Is Wlad the most underrated ATG

hes a top 20 probably even a top 15 atg heavyweight.

 

Bull****. Wlad's a Top 10 ATG Heavy already. He can still move up a couple more notches if he adds the WBC belt to his collection.

 

I can easily provide a list of ATGs above Wlad, because it consists of one name. That's right, one - Lennox Lewis.

Therefore Wlad is an ATG HW #2.

Case closed.

 

It's some elaborate hatred up thereatsch

 

I don't know how he is actually rated, as I don't see a general consensus. But there is a point of critique which we often hear: In his years as a champion, Klitschko has failed to face an opponent who really challenges him. Supposed to mean, someone who forces Klitschko to fight another fight than he planned to, someone who hurts him in the fight, someone who catches him kind of unprepared.
In my view, a champion has to pass such a test to smooth out the last doubts about him. Klitschko has not. ATG is a subjective thing, and being that, I don't rate Wladimir Klitschko as an ATG. Because I don't see the heart in him that one has to possess to be that. But trying to be objective, my evaluation is different. Comparing him to other champions in terms of record, overall ability and efficiency, I rate him on the very top. Taking these criteria, he is a great one in boxing history.

 

i dont think either of the klitschkos are atg's but that is just my opinion. they fight like uncoordinated goofs, wlad got manhandled by corey sanders for petes sake! the heavyweight division is filled w fat bums a la chris areola. i couldnt make a roy jones jr comparison (fought in a time when the competition wasnt great) because roy actually looked dynamic and his wins were convincing and against fighters that were actually in shape, same w tyson, the klitschkos on the other hand :nono

 

Manuel Charr is a pretty poor choice of an opponent but during most eras their was only one champion. When you have 2 heavyweights defending titles and sometimes 3-4 then you're going to get some pretty weak challengers. Joe Louis fought some poor fighters while champ, just imagine if their was a second or third guy out there defending a title at the same time. The level of opponents getting title shots would have been comical.

Tony Thompson getting a second shot was a complete waste of time and I never liked that fight, the first go round Thompson was a solid challenger though. I don't know if it was any worse than Buddy Baer who was big and crude but lucky enough to have Max as a brother. Conn, a great fighter but at middle and light heavy. Could you imagine the outrage of Wlad facing the Ward-Dawson winner....twice. Tony Thompson shouldn't have gotten a second shot but you have to hold that same standard to others who have done so.

I would totally disagree about guys like Adamek and Valuev being unranked in other eras, Dimitrenko wasn't as good as those two but even he would have been ranked in some eras. Outside of the 70s and 90s there haven't been many periods where the heavyweight division has been loaded with talent. But you'd have to be joking to say Adamek and Valuev weren't as good, if not better than, guys like Lee Savold, Cockell, Galento, Frank Moran, Carpentier, Richard Dunn, Zanon,etc. You could list a ton of fighters like this who made the top 10 and/or recieved title shots.

Wlad isn't fighting in a great heavyweight era but most of the past heavyweight greats haven't either. Its just usually a thin division. This current period of heavyweights is below some but on par with other eras, people always complain about their current heavyweights and say past ones were better. Dempsey heard it, Louis heard it, Ali heard it, Lewis heard it, etc.

 

This thread here tells more about ESB than Wlad. ESB posters couldn't see talent if it punched them in the face. Not in top 20? That is clown talk.

 

he is maybee top 90 all time HW but not better,****inG overrated

 

I'm sure 99.9% of ESB would prefer you to take the Tyson right hand 10 times out of ten too.:yep

 

Top 10-20 is fair. An argument can be made for top 10, top 5 is too much.
While his opposition hasn't been the best it's the manner of how he disposes of his opponents that leaves a bad taste.

 

Rahman in his prime was a pretty good fighter. He was much better than Thompson.

 

No. He was a one-hit wonder who knocked out a china-chinned Canadian cold.

 

In Louis' era, the following were better than those I mentioned:

Joe Louis
Max Baer
Buddy Baer
Primo Carnera
Jack Sharkey
Ernie Schaaf
Jim Braddock
Tommy Loughran
Tiger Jack Fox
Max Schmeling

In Holmes' era, the following were better:

Larry Holmes
Tim Witherspoon
Greg Page
Pinklon Thomas
Mike Weaver
Gerry Cooney
Michael Dokes
Michael Spinks
Tony Tubbs
Gerrie Coetzee

In Dempsey's era, the following were better:

Jack Dempsey
Gene Tunney
Harry Wills
Jack Sharkey
Sam Langford
Joe Jeanette
Sam McVey
Tommy Gibbons
Jess Willard
Bill Tate

In Patterson's "era", the following were better:

Muhammad Ali
Sonny Liston
Floyd Patterson
Ingemar Johannsen
Cleveland Williams
Jimmy Ellis
Jerry Quarry
Ernie Terrell
Eddie Machen
Oscar Bonavena




Those eras you mentioned were not strong, I concede that. They were, however, better than today. Far better.