Does a win over Haye improve Wladimir's atg heavyweight standing?

Of course it does. He will be beating the former WBO, WBC, WBA, Lineal and Ring magazine CW champ and current HW WBA champ with only one loss and an impressive KO percentage. Also Haye will be in shape.

 

WLAD has an ATG standing?:admin:rofl


No, but seriously.The only way someone becomes an ATG in this era is to become undisputed champion of the heavyweight division, then everyone, including me will have to recognize that person as an ATG.

Be it Wlad, Vitali or Haye.

 

No it doesn't. Not by a lot anyways, considering Haye will retire on the spot should he lose to Wlad.

After retiring with 27/28 fights, Haye will be regarded rather lightly in the history books and Wlad won't be given much credit for a win.

 

No...

 

So you recognize Buster Douglas as an ATG? Clearly, that's a very weak criteria.

 

Exactly.

Meanwhile Haye will be seen as an ATG IF he beats both brothers.

But that is a HUMUNGOUS "IF".

 

Buster wasn't undisputed. Only WBC champion.

 

Top 20 at HW?

 

Nope. WBC/WBA/IBF. Undisputed.

I get your point though. I understand unifying belts is one part of the equation. What I miss then though is longevity and overall dominance. The time factor is ignored if you just look for somebody being the undisputed champ for 3 months.

If you're dominating your division for a number of years and "clean up", defeating all younger contenders over several yaers and then on top of that have 2-3 memorable fights then I think that qualifies for an entry in the HW ATG list. Just my personal criteria.

Wlad good good in the longevity and dominance department, he's missing one or two good, dramatic big fights. But the jury is still out on that part of his legacy as he's not retired yet.

 

I think that's an outdated idea based on how many alphabet titles a fighter has got. Haye didn't have the IBF belt at CW, yet everyone knows he was the champ. A fighter can become the champion of a division without having all the trinkets.

 

Tyson was the champ. Douglas beat him. What difference does it make which belts were involved? or does it make a difference?

 

Lets get our definition right here, atg as a heavyweight means top hundred heavyweight right? Whereas standard atg means top hundred of all time.

So i'm gonna answer from a heavyweight point of view.

I wouldn't say it improves his legacy really, more cements it. We already appreciate he is a dominant force in the division, beating haye just underlines that. Providing he doesn't lose for the next 3 years or so he cracks the top ten imo

 

I would suggest an ATG ranking means amongst the 50 (or at a push, 100) greatest fighters of all time in any division - this is generally what people mean why they say ATG.

ATG HW is obviously something different, and I think it's what the OP was suggesting.