If Wlad beats Haye he's an ATG

Under no criteria can wlad be ranked above frazier imo. He falls behind in all of resume, legacy and h2h.

 

Yes he does and that's with or without adding Haye to the list. Head to head Wlad knocks him the **** out too.

 

Still a better era than the eras of Holmes, Marciano, Johnson as well as others.

 

Huh? :huh No comprende

 

Longevity at the top counts for a lot. How many ATG's has Julio Cesar Chavez beaten?

 

It sure does! :thumbsup

Joe Louis reigned in an era that was so weak at times that they had a "bum of the month" club just so he could stay sharp & fight every available contender.

I think the Klitschko haters here think every era was better than this one because they don't like the guys at the top, plain & simple. Most will use the excuse that all the good Heavyweight prospects in the USA are playing Football, Basketball & Hockey. :rofl As if being a good athlete automatically translates into being able to box & fight.

 

Wlad Klitschko is definitely an All Time Great now. If he beats Haye, he has stronger arguments. If he is defeated by Haye, it will affect him a lot.

Klitschko is an All Time Great because of:
a) the number of contenders he has defeated
b) his dominance in the division since 2006
c) the toe-to-toe basis: wlad has an all time speed, all time technique and all time power.

You can't argument that Wlad isn't an All Time Great. I will counter the most common arguments of the Klitschko's haters.

a) "Wlad needs more years on top" - No. Wlad has been dominating for half a decade. It's enough. Jeffries dominated for similar amount of time. Dempsey (counting out his inactive years) dominated for a similar amount of time. Max Schmeling dominated for less time. Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott and Rocky Marciano dominated for less time. Patterson and Liston dominated for less time. Foreman and Frazier dominated less time. Holmes dominated for a similar amount of time. Tyson and Holyfield dominated fewer years. Lennox Lewis dominated for a similar amount of time in his two reigns. The only heavyweights that really have a significant distance over Wlad in this aspect are: Jack Johnson, Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali.

b) "Wlad needs to beat more contenders". This is not a solid argument against Wladimir. He has a long list of Top10 contenders. This list has more names than lists of other all time greats like, for example, Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield, Liston, etc. If you are proportional with numbers, you will see that Wlad has beaten (in proportion) more contenders than old-timers like Dempsey, Johnson, Corbett, Jeffries, etc. Also more than Marciano. The only guys who have significant distance over Wlad in this aspect are: Joe Louis, Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali.

In others aspects, like Title Defenses, Wlad is also among the best heavyweights of all time. If you consider Wlad reign since early 2006 (in practical terms, that time is when his dominance started, without doubt), he has 9 title defenses. The only heavyweights that beat him are: Joe Louis (25), Muhammad Ali (19), Tommy Burns (13), Larry Holmes (11).

(I don't count Holmes' reign since 1978 o 1979 because Muhammad Ali was the champion in 1978 and 1979. On the other hand, Wlad has a claim to the championship since 2006, when the title was vacant. This was not the case in 1978 or 1979.)

c) "Wlad can't be an all time great because his era sucks" - This argument has a point, but it's not enough to disqualify Wladimir Klitschko. If we only guide by the quality of his generation, then other ATG heavyweights woulndn't be All Time Greats. For example, the "bum of the month club" of Joe Louis was a weak generation. Floyd Patterson's opponents were nothing special. Larry Holmes' had to face the generation of the 1980s, which was very mediocre. The same goes for Tyson in the latter part of the decade. Maybe Wlad's opponents will never reach, quality wise, the level of Ali's or Lewis' opponents, but that doesn't invalidate Wlad the chance of All Time Greatness.

So, if you see statistics, Wlad is pretty much in the Top5 of any aspect. Obviously he will never reach the status of Ali (because of the quality of opponents), Louis (because of the dominance), but he can still be an All Time Great. The rest of heavyweight all time greats are not so great as Ali or Louis. Wlad can climb the ranking and pass some of them, as he has been doing.


-------------
--------------


About the linear title. I used to be an admirer of old time concepts like "the linear title". But now I have accepted that it's time to evolve. The lineal (or linear) title doesn't exist. There is no belt to recognize it. Cyberboxingzone.com is not the boxing god to determine who is and who isn't a champion.

We have to accept that time has changed the sport. All sports have evolved. We are not in 1910 and boxing is not the same. Right now there are four major belts. There is also a Ring title which tries to follow a lineage. This is what boxing fans have.

The problem with a Lineal Title (apart that it actually doesn't exist as part of an institution) is that it is too difficult to establish a new lineage after a Champion retires. For example, after Tunney retired, Sharkey and Schmeling fought for the new lineal Championship. Why Sharkey and Schmeling were the chosen ones? Because The Ring Magazine said it? In 2004, Vitali Klitschko and Corrie Sanders fought for the new lineal Championship. Why? Because The Ring Magazine said it? There will always be a sector of fans and other organizations which will disagree. This leads us to a simple conclusion: It's too complicated to be guided by "the lineal championship". Period.

Wladimir Klitschko won the IBF belt and became the Top Dog in the heavyweight division after beating Chris Byrd, the consensus #1. In his next defenses, he won the WBO belt, the Ring Magazine belt and should have won the WBA belt (if not for a decision made by the WBA bosses). He didn't fight for the WBC belt because it was property of his brother. But it think that the facts are clear and no one can deny that Wlad is the dominant for in the division since 2006.

 

Its becuz larry iz black and american lolz amirite guyz?

 

I'll take your non answer as an admission that the Ring's ratings @ 154lbs are bull****.

Nobody would consider the winner of a Cotto Cintron fight the legitimate champion @ 154lbs.

The Ring's ratings are bull****, just like their belts are...

 

WTF?

How can you justify rating Wlad higher than Joe Frazier?

Please tell me as I need a good laugh...

 

Vitali has a stronger claim to the HW Championship than does Wlad...

 

A Haye win moves Wlad up 0.1 of a notch on the all time list, that's his value.

 

Wlad is en route to becoming an ATG, but he must stay dominant for another couple years. A Haye win just won't cut it, as Haye is overrated anyways - Haye's not a great fighter and not much better than an Adamek anyways, he's just more hyped. I feel Wlad has a big problem: his own brother is standing in his way. But that will be solved once Vitali retires.

 

i've already answered numerous times now, when the next issue comes out i fully expect alvarez to be the number 2 ranked LMW.

now answer mine or i'll have to accpet your non answer as an admission that your whole thought process regarding the "naysayer legitimate lineal championship that goes against the very grains of boxing history" is bull ****.

who are your top 2 ranked light middleweights as of now.

who would you like to see to fight at strawweight to declare a new naysayer world champion?

do you accept hopkins as the champion at light heavy?

what about marquez at lightweight, were castillo and lazcano the top two ranked lightweights by naysayer when they squared off?

what about ROBINSON VS BELL?

as usual you'll cut out these questions because the truth is you know your argument doesn't stand up. you can not offer a better alternate to the ring but more improtantly to todays media. Wlad is recognised as the world champion. haye accepts he's ranked behind him, vitali refuses to challenge him. Being recognised as the champion is the definition of being "the man" not you clouded viewpoint that would prevent the greatest welterweight in history from being a significant champion at 147, unless of course you can give justification to Bell being ranked number 2?

which is another question you will duck.

you are a strange person with a stranger agenda that does not conform with boxing history.

 

-Record doesn't equate to being an all time great automaticly
-yeah its great that he bounced back but it doesn't contribute to his all time great status
-yeah he deserves credit for being so dominant
-winning by stoppage doesn't matter for an all time great status as much as you say