If Wlad's career ended today...

I can't see Wlad breaking a top 20. He's too untested and the way to beat him is all too obvious.

He's a good fighter who gets underrated in many respects but cracking the top 20 I just don't see it.

 

Top 40-45 for me, no better.

What hurts his legacy is this:

*3 losses against decent but not fantastic opposition (all inside the distance)
and I don't want to hear excuses - they happened.
*Beat Chris Byrd (someone I don't rate) for the title.
* Champion in a weak era.
* Title defences were not demanding. Last one stunk out the joint.
*Not the undisputed champ.

That's not to say I don't like him as a fighter, but his legacy isn't very impressive thus far.

 

A fair post, but a tad harsh. I won't try and dispute any of your points, as I feel they are all valid, but I'm wondering who are the 40-45 fighters that you rate above him and why?

 

I will be honest and say I'm notoriously harsh on contemporary fighters. It's just the way I am guys. Once they retire I often have a different perspective after a few years.

On stats alone he is impressive, I can't deny it. But for me someone like Norton who statistically is inferior (and probably head to head too) impresses me more with his showings against Ali and Holmes.

 

Fair enough, but just looking at your listed criteria and taking it in comparison to Ken Norton, some things aren't adding up here. You did mention that Wlad hasn't unified, looked umimpressive in some of his showings and lost to some second rate fighters. While I agree with all of these observations, couldn't the same be said for Ken Norton? Sure, he defeated Ali, which is arguably better than any win Klit ever had, but how much of a claim to being a true world champion can we really give Norton? He was awarded a fragment of the crown, which he lost in his first defense. He lost by KO early in his career to Luis Garcia, in similar fashion to Wlad losing early in his career to purity. He won some very close decisions, that some felt could have gone the other way, such as the Jimmy Young fight.

Is Norton really a fighter that you'd rate above Wladimir Klitschko Fury?

 

All this talk about Vlad's all-time status being impacted by whether he succeeds in unifying the titles is baloney. The real issue -- in determining all-time status -- is the quality of fighters a guy has fought and defeated. Thus, Vlad's unifying the title during an era of mediocrities is meaningless if it doesn't include victories over other truly outstanding, if not great, opponents.

The guy who pointed out that Norton's victory (and two controversial losses) to Muhammad Ali merit him a higher all-time ranking than someone who hasn't beaten an Ali-calibre fighter knows what he is talking about. Norton didn't unify any titles, but he beat an all-time great. Unless Vlad does the same, he won't merit truly high all-time great status.

Again, nothing against Vlad...it's not his fault that no great or truly outstanding opponents are available to him these days.

 

Again, it's not whether a guy's claim to a world title is legitimate or not that determines his ability and greatness: it's the quality of his ring performances.

Look at it this way: Norton wasn't a legitimate champion, but Jack Sharkey and James Braddock were. But would any rational fan rate Sharkey and Braddock over Norton for this reason? Of course not.

The question is who a guy beats...how good were the calibre of a guy's career victories.

Greatness is proven in the ring, and not by holding belts.

 

I totally agree with your reasoning.

 

All we can ask of any fighter is that he beat or at least face the best fighters of his era. To ask anymore than that, would be to ask the impossible. Wlad of course, has not yet done this, but IF he manages to beat men like Chagaev, Povetkin, and Peter ( again ), then I really don't see why he couldn't be granted all time great status. Men like Holmes, Tyson, Dempsey, Jeffries and Johnson didn't exactly beat any PRIME greats either. Sure, they had some big names on their records, but they were typically past it. Yet, this does not stop us from rating them highly, and rightfully so........Because they beat the best men available...

 

One thing about Wlad, though. You know more about this era than I do, so would you list the top ten heavyweights of the last 10 years. How many did Wlad fight? How many did he defeat? I think such a list could include Lewis, Vitali, Ibeabuchi, Maskaev, Rahman, Chagaev, Valuev, and Ruiz, plus possibly Holyfield and Tua. The only top ten men of his era that Wlad has defeated are Byrd and possibly Peter, but it might be too early to rate Peter that high. And neither Byrd nor Peter, at this point, would rate close to the top of such a list.

 

I agree with you completely in that Vlad has faced the best available names of his generation, and he has beaten most of them. He is the dominant heavyweight of his era. For this reason, He deserves to be rated as a near-great. No doubt about it.

As a matter of fact, I think Vlad was probably superior to Jeffries. He may even be better than Dempsey and Johnson, both of whom, in my opinion, are probably vastly overrated.

And you do indeed make an interesting point in that Tyson, in his prime, didn't really beat any all-time greats himself.

Still, in order to catapult Vlad into the ranks of Louis, Ali, Holmes, Tyson or Lewis, I would need to see him win a "Thrilla in Manila" type of contest. A big fight against a big name that proves his greatness inside the ring.

 

Well, as per my above post, has Wlad fought the best available fighters of his generation? Johnson and Jeffries did. I don't know about head to head, but those old champions had more impressive resumes in their time and place.