How Harmful Will Wladimir Klitschko's Unavenged...

I can't remember WHO won the Sanders-Rahman fight (it's been a while, but I recall it was one hellavu fight), but Sanders was a good, legitimate top-20-ish fighter prior to the Klitschko fight.

The Klitschko camp didn't just pull his name out of a cap - they looked at the alphabet belt rankings, and thought Sanders was the best non-threat of the bunch. And boy were they wrong!!!

But a win over Sanders now would be quite meaningless, as ever since Sanders lost to Vitali Klitschko, he has faded out of the spotlight. I don't think it really hurts Klitschko's career TOO badly, I just think in retrospect it was an off-night for an overconfidant Heavyweight fighter with some kinks in his armour.

Nowadays, Wladmir is undeniably the best Heavyweight out there (good fighter sits atop a somewhat weak division). The fight that will likely cement W. Klitschko's legacy is a fight with Sam Peter. Whoever wins this fight likely grabs the moniker of best Heayvweight of the late-2000's, for what it's worth.

 

I don't think not avenging these losses (he did avenge the Brewster loss) really means anything. By the time Wlad had pulled himself together, fights against Sanders and Purrity were basically redundant.

If one or both had been active, highly-regarded fighters it would be a different story, but they aren't. Sanders was once, but he went to hell after losing to Vitali so what would it prove for Wlad to have fought him subsequently?

 

Fighters he can never be rated above because of the manner of his losses and his natural urge to panic and be chinny (in no particular order):

Ali
Marciano
Holmes
Jack Johnson
Louis
Liston
Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Holyfield
Foreman
Frazier
Dempsey
Wills
Bowe
Jeffries

He is cracking the second tier and will rank somewhere amongst:

Schmelling
Walcott
Charles
Tunney
Norton
Sharkey
Langford
Patterson
Baer

Best case scenario is finnishes top of that group because of dominating for 3-4 more years and knocking off all the top up and comers.

Wlads legacy fights will probably by David Haye, Povetkin, Solis, Cagaev, Arreola. They'll all be hyped but the only real threat is Haye thats the big 1. If he beats them all hes probably at no16

 

That's 11 fights by my count.
Since when does Wlad fight more than twice a year?
Also, you people can't be considering Wlad to be top10 all time can you? I saw someone mention it.
Top 25 maybe.

 

Beating all of the Heavyweight contenders today would not constitute to being in the top 10 greatest Heavyweights of all time.

 

I think those loses would be quite important.

Wlad fought when HW was quite weak, he was (until quite recently) choosing the most comfortable opponents - and he still managed to lose. Not one time, but three.

So I can't buy arguments like "what if Ali lost to Jones". Better ask something like "what if Ali lost to Jones... and (for example) trilogies against Frazier and Norton as well"? Do you think he would be still considered "The Greatest"? I doubt it.

And this comparison wastill generous for Wlad, considering the level of opponents he lost to. Losing to Rahman, Douglas or Moorer is really different than losing to Purrity. Almost the same can be said about the loss to Sanders, who was generaly considered to be step-down after McCline.

 

Sanders was ring ranked before he beat Wlad. SuzieQ is abandoing this stance, and going off into tangents.

 

Of course he is.

 

Beating all of them would. Wlad already has big wins over Peter, Ibragimov, Brewster and Byrd. If you add in Valuev, Chageav, Povetkin, and Haye, plus cleaning out the rest, that is a top resume.

The Povetkin fight looms large. When was the last time two gold medal winners meet in their prime? Povetkin is the best amatuer since Wlad, and even if he looses the fight to Wlad, should be able to re-bound and become a champion. I also think Chagaev would be a solid #2 or #3 man in most decades.

 

Chagaev is **** and I was a fan until the Skelton mauling. Hayes the big fight, not Povetkin who should be bread and butter to Wlad, Povetkin was figured out against Chambers already

Which would you rank Wlad above to put him top10 out of the below?

Ali
Marciano
Holmes
Jack Johnson
Louis
Liston
Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Holyfield
Foreman
Frazier
Dempsey
Wills
Bowe
Jeffries

 

Haye's the fight the public wants to see more.

His fight against Povetkin will be more important beyond that, no doubt.

 

Povetkin isn't as big a threat as Haye though, hes open to rights from range which is suicide against Wlad and he lacks the power to worry Wlad. Haye has the power, speed and skills to worry Wlad. I'll enjoy watching both fights but Haye is the bigger more exciting fight

 

Rankings are all about politics. As we are not discussing politics, there are more important things to consider - like that he was 37 and before Wlad he fought only once in 2002 and once in 2001. Not to mention that he wasn't really great before.

If you want to say something like "Wlad's promotor somehow got Sanders to top10 of ABC, which made him decent, deserving and dangerous opponent" just do it explicitly ;-)

 

I agree it's a far more exciting fight.

I don't think it'll be as important in 20 years as the Povetkin fight, though.

"He was just a cruiserweight, look at his amateur credintals compared to Povetkin's, etc etc".

 

Did this legacy business start with Lewis? I think he was the first one to use the term in the context of boxing. Anyway, I wish he or whomever it was hadn't, nowadays everybody has to have one; a legacy is like the modern equivalent of a soda stream. I personally think the term should be reserved for those who have had an extraordinary career, a Joe Louis for example or an Ali, I don't think the likes of a Klitschko or a Ruiz really merit it.