Where is Wlad on the ATG heavyweight list right now?

If you wanted you'd find over 100 better punchers over Wlad.

Wlad wouldn't be a bum when he was smaller, no cheen = no ATG.

 

Not every single fighter that went the distance had a iron chinned, right?
Chagaev has a very high ring iq so I pick him over ruddock. Peter can punch plus had a hard chin so I don't know about that

 

It is fair to say that he is top 10 ATG at this point.

 

So Tomas Hearns is not Atg...... Or maybe Rjj... Hmm.

 

You said Donovan had no chin...and used him getting knocked out by the best Heavyweight since Holmes as evidence. Lunacy. :huh

 

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

Nope. Maybe in his fights just after Sanders and Brewster. But not now.

His chin isn't iron, in fact, its his major weakness. So he adopts a style that protects it from being hit.

He doesn't hide from his opponents. He pummels them into submission in a slow methodical way that sucks the soul of his opponents, discouraging them, frustrating them. It's not fighting scared, he's fighting smart.

Why should he fight in a way that would leave him in the canvas?

He keeps them on the outside. He breaks them with the jab. Then finishes them with a right, a left hook, or in Peter's case, an uppercut.

It is very effective. He finds a way that takes away most of the opponents game plan, and forces them to fight his own.

He knows he can finish them in a round or two if he likes. He's capable of it. Look at Derrick Jefferson, David Bostice or Ray Austin. I know, you'll say they're bums, but we're talking about finishing bums off quickly.

Wrong again. He might clinch, but so did other fighters.

As for losses to subpar opposition, well, Pacquiao lost to Torrecampo, Dempsey lost to Jim Downey and Fireman Jim Flynn, Hopkins loss to Clinton Mitchell, etc. Need I go on? All early in their careers. Not when they were old and shot. But before they became number one in their respective divisions. Jack Johnson lost to Marvin Hart and Jeanette.

Yet they are ATGs. Why? Because of what they did after those defeats.

Yes, those defeats hurt him. But IMO, his overall body of work mitigated these losses.

Besides, Wlad could have listened to all those naysayers after he was defeated by Brewster saying he was finished, etc., that he should retire.

Instead, he picked himself up, adjusted his style and his pace to deal with his weaknesses, fought the best HWs out there, and rose again to the top.

Nope. It was Haye who priced himself out of Haye bouts.
50/ 50 with no options unfair to Haye, who would get the biggest paycheck of his career?

Besides, I'm sure they will fight next year, and this would be a non issue.

As for Valuev, I don't think anybody who closely followed the negotiations could seriously say that they priced him out. Rather, he priced himself out.

As for the poor and well beaten opposition

Chagaev is undefeated and the WBA champ. It was only politics that prevented him from getting the WBA strap.

All those 'poor' opposition where either Mandatories (Austin, Thompson, Chambers, Brewster, Rahman, Brock, Peter II, etc), champions of other belts (Byrd, Ibragimov, Chagaev), or top ten in the HW division (Chambers, Byrd, Peter I, etc).

I don't remember in the past five years who did he duck, or when he deliberately and voluntarily chose to fight poor fights.

Besides, in the seven years that Larry Holmes reigned, how many ATGs did he beat in their prime?

Well me too. Based on skills, he is top ten IMO. He is described by many boxing experts as one of the most technically adept superheavyweights in history. Just below Lewis. You might disagree, but oh well. On style, based on its effectiveness, easily top ten. It works on guys that are just as tall as him, and just as heavy on him, as well as on smaller guys. On resume, there are no great wins, but plenty of good wins, and over time, this adds up. If he beats Haye, Adamek, and Povetkin, his resume will really look very good. However, a lack of a great fighter to test him really really hurts him.

Base on performance level, he hardly has lost a round since becoming number one. He never had to rely on a crooked decision, and there isn't any controversial fight to hang his head on. He dominates his opponent. Again, you might disagree on the word dominate, but I'll simply say that he completely outclassed each and everyone of them.

I would add additional criteria to being an ATG. Dominance, and Longevity.

Why? Simple. A major reason why Holmes and Louis are so great is the sheer length of their reign. Holmes, seven years, Louis, twelve years. Holmes has twenty title defenses, Louis, twenty five.

As for Wlad, let's look at those two.

Longevity. Wlad has been a top heavyweight since 2000, and THE top heavyweight since 2006. In 2010, that means he's been on the top for five years. He has nine title defenses, and if he fights in December, that would be ten.

Dominance. Well, we all agree that he has been the dominant heavyweight since 2006, even after Vitali's return.

To sum it up, here are some HW fighters of the past whom I am comfortable ranking below Wlad.

