AJ a Top 15 ATG HW boxer?

No, but he is off to a great start.

If he would have been the guy to dethrone Wlad, there would be a case that he is getting there. As it is, he dethroned no one, and beat a post-40 great who had been out for a year and a half. Still a great, but very badly faded.

Povetkin is a good win. The guy is a bit over the hill, but still one of the best in the game.

Whyte was about as good as Chisora (he has subsequently improved some), Martin and Parker have both subsequently lost again and been exposed as not that good.

Added up, it is an impressive run, but in context, not THAT impressive. Let's see him beat the winner of Fury-Wilder and we'll talk.

 

Not yet but might become one. Here´s the problem tho: imo Wilder probably beats Fury and next AJ beats Wilder.. what then, who´s left? AJ´s reign could be very similar to Wlad´s, crushing two challengers a year and turning them all into "bums". Will AJ end up being underrated and unappreciated like Wlad?

 

Meh ... not yet.

 

He's good. Very good. But I want more time and live opponents on his resume before making a call like this. After all, of his last four opponents, one was over 40 and all but two years inactive, another will be 40 next birthday and the third a 36-year-old who has since been knocked out by Chisora....

 

He was knocking guys out of the ring with left hands and AJ gets hit a lot. Same for Corrie Sanders. I'm saying they would be live.

 

People forget hes only a 22 fight novice, compare his first 22 fights with all the other greats first 22 fights, i bet he most likely has one of the more impressive resumes & i bet most of them hadnt even picked up their first world title yet.

Hes most certainly heading the right way, add Fury, Wilder & Usyk onto his resume in the next 2 years and hes 100% solidified himself as the best of his era which is all you can really do to even have your name mentioned in the ATG conversation.

 

That's something that's very debatebale.

1. A 41 y/o Wlad gave AJ a very tough fight in losing. Vitali gave Lewis, who was a little old, a very tough fight but lost.
2. Aj beat top ranked 39 y/o Povetkin and Parker. Vitali beat top ranked fat Sanders, Sam Peter, and Adamek.
3. AJ beat Breazeale, Martin, and a prospect version of Whyte. Vitali beat Gomez, Chisora, Charr, Solis, Arreola, Johnson, Hide, and Donald.

Vitali still has more depth.

 

1. Win > Loss, you can't really compare the two like they're on the same level. You get ahead of the pack based on your wins not how well you performed in a fight.
2. I'd still rate Pov and Parker better than those three. Adamek is barely even a factor in my eyes, dude's not a heavyweight.
3. Yeah, Vitali has more names since his career spans a longer timeframe but honestly, for me depth only goes so far. You need big wins, and Vitali lacks those.

That's only comparing the resumes, if you actually look at what they've achieved, you can't really compare the two. Joshua's got 3 belts, 4 defenses and 1# Ring HW.

 

If AJ is the top 15 heavyweight then Corrie Sanders must be one and higher on the list. Since Corrie Sanders did beat Wladmir Klitschko (AJ's best win) in less than 4 minutes when Wlad was in his prime. I would say in reality. Anthony Joshua is one of the best fighters named Anthony Joshua, but he isn't even a top 500 all time heavyweight.

 

To answer the topic question though, I don't think he is. Top 15 is kinda Wlad territory and I don't think he's there yet. He needs to sustain a long period of domination since the division is a bit weak. But if he goes on for a few more years and beats Wilder, for sure he will be.

 

Adamek had 40+ wins and 1 loss going into the Vitali fight. He beat Arreola, Grant, Chambers, Jason Estrada, Steve Cunningham and some others before his career started to sputter out. He was better than Parker and possibly better than an aging Povetkin.

AJ’s win over Wlad is better than Vitali’s loss to Lewis, but Vitali’s loss showed that he was definitely world class and could compete at the top level. AJ’s win over Wlad was good, but more analogous to Tyson beating Holmes than an ATG win.

AJ is vulnerable which makes his opponents look good, whereas Vitali was dominant and made his opponents generally look worse than they actually were.

 

With most of those being at LHW/CW. Even that Cunninham win you listed. Beside that, the list of opponents there are really not all that inspiring apart from Chambers. Not to mention he was simply not suited for the HW division, he had absolutely no power, his speed was decent but nothing crazy and he was too small. The size discrepancy against Vitali, it was completely comical, I know I shouldn't take this into account but I simply can't overlook this when judging how good of a win it was. He beat a guy with really no outstanding wins, FAR smaller than him who had no power. That's the reality of the situation.

I'd DEFINITELY not pick that Adamek over Povetkin, even a 39 year old one, who I think is now underrated since his loss. Not even Parker to be honest.

 

Adamek has a win over Cunningham at heavy. Every win I listed is from heavy. He was 220. Povetkin struggled w Huck.

 

Top 30 if he beats Wilder and Fury. Top 20 if he continues to dominate the heavyweight division for the best part of the next decade. Top 15 if he retires undefeated (or takes a loss or two but then avenges his only losses like Lennox Lewis) and maybe (just maybe) top 10 if he accumulates a large enough number of signature wins over the best available competition during the remainder of his title reign.