Is Wladimir Klitschko a top 10 HW of all time? - Please remember to vote

Based on your own opinion. Both terms are highly subjective so why exactly are you trying to stuff your opinion down my throat? Where does it say that ATGs are above A-level? Pretty sure nowhere and frankly, that's not the point. Second tier heavyweights (is that politically correct enough for you?) nowadays are accused of being less talented than the second tier in the 90s or 70s or almost any other decade. Do you disagree?

 

So an average fighter wouldn't dominate a division of terrible fighters?

Of course he would.

You seem to be basing a lot of your argument off the assumption that dominance must equal greatness. I think that is way, way off point. There is no basis for such an assumption. Dominance means that one fighter is better than all the others, that's all. It doesn't mean that the dominant fighter is anything special.

Like I said, if Antonio DeMarco dominated the lightweight division from now until 2022, that wouldn't make him a great fighter. It'd make him a dominant one but he'd fit the criteria of an average fighter who dominated a poor division, and an average fighter can never be ranked highly.

 

I actually disagree with pretty much everything here.

 

Wlad's more dominant and has the better title reign.

And don't try to sell me that Larry's era was better :rofl. At best, it's a wash.

 

Then I'll presume you rank fighters like Sven Ottke, Zsolt Erdei, Chris John, Gianfranco Rosi and Artur Grigorian very highly in their divisions. I'm sure you also rank Calzaghe amongst the best of all-time.

Dominance is not the criteria for greatness. It only proves that one fighter is better than everyone else but it doesn't necessarily mean that the one dominant fighter is anything special.

 

This content is protected

.:smoke


Foreman Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:rasta

 

Wait, so he is dominant after all? Because I remember that you clearly said that Wlad is not dominant enough. Check your history and then respond.

 

He is dominant but not in the sense that Louis or Holmes were. If he had dominated this era without any losses, he'd be a top 15 fighter. He hasn't done that due to the blemishes against Sander and Brewster which can't be overlooked. He's become absolutely dominant in recent years but his prime has not been flawless.

 

I normally ignore you... but I want to clarify... does beating an over the hill or past prime great fighter count as a great win against a great fighter? In my book... it shouldn't count more than beating a top challenger in his prime.

Lennox Lewis' only wins against "great fighters" came against an over the hill Holyfield (who went on to be 2-4-1 in his next 7 fights while being beat by John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, James Toney, and Larry Donald)...... and an extremely washed up shell of Mike Tyson. Do those count as great wins against great fighters in your book? They don't in mine. Lewis also lost to lesser competition in his prime.

Larry Holmes win against a "great fighter" came against a shell of a formerly great Ali. That also counts as a great win against a great fighter? If so... I guess that Wlad should go ahead and schedule a fight against Holyfield next. That way, he can have a "great name" on his resume.

"Great names" in the Heavyweight division were all superstars based on the big American Media hype machine that used to push top American Heavyweights. The same machine that had people thinking Michael Grant was a world beater. They were considered great because that is what everyone was told... and most fans tend to buy into what they are told, hook line and sinker. Ali was said great... so Frazier must be great, he beat Ali... Foreman must be great, he beat Frazier, who beat Ali... ect.... That's the way that it worked. Hell, I'm American and I can see this, I don't see why this is hard for someone from another country to see. Have you looked at a list of the ATG Heavyweights? Notice a common theme among them? They might be from the same country? All from a time when either Network TV (CBS, ABC, NBC, ect...) or powerhouse HBO was making a heavy push for the American heavyweights and putting their name into every household... Lennox Lewis now gets put into SOME people's top ten ATG lists. Why? Because he fought in a time when heavyweight boxing was still being pushed in America, and he beat Holyfield and Tyson... (considered greats)... even though they weren't as good as many of the regular challengers at the time that he beat them. As Holyfield proved as he went on and lost easily to many opponents and Tyson proved as he went on to be embarrassed against the likes of Williams and McBride.

You need to understand the difference between star power and talent. Just because a boxer isn't a household name, doesn't have huge media backing, ect... doesn't mean that he is less talented. The Heavyweight division gets no play anymore in the United States because the Champions are not from the United States and we in the US don't have any challengers that we are extremely excited about. The Champion is from another country and so are his best challengers. That's just the way it is right now.

The real question is... what fighters would be considered Great in the heavyweight division if the Klitschko's weren't around? People would be looking at David Haye as if he was damn near unbeatable. That's just the truth.... especially if he was from the US. If Wladimir Klitschko was born and raised in New York.... he would be considered possibly the greatest heavyweight that ever lived. He would be a household name and HBO wouldn't have a broadcast without mentioning him... let alone fail to air his fights. If David Haye and Povetkin were also from the US.... they would be hyped as the greatest challengers to come along in a LONG time and would also have huge names around the world and be pushed on HBO like crazy.

 

Then you'll presume wrong.

Erdei was never number 1. Ottke maybe spent a short while as number 1 as did john but none of them consistently dominated a division.

I rank calzaghe as one of the best smw's of all time, absolutely.

Dominance might not be your criteria for your greatness but it is one of mine. It's why I class larry as a great heavyweight.

John l sullivan ruled over perhaps the weakest hw division in history and he avoided his top contender to boot. But i'd call him a great hw. Same thing applies for wlad. I obviously rate dominance higher than you do :good

 

I think that you can find my answer in the my last posted response to "Jack".

 

Jack, one area where I completely disagree with you is this absolute truth that you believe where X being better than Y means X defeats Y 100% of the time. How many times throughout history has the better fighter lost to a lesser fighter? Ali lost to Frazier, Holmes lost to Spinks, Tyson lost to Douglas, Lewis lost to Rahman, Klitschko lost to Sanders, etc. Sometimes, its just not your night. Therefore, an average boxer is extremely unlikely to dominate a terrible division, because statistically he is going to lose eventually. A "great" fighter on the other hand, can beat the odds enough to truly dominate a terrible division.

 

Mike Tyson
Jack Dempsey
Jack Johnson

 

To be honest i'm not overly bothered where people rank any boxer because i'm my own authority... I just like to debate the differences in criteria.

Too often on this site it ends devolving into some sort of fanboy contest "you ride his dick" "you don't like him" it's pathetic.

My main criteria for ranking any fighter is thus: wins over hof, wins over ppf number 1's, wins over ranked opponents, avenged defeats and prime losses. As well as considering the above in terms of an era's context. That's what I look at in a resume.

Regarding achievement I look at how long they were number 1, how many times, who they fought whilst there and any intangibles (i.e. foreman winning titles back 20 years later, roy jones being unbeatable etc).

I then put the fighter's in tier's or groups based on a mix of resume and achievement and I order within each tier based on how I perceive they're h2h skills.

Based on that criteria wlad sits just inside my top ten.

 

This is a very good point, Sir.