Tunney, Schmeling, Sullivan, Corbett, M. and L. Spinks, Conn, Bivins, Moore, Moorer, Douglas, Johanssen, Braddock, both Baer brothers, Burns, Willard, Wills, Walcott, Vitali Klitschko, Ruddock, Quarry, Ellis, Cooney, Carnera, Chuvalu, Bonavena, Berbick, Witherspoon, Tucker, Smith, and Lyle, Norton, Mathis, Cleveland Wiliams, Folley, and many more.

Here are some that I believe are right now on Wlad's level.

Charles, Patterson, Bowe, etc.

Those who I believe rank above Wlad, in no particular order, about now.

Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, and Holyfield.

See why I have him at top 15?

 

whoops voted for not in the top 100 by accident. Thought it meant overall ATG.

But for just heavies, he defo in the top 20 and most likely in the top 15.

 

You have misunderstood my point and are pretty much reinforcing it.

I never said Wlad intentionally ducked the good fighters of his era. I said he padded his record too much early then lost badly to poor fighters and that this took him out of contention for the guys at the top.

 

Really?!?! Do you have any concept of what you're saying? Conn weighed 20lbs less than Louis and was half an inch smaller. He chose not to put on weight to maintain his speed.

Wlad had a much bigger height and weight advantage aginst Chambers and the vast majority of his bum opponents.

Marquee win means beating a great fighter at something like their best. Wlad has never done that.

 

definitely top 20 but could make a case for top 15.

 

It's fair to say you need to put the pipe down

 

I have absolute respect for your opionion and the thourough way in which you've put it accross. I just don't agree. I should say though, it's not by much.

With regards to guys like pacman losing, I put them higher on ATG lists IF they went on to beat other ATGs. Pacman definitely did that. If he lost twice then beat 40 bums in a row I would not consider him ATG either.

The Valuev/Haye point was weak and I admit that. But I really feel that a man as rich as Wlad, and with such a weak resume, should be willing to sacrifice to make big unification bouts. I understand that is not at all popular opinion.

I agree that dominance is important, but I see it as something that happens in the ring, not on a stat line. Wlad wins rounds and fights against lesser guys but he looks more scared than dominant. I understand that he doesn't want to get hit but when guys like chambers have that affect on him it's hard for me to call him dominant. He's definitely effective, but not dominant in the ring.

Longevity is important but a lot of factors play into it. It's hard to rate a super rich modern athlete who benefits from modern knowledge and science against a depression era or wartime fighter. That's why I often see Longevity as the least important criteria.

I agree with the 13 you had ahead of Wlad, here are a few more I believe are clearly above him:

Dempsey, Schmelling, Tunney, Corbett, Bowe.

I find it hard to put him ahead of guys like Charles, Patterson and Langford who managed to bring their skills up from their natural weight and perform. Maybe he's on par with them.

I rate Vitali higher than him as I think he has had similar competition and dealt with them better. He also tested his skills against another ATG and didn't crumble. He's never even come close to being dominated like Wlad has. I think Wlad has better skills, but he uses them so sparringly in the ring that I don't give him the edge. Although the the clinching, leaning and pawing goes unpunished by the refs I think it detracts from his standing as a fighter.

I probably rate Wlad top 25. He's a very good HW but he's not ATG (i.e. close to the top 10) in my opinion.

 

Well, that I can agree with.

At least there's no shame in being top 25 and being very good.

He's not, right now, an ATG, but he still has time to do that.

But if he loses his next fight, or so, he would be derailed and he would fall off the charts.

But as long as he wins consistently against top ten fighters, then his ranking can only inch higher.

The reason I rate Wlad above Vitali is not because of H2H. Prime for prime I believe Vitali beats Wlad.
It simply because of his reign is so short and so brief. When is Vitali's HW era? 2004-2005. Only a year. And with the exception of Sanders and Purrity, Vitali didn't really beat better opposition than Wlad. I mean, is Arreola, Gomez better than Byrd or Chagaev. He simply has no longevity as top HW.

 

Vitali definitely was hurt by injuries and had a shorter prime but he still edges it for work done in my eyes. I'm not saying he had better opposition, I'm saying he handled similar opposition better.

I do agree. If Wlad doesn't lose again and ups his performance level in the ring, which I think he's trying to do, he can only inch higher. If he beats a few high skill, athletic opponents he'll easily make my top 20.

I think I come accross as a Wlad hater often times but I'm really not. He is a very good boxer and has been the best for a while. I just find it frustrating to see boxing fans saying he's more spectacular and historically significant than he is. Especially when they put down consensus top 10 ATGs in the process.

 

I don't rate fighters untill they end their career. If Wlad stops now he is around top 15