Is Wlad even top 20?

ahhh, that does change things. still the list has some holes

 

My gut reaction to the question was "no way," but once I actually go back and look at the list of past heavyweights, I think Wladimir has a case around the 18-20 range.

 

:good

 

Any one who dosen't put wlad in there top 20 is either dumb or full of hate, yes at times wlad gets over rated and yes the quality of his resume isn't the best but..........

Name 20 better hevyweights :huh You got to look at longevity and wlad has been on top or around the top for a long time now.

Im not sure if he can make the top ten due to quality of opposition and the quality of future opponents as the hw division is weak regardless to what any one may say.

Wlad certinaly needs to unify the division, there in lies the problem as until his brother either retires or gets beat it's just not going to happen is it:think

Any atg list is subjective anyway, but seriously there have only been two great era in the division the 70's and the 90's and the 60's running a close 3rd. The 80's was a decade of wasted talent with the likes of smith, tucker, thomas, witherspoon, biggs etc.... good fighters but were 100% comitted

Other fighters get given recognition for ruling in weak era's and yet sometimes wlad gets a raw deal, and most people on here know im not a wlad appologist.


But to say he isn't a top 20 hw is a disgrace :deal

 

A prime Wlad beats any HW of any era.

 

Ah ****. Why does this always happen? Let the battle begin...

 

Not in top 20 not even in top 50 over rated in poor era

 

My opinion hes top ten, just going on which previous champions I think he would beat, although that said my knowledge of pre-1940's boxing is slim. Maybe even top 5 since 1940, Wlad has speed power and size, the further back you go the lighter on average the heavyweights were, and saying a good big man beats a good little man I still believe holds true, and a lot of the early heavyweights were under 200 lb.

 

i know! we just seemed to get settled on an objective majority. now this guy comes in and stirs **** up with a ridiculous statement

 

and now this! seriously guys, there is something in the middle...

he's neither the greatest, nor the worst

 

H2H maybe but my understanding this was an all time ranking. in all time ranking people that he may beat H2H edge him out

 

Yes, but the bigger question is who do you define a fighters ranking? Is it based on H2H against other fighters, which is mythical, since it's pure speculation, or do you focus on the tangibles, such as competition, longivity at the top, win-loss record, and things of that nature. Often you get different results, with probably Tyson being the most obvious. H2H he would likely be a top 5 fighter, but what he accomplished in his career, he'd be in the later part of the top 10 and maybe just outside it.

 

great post and great example with tyson:good

 

Am not sayn hes **** am just sayin hes not in the top 50 ATG

 

but do you mean top 50 atg heavyweights? or top 50 of all fighters?