Either A) over the next 4 odd years he goes on to defend his belts against (in no paticular order): Boytsov Dimitrenko Pulev Fury Price Seth Mitchell Povetkin Arreola Haye (again) Helenius Chisora And maybe someone like wilder Completely unrealistic I know but its just hypothetical. Or B) the 3 losses he has to purrity, sanders and brewster had all been W's and his career had panned out the exact same way (just assume the WBO belt was stripped for political reasons after sanders and he still went to emmanuel steward) but he retires after the 2nd thompson fight, leaving his record at 61-0-0. In which scenario would he be ranked higher. Just interested to see what kind of bearing the losses have on peoples judgement of wlad
Most of those guys are never going to be willing to fight him so it's ridiculous to even consider such a scenario. I mean, you listed Povetkin, but he's pulled out of fights with Wlad 3 different times. Guys like Boytsov, Price, Pulev and Mitchell will just wait until he retires. They have time on their side.
well, he did lose twice in title fights, so I think that 61-0 would be rated higher, becasue looking back, there aren't a lot of HW fighters with a perfect record out of the list you made, the only names worthy of mention as his next opponents are Povetkin, Pulev, and maybe Helenius and Fury other than that, there really is no one out there who could make Wlad's resume better than it is
I think if Hellenius gets his act together he will present a tough challenge purely because he has size AND power.
Look at the people Pac got knocked out by long ago. They were absolute nobodies. Why aren't people holding those fights against him now? Answer: because it's ancient ****ing history.
I'm not saying would he be rated higher than he is now if either of those situations had or were to happen, I meant out of those two which would be more highley thought of
Because Pacquiao was being knocked out after 11 fights aged 17 in the mid-90s. Wladimir was being knocked out after 40 fights in the mid 2000's in his mid 20s
imagine IF.............................Ali was never saved by the bell from copper or IF Foreman kept his head. The world is not made of IF's. wlad will be remembered as a very compotent boxer with a massive frame, questionable jaw who was consistently involved in robotic boring fights. He will be a HOF and a top 15 heavyweight ATG (only because his opponents have been sooooooooooo average. we will never know how good he really is).
Yeah you could say that about any situation 'what if foreman had stopped ali' just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it isn't interesting to debate it.
His biography is still being written. I think by the time Wlad retires he will be considered by many a top 5 HW of all time. And yes I know the era is pretty weak, but he has been completely dominate. Also there is some challenges out there coming forward for him. Some big and pretty skilled HW's are coming down the line. Should he beat the likes of Price, Fury, Mitchell and so on, at some point the haters will have to conceed, at least to themselves that this guy is a damn good fighter, regardless of the excitement his fights seem to lack.
61-0 would have been better. Wlad's legacy is permanently damaged by his three loses. If he wins more, eventually he will be a Top5 heavyweight of all time, but he will never climb to the #3, #2 or #1 place because of the three loses. For example, he will never rank above Larry Holmes (Holmes was undefeated and dominated until he was past his prime). At his best, in my opinion, Wlad can be #4 heavyweight of all time. He is right now my #8. He will rank higher if he keeps winning and unifies the WBC belt, but #4 is his roof in my book.
