (resume)
2) overall record (longevity)
3) Titles and title defenses (length of reign)
4) impact on the sport (fame popularity etc.)

 

**** defenses? Eight of his nine title defenses have been against number one ranked fighters. He's only taken 1 voluntary defense in four years. Remind me how long it took Haye to take a voluntary defense? The first chance he got sound right?:nut

 

And Lennox Lewis's best win was against Razor Ruddock. For all the deference he's gotten since he retired, Lewis's reign was based on longevity rather than elite fighters, much like Wlad's. He didn't come anywhere close to beating an elite fighter in his prime. Andrew Golota, Michael Grant and Razor Ruddock were his three best wins. Not exactly ATG fighters.

 

frazier and dempsey are so overrated. first of all, frazier only defended the title 3 or 4 times. and the only good fighter frazier beat was Ali, who by the way had been out of the ring for 3 years and was only in his third fight on his comeback and even then frazier barely won that fight. i think frazier was so overrated.

dempsey also only defneded the title 5 times and 3 of those times were against blown up light heavies and he even lost his title to a blown up light heavy weight. wlad is better then dempsey and fraizer whereever you rank him.

oh and liston only defended the belt twice as well. wlad has defended his belt 9 consecutive times, the same as mike tyson in the 80s

 

His career is mirroring Lennox Lewis's. For all the credit that Lewis gets in retrospect, his career was based on longevity. He didn't come anywhere close to beating a great fighter in his prime. Rather, he has 11 title defenses against mostly mediocre fighters. Granted, fighters like Golota, Ruddock, and Grant were more dangerous than what Wlad has faced. But only by a small margin.

 

1) Indeed
2) Does this matter if they never fought decent opposition? Tyson's reign was very short yet he is undoubtedly an atg
3) Same as 2)
4) personally I think this quality is more important than most give credit for

 

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Dempsey
Marciano
Foreman
Frazier
Holmes
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Wlad

 

Wlad is making slow and steady progress in my HW ATG top 10. A couple more solid title defenses and I see him inching past Audley Harrison for the #9 spot:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Valuev
4. Dempsey
5. Haye
6. Ruiz
7. Lewis
8. Holmes
9. Harrison
10. Wlad

 

Im not sure many people would agree with you on that.:?

 

I have done posts on this subject in the past and what i have gathered from the responses is that most people have no foundation for making their statements whatsoever! I have never seen anyone else attempt at making a list as to what criteria for how we judge ATGness, so take it for what it is worth.

1. we obviously all agree on.
2. I think longevity alone says something about a fighter, look for instance at Tyson who you mentioned. He was tremendous devastating guy for..a short period of time. Consistency and Frequency count when considering boxers. Tyson did rack up a lot of pro fights though and this enhances him, Wlad has really fought a huge number of times (and still climbing) and IMO this counts for a lot. Look at Haye as an antithesis (25ish pro fights)
3. Being the man for so long counts. You can say Wlad's defenses arent against frazier or foreman, but he is fighting the best available, all highly ranked guys. So yes, this counts. defenses and being the man in the division, being the champ this enhances atg status
4. most people dont rank this criteria, IMO it matters. For us USA based guys wlad doesnt have this but in germany he is ****ing huge, he has a huge following and he is the man, so he is building this criteria internationally with every fight, but he pales compared to Ali, Tyson and Louis. holmes was never popular so he will likely surpass Holmes in this criteria and IMO has surpassed Lewis already.

 

I feel hard for voting top 30 because i think he is closer to top 20 , just outside.